Establishing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for implementation disagreements could prevent conflicts from escalating into full breakdown. Mediation, arbitration, or adjudication processes provide structured channels for resolving disputes about interpretation, compliance, and next steps without returning to violence.
Currently, implementation disputes lack authoritative resolution mechanisms, forcing parties to either reach bilateral agreement or allow disagreements to fester. This gap means relatively minor disputes can escalate into major crises threatening the entire framework. Structured dispute resolution could contain conflicts while protecting overall implementation.
Potential mechanisms include joint implementation committees with neutral chairs, binding arbitration by mutually agreed arbitrators, or International Court of Justice advisory opinions on legal questions. Each approach offers advantages and disadvantages regarding speed, authority, and political acceptability. Mediators should work with parties to establish preferred mechanisms before disputes arise.
However, parties often resist committing to binding dispute resolution that could produce unfavorable outcomes. Each side prefers maintaining flexibility to reject determinations contrary to its interests. Overcoming this resistance requires convincing parties that dispute resolution mechanisms serve their interests by preventing implementation breakdown that serves no one.
The Oslo Accords’ implementation suffered partly from inadequate dispute resolution mechanisms that allowed disagreements to paralyze progress. Learning from this experience, Gaza implementation should prioritize establishing effective dispute resolution early rather than waiting for crisis. While imperfect, even flawed dispute resolution mechanisms often outperform alternatives where disagreements produce implementation paralysis or renewed conflict.