When Words Do the Work of Weapons: Reassessing the Practical Limits of Diplomatic Dispute Resolution in International Boundary Conflicts

Diplomatic resolution mechanisms: negotiation, mediation, inquiry, conciliation, arbitration, and litigation before the International Court of Justice are widely regarded as the preferred substitutes for armed conflict in settling international boundary disputes. Yet there remains a persistent gap in the literature: while scholars have catalogued these tools extensively, comparatively little attention has been paid to the conditions under which they succeed or fail in practice, particularly in postcolonial African contexts. Drawing primarily on the author's original undergraduate research and on well-documented case studies including the Alaska Boundary Dispute (1903), the San Juan Boundary Dispute (1872), and the Nigeria–Cameroon boundary case, this article interrogates each diplomatic mechanism on its own terms. It argues that no single tool is universally sufficient and that the effectiveness of diplomatic resolution is less a function of legal procedure than of political will, historical memory, and the degree to which colonial-era treaties continue to distort the boundaries in dispute. Keywords: boundary disputes, diplomatic resolution, mediation, arbitration, ICJ, postcolonial Africa, Nigeria–Cameroon