International arbitration is among the most common methods used in resolving disputes arising from international commercial agreements and other international contract Typically the parties have agreed to submit disputes to binding resolution by one or more arbitrators selected by or on behalf of the parties. This saves time and legal fees for all parties involved.
Overall I do not find arbitration to be a useful tool, but I suppose international arbitration can be quite different. This allows a more open way of communicating between both parties and it often leads to a quicker resolution without getting international courts involved. Following this process usually leads to less cost as well, so I suppose it is useful.
People are far too quick to suggest military intervention and military strikes. The military costs a massive amount of money, even in 'quick' or 'surgical strike' situations, but international arbitration is often far quicker and cheaper - that's not even to speak of the massive reward of no lives lost.
Countries are only going to do what they want to do. International arbitration is a waste of time. The only way it can work is if two countries disagree on something and neither want to be seen as conceding. A resolution can be made and they can both blame the arbitrator on the outcome.
No, I do not think that this policy is all that useful at all. I think that a new system needs to be put in place, that will be a lot more effective and help the countries out more. This system has a lot of problems that need to be addressed before it becomes a good system.