Distinguish negotiation from good offices.

Negotiation: the parties' direct settlement — the system's workhorse (treaties' dispute clauses usually begin here; Nepal's practice: the border and trade talks' generations — the Joint Commission machinery). Merits: consent's purity, flexibility, privacy; limits: power asymmetry, deadlock — hence the escalation ladder; Good offices: a third party brings the parties together — offers services, arranges the meeting, smooths the atmosphere — but does not participate in the substance or propose terms (the UN Secretary-General's classic instrument — Nepal a consumer in the 2006 peace process era, UNMIN's political mission). The intermediary withdraws the moment talks begin; Mediation: the third party participates in the substance — proposes terms, drafts the settlement, brokers the compromise; consent remains sovereign (the proposal binds only on acceptance). The exam's one-line distinction: presence in the substance's room; Inquiry (enquiry): the facts-first device — a commission of inquiry determines the disputed facts, defusing the factual core so law or diplomacy can work on the residue. The classic — the Dogger Bank incident (1904): the Russo-Japanese war's mistaken sinking of British trawlers settled by the commission's finding and compensation (£66,000 — the facts' verdict preventing war); the modern successors: the UN's fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry; Conciliation: inquiry + proposal — a commission examines the facts and submits a settlement proposal (non-binding; the parties free to accept):…