Excerpts from Mr. Hoffmann's Conclusions:
The UN must evolve to a greater willingness and ability to initiate mediation and fact-finding on its own and to involve itself in conflict situations at the earliest possible stage. Lower level mediators with the backing of the Secretary General will usually have a better chance of successfully resolving disputes than the Secretary General himself, or renowned political leaders, because no oneâ??s prestige will be on the line, and there will be no suspicion that the self-interest of a third country is being served. The UN must have a permanent staff of capable mediators highly trained in conflict resolution. The mediation staff should offer its services at the first signs of a dispute. It might be preferable in some instances to mediate through regional offices or through regional organizations.

Arbitration can produce binding, impartial, and just decisions, but it is important to remember that its basis is mutual consent. Arbitration is "compulsory" or binding only in the sense that states agree beforehand to accept third-party settlement, in the expectation that the award will be fair and impartial.

Excerpts from Conclusions of Dr. Baratta:

Peacekeepers, we think, should come to look more like marshals and less like soldiers. Peacekeeping must evolve in the direction of a true international police force for the enforcement of international law on individuals, rather than in the direction of world armed forces with the power to make war on states. The success of peacekeeping depends on political symbolism rather than military prowess. Peacekeeping is rooted in larger processes of peacemaking, in which all the worldâ??s peoples and their governments effectively participate.



To improve the negotiation of permanent settlements in the time gained by peacekeeping, the mandates of future operations should call on the Secretary General to sponsor talks and require the parties to undertake negotiations within a specified time period. Parties that accept peacekeeping should also be required to pay a share of its expenses. Observer missions, authorized by the Security Council or Secretary General, should not be subject to the refusal of accused aggressor states to accept them, nor should observer mission reports be subject to great power veto in the Security Council. UN conciliation services also could be improved.

Excerpts from Mr. MacPherson's Conclusions:
An international criminal court would be a valuable adjunct in the fight against international crime. By providing an unbiased alternative to domestic courts, the reluctance of states to extradite their own nationals or persons accused of political crimes should be lessened. The court should, therefore, ensure that a greater number of international criminals are held accountable, and would reduce the international friction that is frequently caused by extradition requests. An international criminal court would represent a powerful symbol of the community of nations' commitment to a world order that is based upon the rule of law and of the determination by that community that international crimes not go unpunished.

Excerpts from the Dr . Schoenberg's Conclusions:
In this author's opinion, a group seeking self-determination that has been the victim of genocide and requires its own land just to survive merits the sympathy and support of the international community, while a group that would turn its desired homeland into a base for aggression, subversion, or international terrorism is not worthy of international support.