## 1 Introduction  
Decision-making becomes increasingly challenging because there is not enough numerical data, or any at all, which is common in complicated, subjective fields like international law. Without quantitative inputs, assessing and comparing various options requires a comprehensive approach, particularly in areas where evaluations are based on qualitative factors such as diplomatic relations, historical context, and legal principles. This complexity underlines the need for tools capable of handling such qualitative data and providing structured insights for reliable decision-making. In this context, fuzzy logic has the ability to manage uncertainty by transforming qualitative judgments into quantitative decisions. The ability of fuzzy logic can be applied to combine numerical certainty with the subjective and ambiguous character of legal decisions. Thus, this ability makes fuzzy logic an effective tool in international dispute resolution. By applying fuzzy logic, decision-makers who are working with qualitative data, such as legal practitioners, diplomats, or political scientists, can quantify subjective criteria by transforming complex, qualitative judgments into a structured framework to analyze international dispute resolution. Therefore, fuzzy logic becomes a decision-making tool for high-stakes international disputes. The effectiveness of fuzzy logic in decision-making problems is shown in various disciplines. In real life, conditions are commonly uncertain. At this point, fuzzy logic helps refine evaluations by adjusting various degrees of truth rather than binary values. This adaptability improves the quality of decisions and provides a comprehensive approach. Therefore, fuzzy logic could be applied to evaluate the complex reality of international disputes in which various perspectives and opinions appear. These multiple perspectives require a comprehensive multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) method that can evaluate multiple criteria and alternatives within a single framework. MCDM methods are commonly preferred in various fields such as engineering, management, and policy analysis. The first reason why MCDM methods are valuable is that they allow the simultaneous evaluation of alternatives based on multiple criteria. The second is that MCDM's structured approach helps decision-makers identify the most appropriate alternatives by systematically analyzing each criterion's influence. Therefore, MCDM methods facilitate a more comprehensive and balanced evaluation process, especially in environments requiring the prioritization of diverse and often conflicting criteria. Even though these methods have benefits, MCDM methods have not yet been fully integrated into the field of international law, in which qualitative data are commonly used. This situation leaves a gap that makes decisions less consistent and objective. Therefore, this research aims to provide a framework to evaluate international dispute resolution alternatives under different evaluation criteria in the fuzzy environment. The application of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making techniques in the field of law is a pioneering innovation that this study contributes to the literature. Traditional quantitative assessment methods are not appropriate for evaluating international dispute resolution alternatives; however, there is a clear need for a structured decision-making process on this topic. In addition, traditional methods frequently depend on subjective evaluations and case-by-case analyses; therefore, this situation causes differences among decision-makers. The lack of quantitative methods causes inconsistency and inefficiency in assessing various dispute resolution alternatives based on objective criteria. This research seeks to fill this gap by introducing quantitative methods to support more transparent, comparable, and comprehensive assessments.