Distinction between Good Offices and Mediation | International Law

No	Good Offices	Mediation
1	The term "Good Offices" connotes the bringing about the conflicting parties together and the counseling of advice or the suggesting of a settlement without participating in the negotiation. Such suggestions or advice may be disregarded by a party to a dispute without any compunction or breach of the law.	Mediation is the conducting of negotiation between the disputing States through the agency of the third party. In simple words, when the third party participates in the discussion along with the disputant States and also gives its own proposals or suggestions in resolving the dispute, it is called as Mediation.
2	In this case, the third state may make an inquiry into the dispute or offer suggestions, but it does not participate in Negotiation.	In this case, the State mediating takes an active part in the deliberations conducted for peaceful settlement of the dispute.
3	The third state only brings the conflicting parties together in negotiation.	The third State conducts the negotiations between the parties.
4	Strictly a State is said to offer ‘good offices’ when it tries to induce the parties to negotiate among themselves.	Mediation is a consequence of the tender of good offices.
5	Example :         The Prime Minister of United Kingdom, Mr. Wilson provided his good offices to India and Pakistan which resulted the parties to reach an agreement to refer Kutch issue to an Arbitral Tribunal.        In the year 1949, the Security Council rendered good offices in the dispute between the Netherland Government and Republic Indonesia.	Examples Soviet Union President Kosygin mediated in the Dispute between India and Pakistan which resulted in the conclusion of Tashkant agreement in 1966.