MEDIATION, in international law, is the friendly intercession of a third power or powers with a view to bringing about the settlement of a controversy between two or more states, to avert threatened hostilities between them or to bring to a close a war in which they are en gaged. Most writers on international law make a distinction between °good offices" and °media tion.° The employment of good offices by a third power consists in the tendering of friendly advice or the offering of suggestions to the disputing parties with a view to bringing about the settlement of a dispute or the conclusion of peace, if they are engaged in war. A govern ment which tenders its good offices is under stood to be willing to suggest a compromise as a common basis of agreement between the con tending parties, to arrange preliminaries for the negotiation of a treaty of peace and to do anything else that may serve the parties in set tling their controversy or in ending their hostili ties.
Mediation, on the other hand, has more of the character of friendly intervention. A mediator assumes the role not merely of adviser or conciliator but takes the part of a middle man,— usually the leading part,—in the con duct of the negotiations between the disputants. He is not, however, a judge, for mediation is not arbitration, nor is he an advocate for either side but, to use the language of Sir James Mackintosh, he is ea common friend, who coun sels both parties with a weight proportioned to their belief in his integrity and their respect for his power.'" With a view to encouraging a more frequent recourse to mediation as a means of settling international controversies and in order to define the role of the mediator the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 adopted the following rules which were em bodied in a convention which was ratified by practically all the powers of the world.
°In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Contracting Powers agree to have recourse, as far as cir cumstances allow, to the good offices or media tion of one or more friendly Powers (Art. 2).
((Independently of this recourse, the Con tracting Powers deem it expedient and desir able (the italicized words were added in 1907) that one or more Powers, strangers to the dis pute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.
°Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities.
"The exercise of this right can never be re garded by either of the parties at variance as an unfriendly act (Art. 3).
°The part of the mediator consists in recon ciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the States at variance (Art. 4).
°The duties of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the contending parties, or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted (Art. 5).
"Good offices and mediation, undertaken at the request of the contending parties or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force (Art. 6).
"The acceptance of mediation cannot, in de fault of agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.
"If mediation takes place after the com mencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted, in default of agreement to the contrary (Art. 7)." It will be seen that the tender of good offices or mediation by third powers prior to or during hostilities is declared to be a legal right, though not an obligation. The Convention, however, imposes on the disputants an obligation to have recourse to this mode of settling their con troversies so far as circumstances allow. Each disputant is therefore the judge as to whether the circumstances in a particular case create an obligation to accept the offer tendered. At the outbreak of the European War the Presi dent of the United States made known his will ingness to serve as a mediator whenever he should receive assurances that an offer would be acceptable by the warring powers. Again in 1916 when war between the United States and Mexico seemed imminent the governments of several of the Latin American republics made known their willingness to offer their good offices in bringing about a settlement of the dispute but the American government declared that the circumstances were not such as to make recourse to this form of sentiment expedi ent. The express declaration of The Hague Convention that the exercise of the right of mediation by third powers shall never be re garded by either of the disputing parties as an unfriendly act was designed to remove all pos sibility that an offer of mediation might be construed as an act of gratuitous interference rather than the act of a disinterested friend of both parties. The role of the mediator is de fined in article 4 as that of reconciliation and article 5 lays down the circumstances when Ws mission is terminated. Article 6 which declared that mediation has no binding effect on the i parties but is entirely advisory in character re moves the possibility of further misunderstand ing concerning its purpose and effect.