## 2 Literature Review  
### International Dispute Resolution Methodologies  
International dispute resolution methodologies are divided into major types, particularly through diplomatic and judicial approaches. However, the selection of the most appropriate methodology is a critical area of study within international law. In this context, various studies aim to explain the mechanisms, advantages, and challenges associated with these approaches. [PERSON] (2017) expresses that diplomatic methods include negotiation, mediation, and conciliation, while judicial methods encompass jurisdiction and arbitration [1]. Each method has distinct practices and features that can significantly influence the outcomes of international disputes. For instance, diplomatic methods are often preferred in contexts involving foreign direct investment disputes because they allow for more flexible and less adversarial interactions between states [2]. This flexibility can be particularly advantageous in maintaining diplomatic relations, as the ultimate goal of diplomacy is often to find mutually acceptable solutions rather than assign blame [3]. Judicial approaches are generally managed by international courts and arbitration. Therefore, judicial approaches require a more formalized framework for dispute resolution. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is accepted as a primary judicial approach to addressing international disputes between states. ICJ decisions are binding; therefore, decisions of the ICJ promote compliance with international law. However, the effectiveness of judicial methods may depend on the willingness of states to comply with judgments [4]. If states are reluctant to accept judicial outcomes, diplomatic methods may serve as a more appropriate alternative, allowing for negotiation and compromise. For example, maritime boundary disputes are the interaction between diplomatic and judicial approaches. [PERSON] (2023) discusses how maritime boundary disputes often arise from conflicting interpretations of international law and negotiation, arbitration or mediation should be preferred to resolve these international disputes [5]. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) also provides a legal framework to resolve disputes; however, the application of these legal methods can be complicated by geopolitical tensions [6]. In the literature, it is stated that international courts and conventions play a crucial role in facilitating peaceful settlements as legal instruments to resolve maritime disputes [7]. On the other hand, the role of diplomacy in international dispute resolution is stated to significantly impact the probability of successful dispute resolution among states with moderate levels of affinity [8]. The differences between diplomatic dispute resolution methods and judicial methods can be defined as follows: While judicial methods provide a necessary legal framework, diplomatic methods often necessitate a diplomatic approach to achieve lasting solutions. The increasing complexity of international disputes requires hybrid approaches such as a combination of both diplomacy and judicial methods. For example, international arbitration is a binding resolution while still incorporating elements of negotiation and compromise [9]. The advantage of this hybridization is that there is a growing recognition of the need for adaptive dispute-resolution mechanisms that can respond to the unique circumstances of each case. Therefore, the evaluation of international dispute resolution alternatives exposes multicriteria decisions under the fuzzy environment. Judicial methods provide a formalized framework for resolving disputes. On the other hand, diplomatic methods offer flexibility and the potential for maintaining positive international relations. The choice of approach often depends on the specific criteria of the dispute. These criteria depend on the importance of both the legal and diplomatic dimensions of international dispute resolution.