Revisiting the Role of International Law in Conflict Resolution: Cyprus Vis‐à‐Vis the Korean Peninsula

ABSTRACT This article evaluates the effectiveness of international law in resolving political conflicts by comparing Cyprus (1974–2004) and the Korean Peninsula (1993–2017). Employing a dual framework of liberal institutionalism and realism, it measures outcomes based on two criteria—resolution of core issues and alleviation of security threats—through analysis of UN Security Council resolutions and its interactions with relevant stakeholders. In Cyprus, proactive UN engagement and the establishment of the UNFICYP buffer zone facilitated ethnic reconciliation and long‐term stability. In contrast, on the Korean Peninsula, a sanction‐driven approach alongside great power rivalries undermined legal mechanisms, allowing North Korea's nuclear programme to persist and intensify regional risks. These divergent outcomes demonstrate when and how international law can succeed or fail in resolving political conflicts. The study concludes by advocating adaptive, law‐based approaches that combine trust building, targeted remedies and multilateral cooperation to enhance legal effectiveness in future conflict resolution efforts.