On complex international issues such as territorial disputes, the use of force to resolve them is not an option in line with modern international law and the common interests of mankind. The following is a more comprehensive analysis framework： ###1. International Law and International Consensus 1. **Principles of the Charter of the United Nations**: Article 2, paragraph 4, clearly stipulates that the use of force against the territorial integrity of another country is prohibited, except in self-defense or under the authorization of the Security Council. 2. **The role of the International Court of Justice**: Since 1945, the International Court of Justice has ruled on dozens of territorial and maritime disputes (such as the case of Nicaragua v. Colombia), proving the effectiveness of legal means. 3. **Global governance trends**: In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in favor of 143 countries condemning the use of force to change the status quo of the territory, reflecting the consensus of the international community. ###2. The costs and risks of military intervention 1. **Humanitarian cost**: The Syrian war has caused the death of more than 300,000 civilians and the displacement of 13 million people (United Nations data), showing the devastating impact of the military conflict on ordinary people. 2. **Economic cost**: The conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 2022 will cause global energy prices to rise by 40%, and the food crisis in developing countries will intensify, showing the spillover effect of modern warfare on the global economy. 3. **Strategic counterattack risk**: The 20-year U.S. war in Afghanistan cost 2.3 trillion U.S. dollars but failed to establish a stable regime, proving that it is difficult to achieve lasting political goals by force. ###3. Practical cases of alternative solutions 1. **Model of peace negotiations**： -1997 China-Kazakhstan Border Agreement: The 1700-kilometer border dispute was resolved through 17 rounds of negotiations. -Antarctic Treaty system: transform potentially disputed areas into scientific research protected areas through international cooperation. 2. **Legal arbitration mechanism**： -Follow-up to the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Case: Despite the dispute, the China-ASEAN "South China Sea Code of Conduct" negotiations have continued to advance, proving the value of the dialogue mechanism. -The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea accepts 5-8 cases per year, and judicial settlement has gradually become the norm. 3. **Innovative cooperation model**： -Joint development of the Mekong River basin: The six countries of China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam have reduced territorial disputes through resource sharing. -Arctic Council: The eight Arctic-rimmed countries have reduced the intensity of geographic competition through scientific cooperation. ###4. A new dimension of conflict in the 21st century 1. **Governance in the digital age**: Satellite surveying and mapping, blockchain and other technologies make it possible to manage boundaries transparently and reduce the risk of misjudgment. 2. **Non-traditional security threats**: Climate change has led to disputes over Arctic waterways and island sovereignty issues caused by sea level rise, which require transnational cooperation rather than confrontation. 3. **Economic interdependence**: The trade volume between China and ASEAN will reach RMB6.52 trillion in 2022, and the common interests will objectively suppress the urge to conflict. ### Conclusion: Construct a new type of dispute settlement paradigm The contemporary international community is forming a three-dimensional governance model of "preventive diplomacy + legal framework + economic cooperation". Settlement by force not only violates international norms, but also runs counter to the concept of a community of human destiny. By strengthening the construction of international judicial mechanisms (such as promoting more countries to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice), improving crisis early warning systems (such as the establishment of a big data monitoring platform for territorial disputes), and deepening regional economic integration, a true balance between sovereignty and peace can be achieved. History has proved that any territory forcibly acquired by force will eventually pay a price far in excess of what is gained.