Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author simply recites the traditional methods of dispute resolution (negotiation, mediation, arbitration, litigation) without truly adapting these to the online context.  There are no examples explored nor are policy issues about adaptation.  Most time is spent on the PCA, but even the idea of the PCA instituting a new separate branch to deal with online disputes is not raised.  There is little original contribution to the literature offered here.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Please kindly see the paper as revised and updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper’s aim as per the abstract is to consider peaceful settlement of interstate disputes and their application to online conflicts. Unfortunately, it's not clear either in the introduction  or the subsequent paragraphs what exactly these online conflicts are nor whether the author is intending to consider dispute processes between states online or whether he or she is intending to cover settlement of disputes between states resulting from cyber-attack or other external digital interferences etc.

The paper is good in terms of an analysis of the pertinent international law reguarding disputes between states as a matter of generality with some minor infelicities. It could be better if structured so that each of the dispute processes is geared towards the type of online disputes whatever they may be.

There are some minor inaccuracies. for example. the implementation of the Jay Treaty said to be resulting in the Alabama claims arbitration is not right. The Alabama claims were made under the Washington Treaty of 1871 quite separate and independent of the Jay Treaty. It did not concern a confederate warship, but several ships built in Britain for the Confederate Navy during the American Civil War. That is relatively minor point, however, but some other points are worth rechecking

 

General Concept Comments

The paper is generally very interesting from the point of view of international law and dispute resolution between states but its inherent flaw is the failure to define precisely what is meant by  online disputes in whatever context for that is the core of the paper.

The paper needs to apply the dispute processes descrihbed  to online disputes or cyber whatever is intended so that the readers can see the application of these processes to disputes on line/cyberspace etc. There are only two paragraphs devoted to settling inter state disputes in cyberspace on two out of the 10 pages.

On the other hand, the paper does identify a gap in the literature in respect of cyber or online disputes and it would be most welcome if the author could adopt a more scientific approach with technical detail applicable as to how such cases can be dealt with through the processes as stated.

There is reference on page 2 to cyber-attacks, but it is not clear from that whether the paper is to deal with cyber-attacks as a whole or whether some other form is intended. The other point I think that should be addressed is whether a cyber-attack which destroys infrastructure disrupts or causes damage on a widespread scale might be perceived as an act of war or threat to peace which would of course trigger the various provisions of the UN Declaration/ Charter and other conventions etc., that are referred to in the paper.

Overall the references were appropriate, but for the need to refer to papers or authorities on cyber-attack relevant to the procedures discussed in the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Please kindly see the paper as revised and updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf