Consultation negotiation good offices means of resolution. Good offices and mediation

Negotiation- the most convenient, affordable, simple and common means of peaceful dispute resolution, which plays a significant role among other means of peaceful dispute resolution.

Negotiations are classified:

1. depending on the subject of the dispute on:

   a) peaceful;
   b) political;
   c) trading;

2. depending on the number of participants:

   a) bilateral;
   b) multilateral;

3. by the level of representation of the parties:

   a) interstate;
   b) intergovernmental;
   c) interdepartmental, etc.

Negotiations are held both orally and in writing.

Regardless of the subject of negotiations, they must begin and proceed without any preliminary ultimatum conditions, coercion, diktat and threats.

Consultations- one of the means of peaceful settlement of the dispute, which became widespread after the Second World War and enshrined in a large number of bilateral and multilateral agreements.

The consulting parties can pre-determine the frequency of meetings, create consultative commissions. The peculiarities of consultations contribute to the speedy search for compromise solutions, as well as the implementation of the agreements reached in order to prevent new disputes. Consultations, it can be considered, are one of the varieties of negotiations.

good offices- this is one of the ways to resolve a dispute, in which a party not participating in the dispute (the state, international organization, public or political figure), on his own initiative or at the request of the parties to the dispute, enters into the process as a mediator of the settlement. Good offices are aimed at establishing contacts between the parties. At the same time, the party providing good offices does not itself participate in the negotiations, since its task is to facilitate cooperation between the disputing parties. The offer of good offices should not be regarded as an unfriendly act towards the disputing parties. Good offices often develop into mediation.

Mediation by itself involves the involvement of a third party for the purpose of amicably resolving the dispute. During mediation, the disputing parties choose a third party (a state, a representative of an international organization), which enters into a dispute as an independent participant in the dispute. By participating in the negotiations of the disputing parties, the mediator is called upon to contribute to the development of a solution to the dispute acceptable to both parties. The mediator has the right to offer his own options for resolving the dispute, although the options of the mediator are not binding on the disputing parties. Mediation is very similar to good offices, although there are significant differences. First, mediation is resorted to with the consent of the disputing parties, and good offices can be used with the consent of one party. Secondly, mediation consists not only in facilitating contacts, but also in coordinating the positions of the disputing parties, that is, the mediator has

Both in the practice of international relations and in international legal literature, the term "good offices" is used in various meanings. Currently, the doctrine defines good offices as one of the diplomatic means for the peaceful resolution of international disputes in the form of "the activity of a third party to establish contact between the disputing parties" .

This remedy is resorted to in cases where the disputing states cannot come to a solution of the disagreement on their own and a third party offers its services in order to prevent further aggravation of the dispute and to promote efforts aimed at its peaceful settlement. Good offices are provided by a party not participating in the dispute (a state, an international organization, a well-known public or political figure) in the form of “establishing contacts between the disputing parties, both in response to the request of the latter and at the initiative of a third party” . Professor I.P. Blishchenko points out that: “The procedure for rendering good offices provides that the third state creates conditions for direct contacts of the disputants.” We find a more open formulation of good offices in M. V. Yanovsky. He writes: “Good offices are such actions on the part of third (states) powers that are aimed at encouraging the disputing parties to start or resume diplomatic negotiations among themselves with a view to settling the dispute.” In the definition of the procedure for the provision of good offices, the Bulgarian scientist M. Genovski does not indicate the possible form of manifestation of these actions. He notes: "Good offices consist of various actions that have the purpose of establishing direct negotiations between the disputing parties." An accurate and comprehensive definition of the concept of good offices is given by Professor E. A. Pushmin: “As an institution for a peaceful settlement, good offices represent a set of international legal norms governing the activities of third states or international organizations, carried out on their own initiative or at the request of states in conflict, aimed at establishing or resuming direct negotiations between the disputants in order to create favorable conditions for the peaceful resolution of the dispute.

An offer of good offices, whether initiated by a third party or made at the request of the parties to the dispute, must be accepted by all parties to the dispute. Moreover, the acceptability of the implementation of good offices must be ensured regardless of who they are offered: by a state, a group of states, an international organization or an individual. Often, the parties to the dispute provide the subject of international law exercising good offices with the opportunity to perform broader functions by putting forward proposals for the settlement of the dispute. In such situations, the actions of a third party are already considered as mediation. The main difference between these means of amicable settlement is the degree of involvement of the third party in the dispute settlement process.

The first attempt to separate good offices into a separate institution was made at the Paris Peace Congress in 1856, although at that time this institution was not included in the text of the Paris Treaty. The very first multilateral agreement that provided for the procedure of good offices was the Final Act of the Berlin Conference of 1885. Art. 11 of this treaty stated: “In the case when the Power, enjoying the right of supremacy or protectorate in the mentioned Art. 1 Lands subject to the principles of free trade, will be involved in the war, the High Parties who signed this Act, and those who subsequently accede to it, undertake to render their good offices to this Power.

Art. 33 of the UN Charter does not mention good offices. However, a number international documents, adopted under the auspices of the UN, indicate good offices as a means of peaceful settlement of disputes. For example, this procedure is provided for in paragraph 5 of the Manila Declaration, which states that “States shall strive, in good faith and cooperation, for the speedy and fair settlement of their international disputes by any of the following means: negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation , recourse to regional agreements or bodies, or other peaceful means of one's choice, including good offices." Resolution 43/51 General Assembly UN of December 5, 1988, in paragraph 12 of the 1988 Declaration on the Prevention and Elimination of Disputes and Situations that May Threaten international peace and security and the role of the United Nations in this area”, it was recommended that “the Security Council should consider sending early stage fact-finding missions or good offices missions, as a means of preventing a further aggravation of the dispute or situation in the relevant areas.” UN Secretary-General B. B. Ghali noted: “The Security Council and other United Nations bodies have entrusted the Secretary-General with various tasks that involve wide application good services. This is a very flexible term, as it can mean either a lot or very little. However, in a time when confrontation must be replaced by negotiation, I believe that the good offices of the Secretary-General can go a long way in encouraging Member States to resolve their disputes at the negotiating table. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, I am inspired by the positive response of States to the services I offer. If two parties cannot or do not want to sit down at the same table, then in this case, one cannot do without the help of some third party, such as the UN. But in such a situation, each side must feel that, in return for the good offices I offer, it will not be at a loss.”

The practice of applying good offices is very large. Before the creation of the UN, the most notable were, for example, the good offices offered by the President of the United States and prompting in 1905 Russia and Japan, then at war, to begin negotiations that led to the conclusion of the Peace of Portsmouth on September 5, 1905. An example of the collective application of good offices is the peaceful resolution of the border dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in 1937, who agreed to use the good offices of the governments of the United States, Costa Rica and Venezuela.

A number of examples of successful good offices provided in the post-war period can be cited. For example, the good offices rendered: by the United States in 1946 in connection with the territorial dispute between France and Thailand; Switzerland in connection with the Franco-Algerian conflict of 1960-1962; the USSR in connection with the Indo-Pakistani conflict, which successfully ended in 1966 with the signing of the Tashkent Declaration; France in connection with the Vietnamese conflict in the early 70s.

An important and fairly common method of settling or preventing disputes and situations is the use of good offices by the UN and other international organizations. Among the successful attempts to reconcile the parties is the Indonesian issue, in the investigation of which the Security Council decided "to render good offices to the parties in order to facilitate the peaceful resolution of their dispute, accompanied by hostilities between the armed forces of the Netherlands and Indonesia."

In 1956, UN good offices were exercised by the Secretary General on behalf of the Security Council in the Palestinian question to enforce the armistice agreement. A special form of good offices was the mission established by the Security Council, consisting of: the United States and the United Kingdom, which provided assistance in the Tunisian issue in settling a number of incidents between France and Tunisia. Often in the practice of international organizations there are cases of the provision of good offices officials of these organizations, as a rule, by General Secretaries, special or personal assistants.

The good offices of the UN Secretary-General were used in settling the situation concerning Afghanistan and were provided for in the agreements on the settlement of this issue, concluded in Geneva on April 14, 1988. Para. The United Nations renders its good offices to the Parties and, in this connection, will facilitate the organization of and participate in such meetings. It may submit to the Parties for their consideration and approval of proposals recommendations for the immediate, conscientious and full implementation of the provisions of the documents.

The procedure for the application of good offices at the regional level is enshrined in a number of regional agreements. It is covered in more detail in the agreements. American states(The Inter-American Treaty of 1936 on good offices and mediation, a number of articles of the 1948 Pact of Bogota, and the Charter of the OAS).

The statutes of the OAS contain an article stating that if one of the parties to a dispute applies to Permanent Council with a request for good offices, the council shall assist the parties and recommend the procedures it considers should be followed for the amicable settlement of the dispute. Within these powers, the Council may resort to fact-finding procedures, as well as establish ad hoc committees.

In League practice Arab states, according to Art. 5 of the LAS Covenant, the Council is entrusted with the function of "providing its good offices for the purpose of reconciliation" in the event of a dispute between member states or member states and other states that could lead to war. In practice, the Council uses good offices and other means of peaceful settlement, whether they threaten the peace or not. In some cases, this is done directly by the Council, while in others, special bodies are created to perform these functions.

Charter of the Organization of African Unity in art. XIX mentions only mediation, without singling out good offices as an independent means of peaceful settlement of disputes.

At the European level, good offices are provided for in a number of OSCE agreements and other treaties. Section V Final Act CSCE, entitled "Dispute Resolution", among other means of peaceful settlement of disputes, refers to "good offices". In Section VIII of the same document, when describing the procedures of the CSCE Dispute Settlement Mechanism, it is noted that “Observations or advice of the Mechanism may relate to the initiation or resumption of a negotiation process between the parties, or the adoption of any other dispute settlement procedure, such as fact-finding, conciliation, mediation , good offices, arbitration or litigation, or any modification of any such procedure or combination thereof, or any other procedure that he may specify in connection with the circumstances of the dispute or any aspect of any such procedure."

The peaceful resolution of international disputes by the disputing parties themselves through negotiations and consultations does not exclude, and in some cases involves assistance in the regulation of international disputes of third states, not involved in the conflict, international organizations and their bodies. Such assistance can be provided in various forms united within the framework of the international conciliation procedure.

The simplest form of assistance to the resolution of interstate disputes on the part of third states is their good offices. Good offices (boks offices) are the activities of third states or international organizations, carried out on their own initiative or at the request of states in conflict, aimed at establishing or resuming direct contacts between disputants in order to create favorable conditions for the peaceful resolution of the dispute.

As an international legal institution, good offices were enshrined at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century in a number of bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements. However, diplomatic practice as early as the eighteenth century distinguished between good offices and an adjacent means of peaceful settlement - mediation, rightly seeing the various legal consequences that their application led to.

The institution of good offices is connected with the work of the first Hague Peace Conferences in the history of mankind, convened at the initiative of Russia in 1899 and 1907. The Conventions adopted at the conferences on the peaceful settlement of international conflicts in Articles 2,3,6 provided for the acceptance of good offices or mediation "of one or more friendly powers in the event of an important collision or disagreement.

However, the Hague Conventions, which are still in force today, regulated the good offices procedure only in connection with the mediation procedure. In the future, the institution of good offices was developed in a number of international legal documents.

In modern conditions, good offices as an international legal means in the system of peaceful methods for resolving international disputes, named in paragraph 6 of the Declaration on Strengthening international security adopted at the 25th session of the Assembly UN December 16, 1970

Good offices are usually applied: in the case of one or both disputing parties, start negotiations on the disputed issue; with the ineffectiveness of direct negotiations between them; when, after the conflicting states resorted to other peaceful means, they also did not bring a positive result.

The task of third states providing good offices is to facilitate the familiarization of the positions of the parties by establishing direct direct contacts between them. The activities of third parties are carried out in tactful, flexible and delicate forms - wishes, suggestions, advice to the parties.

As an institution for a peaceful settlement, good offices represent a set of international legal norms that regulate the activities of third states and international organizations; carried out on their own initiative or at the request of the states in conflict, aimed at establishing or resuming direct negotiations between the disputing parties in order to create favorable conditions for the peaceful resolution of the dispute.

C. Hyde writes that the term "good offices" does not have a completely precise meaning. D. Brierley argues that good offices in general "are political processes which are hardly included in the field of international law ". D. Greig good offices and systems of peaceful means of resolving disputes under the pretext that they allegedly "do not have a definite legal basis"11 Rapport M.Ya. Mediation in modern international law. L., 1986-S.34 ..

State, good offices can the following functions: a) seek to establish direct contact between the disputing parties; b) can become a link between them after the start of direct negotiations. However, it does not take part in the negotiations themselves, unless the parties themselves ask for it.

Article X of the Bogotino Pact establishes; "In the event that the parties have met and resumed direct negotiations, the states or citizens who have offered their good offices, or who have accepted the offer to render them, should not take any further action; they may, however, with the consent of the parties, be present at the negotiations."

Disputing parties always have the right to accept or reject the proposal of the states providing good offices. At the same time, the wishes and proposals of states that act kindly, in moral and political terms, have a definite practical value, since they can serve as a basis for further negotiations between the disputants.

By its very nature, the institution of good offices is closely related to another means of peaceful settlement of disputes, mediation. For a long time neither practice nor doctrine demarcated these institutions. Subsequently, I. Bluntschli, A. Bulmarink, A. Rivje, X Meyer, P. Kazansky, N. Zakharov, G. Nikolsky, considered good offices and mediation as independent international legal institutions, pointed out the difference between them in terms of the degree of assistance of third parties. powers to resolve the dispute.

Other authors - F. Marten, L. Komarovsky, V. Ranevsky, I. Fursho, V. Grabar - went further, trying to establish a legal difference between these institutions. So, F.Marten wrote that mediation differs from good offices in respect of: the origin, rights and obligations of the mediating power and the ultimate goal of mulation. V. Grabar pointed to the method of establishing good offices and mediation.

In modern foreign doctrine Ch. Hzid confuses this issue, arguing that mediation is not only the result of offering good offices, but also the manifestation of their application.

P. Guggenheim and G. Mayer-Linderberg reduce the difference between good offices and mediation only to the degree of participation of the third state in the negotiations to resolve the dispute. G. Daam argues that mediation is a special kind of good offices, thus mixing these institutions for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Domestic lawyers distinguish good offices from mediation, pointing not only to the different degree of assistance from third states, but also to the differences in the order in which these peaceful means arise and in the legal status of third states.

And only V. I. Lisovsky expressed a dissenting opinion. He writes: "There are the following types of mediation, good offices, mediation itself" 11 Rapport M.Ya. Mediation in modern international law. L., 1986-S.34. However, it is impossible to agree with him. Good offices and mediation, for all their similarities, are independent means of a peaceful settlement, and their differences are not limited to the degree of assistance of third states. During mediation, various legal consequences occur not only for the mediating states, but also for the disputing parties themselves, which is not the case with good offices. This is one of the essential circumstances, known to diplomatic practice, left unattended by the international legal doctrine.

Based on the essence of good offices and mediation, we can distinguish the following criteria for their differentiation: the method of occurrence; targets and goals; rights and obligations; application practice.

Way of occurrence. Mediation can only take place with the mutual consent of the disputing parties. Disagreement with at least one of them excludes the possibility of mediation. For good offices, the very fact of their offer and the consent of one of the disputing parties may be sufficient. Indeed, in itself the offer of good offices on the part of a state sincerely interested in ending the conflict between the arguing, with the consent of one of the conflicting powers, makes it possible to alleviate the tension in relations between them, in principle to determine their positions. As a result, it is possible to create conditions favorable for organizing direct negotiations between the disputing parties, which is precisely the purpose of good offices. It is another matter to achieve the right to give advice, to make specific recommendations on the methods and conditions for a peaceful solution, that is, to take an active part in the discussion contentious issues. Third states can take such actions only with the mutual consent of both disputing parties, that is, when good offices turn into mediation.

Aims and objectives of states providing good offices and mediation. The ultimate goal of good offices and mediation is the same - promoting a peaceful settlement of the dispute, strengthening peace, but the immediate goals and objectives are different. The task of the good offices state is to encourage the disputants to start negotiations or resume broken relations, good advice to end the dispute amicably and create a favorable environment for this. The states providing good offices become, as it were, the next link, a kind of relaying authority between the disputants in order to create an opportunity for direct negotiations between them, on which its functions end. In the negotiations themselves, organized with their help, third states do not take part.

In contrast to good offices, mediation, in the fair opinion of F. I. Kozhevnikov, means not only the entry of third states into negotiations between the disputing parties, but also independent participation in them, and often even "the direction of these negotiations to resolve disputes in a spirit that seems fair in the opinion of the mediator for both parties" 11 Kozhevnikov F.I. On the issue of peaceful means of resolving international disputes. 1965 - p.45. . The role of an intermediary cannot be reduced to the role of a relaying authority. The scope of his activities is wider than in the stage of rendering good offices "Mediation," wrote G. Nicholson, "is a much more official method and implies that the Mediator will participate in negotiations" 22 Rapport M.Ya. Mediation in modern international law. L., 1986 - p.34..

The mediator is obliged to develop the basis of the agreement, for which he took an active part in the negotiations of the parties, gives advice, recommendations, and introduces his own projects for resolving the dispute.

This leads to the following distinction between good offices. , and mediation - in the rights and obligations of the states exercising them.

Since the task of the state providing good offices is limited to establishing direct contact between the disputing parties, its competence at this stage ends. For the mediator, after the organization of negotiations between the parties, the rights and obligations only come. For example, the mediator has such rights as participation in negotiations between the parties from beginning to end, making independent proposals for reconciliation of the parties, not infrequently - the right to manage negotiations, the state does not have at the stage of providing good offices.

The practice of good offices and mediation. Disputing states, as a rule, prefer good offices rather than mediation of third states, since the latter, with good offices, cannot actively intervene in the resolution of a dispute when the parties are negotiating directly with each other. The distinctions noted between good offices and mediation should by no means be overstated. Both good offices and mediation are diplomatic means of a peaceful settlement, necessarily associated with the participation of third powers not involved in the conflict. Their procedure, unlike judicial or arbitration, is not connected with predetermined procedural rules. They must be carried out on the basis of observance of the universally recognized principles and norms of international law. There is a close relationship between these institutions, consisting in the fact that, depending on the specific circumstances, the severity of the dispute, the position and will of the parties, good offices are sufficient, in other cases, good offices can develop into mediation.

Modern international practice shows that good offices have been used, not without success, as the initial stage in the peaceful resolution of a number of interstate conflicts, primarily territorial and border ones.

Modern interstate practice shows that in cases where good offices are applied on the basis of steadfast observance of the basic principles and norms of modern international law, respect for the sovereign rights and interests of the disputing states and their sincere desire for a peaceful settlement of differences, they lead to mutually acceptable results.

Good offices contribute to the creation of a favorable environment for establishing direct contacts between the disputing parties, determining the convergence of positions. And this eventually leads to a settlement international conflicts and disagreements on a mutually acceptable basis, the development of peaceful relations between states.

Mediation is the oldest (after negotiation) means of peaceful dispute resolution. Having emerged as a specific institution of domestic law in Ancient Greece(proxenia and xenia) and Ancient Rome, mediation gradually transformed into an independent international legal institution and began to be used to regulate interstate disputes in international relations different eras.

The international legal institution of mediation can be defined as a set of norms governing the assistance of third states in the peaceful resolution of international disputes, carried out on their own initiative or at the request of the parties to the conflict and consisting in the mediator negotiating with the disputants on the basis of his proposals in order to peacefully resolve differences. .

In the most important international legal documents, this institution of peaceful settlement is ranked second after negotiations. This is no coincidence. In its essence, mediation is one of the specific types of negotiations in a broad sense as a form of diplomatic settlement of international disputes. Unlike legal methods, the procedure for mediation and direct negotiations is not associated with strictly defined procedural rules and must be based on the exact and strict observance of the basic principles and norms of international law, mutual respect for the rights and interests of the participants in the negotiations.

Actually, mediation is negotiations on a broader basis, that is, with the participation of third states or international organizations. If during direct negotiations the disputing parties themselves directly resolve their dispute, then through mediation they are assisted by third states. This means that if during direct negotiations certain rights and obligations arise only for the parties to the dispute, then through mediation, third states are endowed with the corresponding rights.

"The mediator, - emphasizes the Polish lawyer A. Klafkovsky, - assists the parties in resolving the dispute in the simplest most direct way, avoiding formalities" 11 Rapport M.Ya. Mediation in modern international law. L., 1986 - p.34..

The purpose of mediation, as well as other peaceful means of resolving a dispute, is to resolve differences on a basis mutually acceptable to the parties. At the same time, as practice shows, the task of mediation is not so much the final resolution of all disputed issues, but the general reconciliation of the disputants, the development of the basis of an agreement acceptable to both parties. With mediation, a third party is obliged to prepare a basis for mutual understanding, "to develop a basis for reaching an agreement between the parties concerned." Therefore, the main forms of assistance from third states should be their proposals, advice, recommendations, and not binding decisions for the parties.

The mediator is a conciliator, not a judge between the disputants. He expresses his opinion, advises, recommends, suggests, but rarely settles the dispute finally. The last, decisive word always remains with the arguing. They, and only they, are both parties and judges in their own dispute. This follows from the principles of sovereignty, equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of the state.

The facultative nature of mediation, which provides the parties with sufficient freedom of action, serves as a guarantee of the sovereignty of States.

The mediator, being a very active participant and the central figure in the negotiations, has a fairly wide range of rights, exercising which he is able to significantly influence the course and results of the dispute. The following rights of the mediator can be distinguished: to participate in all negotiations of the parties, to soften the categorical in advance unacceptable demands of the parties, to make independent proposals for reconciliation of the disputing parties.

All this imposes a number of obligations on the mediator: to strictly observe the basic principles and norms of modern international law; assist the parties in reaching a peaceful outcome of negotiations; not allow any attempts to dictate; observe complete impartiality, refrain from any assistance to one of the parties to the detriment of the other; respect the sovereignty of the parties.

The parties, in turn, are responsible for: providing the mediator with the opportunity to carry out his functions; create all the necessary conditions for the success of negotiations; refrain from actions that could harm the rights and dignity of the mediator; respect the rights granted to him by the mediation agreement; show the maximum desire for peace; do not insist on advance unacceptable demands and claims.

The mediation mission is an expression of equal confidence in a third party by the disputing states, and the one who performs it must properly appreciate the honor shown to him. Therefore, the mediator must not abuse the trust placed to the detriment of one of the disputing parties and must maintain complete impartiality in the exercise of his functions. He is obliged to refrain from any assistance, both covert and overt.

Of course, trust must be mutual and the parties are also obliged to actively assist the mediator in the fulfillment of his mission.

So, mediation as one of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes implies the possession of certain and the fulfillment of certain duties by all its participants, the desire of states to cooperate and agree, to mutually take into account each other's interests.

in international law - one of the means of peaceful resolution of disputes between states. Consists of the assistance of a non-disputing State or international body establishing contact and starting direct negotiations between the disputing parties (the initiator of Good Offices does not participate in the negotiations, does not offer the conditions for resolving the dispute).

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

GOOD SERVICES

bons offices good offices) is one of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes between states. Good offices consist in the fact that in the event of a dispute between states, any third state (or states) not participating in the dispute, at the request of one of the disputing parties or on its own initiative, takes any measures with the aim of becoming a link between the disputing parties to facilitate their negotiation or other peaceful settlement of the dispute. The course and results of these negotiations, in contrast to mediation, when a third state itself enters into negotiations with the disputing states and to a certain extent directs these negotiations, good offices are not intended to influence. The most developed regulation of good offices is given in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, which, however, does not distinguish between good offices and mediation. This convention stipulates, in particular, that good offices, like mediation, have "the sole value of advice and cannot by any means be considered obligatory." The offer of good offices cannot be regarded by the disputing states as an "unfriendly act". Good offices can be offered both in times of peace and when a dispute between states has escalated into an armed conflict. In diplomatic practice, cases of the use of good offices are also known. In 1966 the Soviet government rendered good offices in settling the military conflict between India and Pakistan. The result of these good offices was the Tashkent Declaration adopted at a meeting between the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan with the participation of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. In 1962, the Soviet government agreed to the Good Offices and the mediation of U Thant, who was then and. about. Secretary General of the United Nations, in connection with the crisis in the Caribbean. The Good Offices of the UN Secretary General also played a positive role in a number of other cases, for example, in settling the conflict between Guinea and the Ivory in connection with the detention by the authorities of the last Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guinea and other Guinean diplomats. In contractual practice, cases are known when the body created on the basis of the contract is vested with the functions of providing good offices. For the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the creation of a special Conciliation Commission is envisaged. The main functions of the commission are to provide good offices to member states in disputes regarding the application of the provisions of the convention. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights vests the functions of good offices in the event of a dispute between states over the implementation of the pact to the Human Rights Committee provided for by it. A number of agreements, such as the Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation (1936), the Inter-American Treaty on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, provide for the possibility of rendering good offices not only by states, but also by individuals.

good offices

In a broad sense, the concept of "good offices" means the entry of a state or an international organization into an international dispute in order to establish contacts between the parties to the dispute.

Good offices are rendered exclusively by actors who are not involved in the conflict. The confidence of the parties to the dispute in the impartiality of the third party is a prerequisite for the performance of its good offices.

Good offices may be offered by a third State or an international organization on its own initiative or at the request of one or more of the parties to the dispute. In any case, consent to the provision of good offices must be obtained from all parties to the dispute.

A distinction is made between technical and political good offices. However, since both types of good offices are often provided by the same entity at the same time, the differences between them are not always obvious.

Political good offices include calls by disputing parties for peace or a truce and subsequent negotiations to resolve the conflict. Political good offices are also the solution, with the consent of the disputing parties, of certain problems related to the settlement of the dispute, such as monitoring the implementation of agreements reached, the repatriation of prisoners of war, etc. Unlike technical good offices, political ones to a much greater extent involve the involvement of a third party in conflict resolution essentially. In the exercise of political good offices, a State or an international organization may propose a dispute resolution procedure.

The right to perform good offices is based on customary international law. From the principle of the sovereignty of states follows the right to refuse good offices. Consequently, the intervention of a third party in an international dispute without the consent of at least one of its participants cannot be considered as good offices.

Provisions for the use of good offices are found in many multilateral and bilateral international treaties. For example, Art. 2 of the Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1907 provides that in the event of a dispute, the contracting parties will resort to good offices or mediation friendly states before the start of the armed struggle. Article 3 of the Convention enshrines the right of neutral states to offer good offices during armed conflict, and the provision of such services should not be considered as an unfriendly act in relation to any of the parties to the conflict. Art. 45 and 46 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and Art. 8 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which provide for the right of one State to represent in Peaceful time interests of another state in the territory of a third state.

There are many examples of good offices in history, many of which were successful. Thus, the UN Secretary General rendered good offices to the USSR and the USA during the Caribbean crisis, the USSR played a similar role during the Indo-Pakistani conflict of 1965-1966. One of the most striking examples of good offices are UN peacekeeping operations, during which UN troops monitor the observance of the truce, assist in the repatriation of prisoners of war and refugees, and ensure the safety of meetings of the conflicting parties.

Conciliation and mediation

It is difficult enough to distinguish between conciliation and mediation; they are often used as equivalent or interchangeable terms. Both procedures provide for the entry of a third party into a dispute between states in order to participate in its resolution. The third party can be a government, an international organization or individuals.

The proposals of the third party in both procedures may be limited to procedural issues or may offer a solution on the merits of the conflict. The purpose of these actions is to bring together the points of view of the parties and find an acceptable compromise. Both types of settlement go beyond fact-finding and investigation, the purpose of which is simply to unbiasedly clarify a set of disputed facts.

In contrast to arbitration proceedings, the proposals of a third party in these procedures are not binding on the parties to the dispute, but, on the contrary, require their approval. Thus, they should be considered recommendations.

Conciliation and mediation procedures can be either voluntary or mandatory. In the first case, the approval of both parties is required. In the second, each of the parties has the right to unilaterally initiate the procedure; the other party must agree. Mandatory procedures require prior agreement between the parties on a special permanent body to which disputes will be referred. Such an agreement is usually fixed in an international treaty.

The advantage of the mediation and conciliation procedure is the introduction of a neutral element to the dispute. Both procedures are characterized by significant flexibility. These procedures can largely take into account the wishes of the parties. That is why it is easier for states to turn to these procedures for the peaceful resolution of disputes. The third party is not so strictly bound by existing law and may take into account all relevant circumstances. It can offer new interesting options that do not necessarily relate to the subject of the dispute. Concessions in one case may be offset by mutual concessions in another matter. Such a "package deal" often sets the stage for conflict resolution. Although a conciliation body or mediator generally cannot make binding decisions, the voluntary consent of the parties to a proposed decision can ensure its effectiveness.

In contrast litigation where one of the parties necessarily loses and as a result its authority suffers, here the solution is a compromise and the parties can avoid shame. Compared to direct negotiations, the advantage is that it is often much easier to accept a third party's offer and make concessions to them than to make concessions directly to the opponent. Political and moral considerations, often including the desire to maintain normal relations with a powerful intermediary state, may prevent the parties from rejecting a proposed compromise. In addition, it is unlikely that the decision of the conciliator or mediator will set a precedent, as in the case of a judicial decision.

The undeniable advantage of mediation and conciliation is their confidentiality. In the course of their use, the parties may avoid disclosure of some aspects of the dispute. Many attempts at mediation have failed precisely because of the violation of confidentiality, since public opinion usually limits not only the freedom of action of the parties to the dispute, but also the mediator.

If we turn to the negative sides, it is more difficult for the parties to the dispute to initiate the procedure unilaterally. Conciliation and mediation are especially dependent on the consent and willingness of the parties; these necessary prerequisites are usually absent in cases where the discussion of essential interests has reached an impasse or when one of the parties demands the surrender of the other. In addition, mediation and conciliation contribute less to the development of international law than arbitration tribunals or international courts. The search for a compromise leads to a decrease in the degree of objectivity, legality and fairness of the proposed solution.

Mediation is a means of amicably settling a dispute in which a non-disputing State or international organization negotiates with the parties to the dispute in order to reach a compromise or general principles to achieve it.

Mediators may be one or more States or an international organization, which may act on its own initiative or at the request of one or more parties to the dispute.

So, Chad and Libya tried to resolve their dispute over the Aouzu border line before the Libyan government applied to the International Court of Justice with the help of Algeria, as a result of which they signed an agreement in which the parties pledged to solve the Aouzu problem only by peaceful political means.

The consent of the parties to the dispute is an optional initial condition, but it must be reached before effective assistance to all parties can be provided by the mediator.

There are no rules of procedure in this area. The process consists of negotiations in the presence or with the participation of a mediator, sometimes even under his leadership.

The mediator, in addition to offering a compromise solution, can also provide good offices, such as financial assistance in the implementation of a compromise agreement or control over its execution. One example of such a situation is the mediation of the World Bank in the dispute between India and Pakistan in 1951-1961. about the Indian water basin which could not be resolved without the financial assistance offered by the bank.

When states act as mediators, their influence can contribute to the resolution of a dispute. As a rule, states have more technical capabilities at their disposal than private individuals. The negative side is that in some cases the mediator state may be concerned mainly with the promotion of its own interests and use its influence to the detriment of the parties to the dispute.

History knows many examples of mediation, which were usually successful if the mediator was among the great powers. special attention deserves the role of Germany at the Berlin Congress of 1878, the role Soviet Union in resolving the Indo-Pakistani conflict and the US role in the peace talks between Egypt and Israel in 1978. On the other hand, mediation by the US and other leading world powers in the long-term conflict between Israel and Palestine cannot be unequivocally called successful.

There are also a number of problems associated with mediation. Almost inevitably, one side wins at the expense of the other. In this regard, the mediator puts his own relationship with the disputing parties at risk. This is especially evident in cases of armed conflict; risk is present in such situations for neutral states. Also, when one side agrees to the mediator's proposals, the other side usually sees it as a sign of weakness. This leads to the reluctance of states to participate as mediators in disputes.

Mediation is most likely to be successful in situations of stalemate or when the conflict is in danger of escalating to military action. This procedure should also be used when resolving conflicts of secondary or local importance. Favorable conditions for this type of dispute resolution can also be called conditions when the dispute is essentially already resolved (as in the case of defeat in the war) and all that remains to be done is to determine the next steps.