## 4 Application of IVT2F-TOPSIS for International Disputes Resolution
\(DoC(x_{j})\) values are sorted in a descending manner to order the international dispute resolution alternatives, as shown in Table 10.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & \multicolumn{11}{c}{\(A_{6}\)} \\ \hline \(C_{1}\) & 0.101 & 0.274 & 0.274 & 0.528 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.178 & 0.274 & 0.274 & 0.391 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \(C_{2}\) & 0.246 & 0.486 & 0.486 & 0.778 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.356 & 0.486 & 0.486 & 0.623 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \(C_{3}\) & 0.397 & 0.690 & 0.690 & 0.933 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.533 & 0.690 & 0.690 & 0.808 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \(C_{4}\) & 0.486 & 0.778 & 0.778 & 0.967 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.623 & 0.778 & 0.778 & 0.870 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \(C_{5}\) & 0.063 & 0.230 & 0.230 & 0.417 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.140 & 0.230 & 0.230 & 0.320 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \(C_{6}\) & 0.233 & 0.450 & 0.450 & 0.667 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.333 & 0.450 & 0.450 & 0.554 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \hline
**Criteria** & \multicolumn{11}{c}{\(A_{7}\)} \\ \hline \(C_{1}\) & 0.163 & 0.390 & 0.390 & 0.633 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.267 & 0.390 & 0.390 & 0.507 & 0.810 & 0.810 \\ \(C_{2}\) & 0.188 & 0.401 & 0.401 & 0.694 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.284 & 0.401 & 0.401 &Therefore, the proposed IVT2F-TOPSIS method is completed with case study data, which were collected from three experts from different majors. Experts evaluated the criteria with relative importance based on the experts' experience. As a result, international dispute resolution alternatives are ranked by applying the IVT2F-TOPSIS method. The results are presented in the order as shown in Table 11. According to the results, jurisdiction (\(A_{8}\)) is determined as the most preferable alternative based on the expert evaluations. On the other hand, negotiations (\(A_{1}\)) are found as the least preferable among the international dispute resolution alternatives. These findings provide valuable insights for decision-makers in selecting the most suitable international dispute resolution method under the determined criteria. Further analysis of the results can offer a deeper understanding of the factors influencing the experts' preferences in this context. For these reasons, a sensitivity analysis is provided to show the capability of the proposed model under different preferences. These results provide an excellent opportunity for assessing international dispute resolution alternatives that require quantifiable evaluations. In addition, the proposed IVT2F-TOPSIS shows the differences among the alternatives. Thus, IVT2F-TOPSIS can help decision-makers make informed decisions on which dispute resolution alternative may be most effective for decision-makers' specific situations. Understanding the nuances between the options can lead to more successful outcomes in resolving international disputes. However, the results of MCDM methods show variability depending on the interpretations of the experts and the weights of the criteria. For this purpose, sensitivity analysis is necessary to understand the impact of the criteria weights of the proposed decision-making method, to provide transparency in the decision process, and to gain flexibility in implementation.