by Abdul HAQ
The International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) established in Hong Kong is more than just an institutional formation at the international level. It reflects the Chinese vision of developing a ‘community with a shared future for mankind’ as well as signals of an increasingly multipolar world pursuing dialogue, inclusiveness, consensus and development-oriented solutions to such questions other than the traditional models based on rigid structures.
On May 30, 2025 was marked a milestone for the international dispute resolution and mediation with the inception of IOMed in Hong Kong. At the signing of the IOMed Convention on May 30, some 400 delegates from 85 countries and close to 20 international organisations attended when Foreign Minister Wang Yi was presiding, among them were also 33 founding members such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Belarus and Cuba. Formally, China depicted this institution as more than simply a diplomatic effort; it was instead portrayed as an ‘innovative step in international rule of law’, constituting an institution that filled ‘an institutional void’ within global governance and resolved disputes through a flexible, inexpensive and non-adversarial means.
On August 26, 2025, an important seminar titled ‘China’s Mediation Diplomacy and IOMed: Global Dispute Resolution in a Multipolar Era’ was held by the Institute of Regional Studies (IRS), Islamabad, Pakistan, as part of its China Program by Ms. Nabila Jaffer. Panellists, including H.E. Ambassador Jauhar Saleem as the president of the IRS, Mr. Murtaza Solangi, Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Mr. Shi Yuanqiang, Mr. Hamid Sharif, Ms. Riffat Inam Butt, and Dr Bilal Zubair elaborated the positive role of mediation in international relations, and support that China affords to global governance time and again emphasized over during the seminar that how mediation can be a game changer where resolution of conflicts were concerned in an emerging multipolar world. Their discussions highlighted some of the potential and challenge, and responsibility, to incorporate IOMed into antifragile and inclusive governance systems.
The objectives of IOMed and the organizational framework are consistent with the mediation diplomacy vision and the broader development-oriented governance of China. Three objectives that are interrelated can be employed to summarize the institutional mandate and structure of IOMed.
The first objective of IOMed is to standardize mediation as a means of resolving disputes in international relations. Mediation aims to facilitate cooperative settlements that are based on mutual understanding and communication, as opposed to arbitration or litigation, which frequently result in legally binding decisions. States that are apprehensive about the potential threats to their sovereignty will view it as particularly appealing due to this.
The second issue that IOMed must resolve is the political and technical complexity of disputes such as water sharing, trade, energy cooperation, and transit. These disputes may not necessitate adversarial adjudication; however, realistic, economic, and development-oriented solutions are.
The third, IOMed promotes inclusivity in global governance by representing the perspectives of the Global South. By doing so, it endeavours to challenge the purported dominance of the Western-centric legal framework by providing culturally relevant alternatives that are derived from conciliation and settlement practices that are prevalent in Asian and African cultures.
A sign of more significant changes in global governance is the establishment of IOMed. Given the emergence of new power centres and the relative decline of Western hegemony in a multipolar age, mediation is becoming more widely recognised as a practical conflict resolution method. The jurisdiction of the ICJ and enforcement are limited, and veto politics usually paralyses established institutions like the UN Security Council. However, mediation is thought to be more adaptable, economical, and flexible to the requirements of states in the Global South.
Panellists at the IRS seminar stressed how mediation is very related to South Asian and Chinese cultural traditions, where resolving disputes amicably is usually preferred to pursuing legal practice. This trend towards compromise and reconciliation is best illustrated by the Chinese philosophical idea of yǐ hé wéi guì (以和为贵), which holds that harmony is the most invaluable thing that ought to be prized.
Consequently, IOMed is a political and cultural endeavour that derives its legitimacy from traditions that respect tolerance and peace. Even though IOMed is still in its infancy, its institutional design prioritizes inclusivity and flexibility. Based in Hong Kong, the Secretariat oversees cases and supports mediation panels of experts in international law, diplomacy, and technology. Council decisions are taken by consensus rather than vote, and all members of the United Nations are eligible for membership.
Chinese aid remains the main source of funding, but these have raised questions about fending against China’s influence in the long run and sustainability. If it is to be credible, IOMed – the Institute of Meta-liars; who you go believe: your own experiences or us? – needs panellists from across a wide range of legal traditions and geographies and it must do more about its sources of funding. Furthermore, IOMed presents itself as a complement rather than an alternative to courts by emphasising that mediation is not mandatory.
But IOMed would be up against a combination of obstacles that would undermine its credibility and recognition, if any: Well first of all its neutrality is highly doubtful. IOMed funding and being a Chinese-origin body may make many views it as an arm of the Beijing foreign policy, rather than a genuine international organization.
IOMed needs to be independent and cannot be seen as a geopolitical tool to gain credibility.
Second, the IOMed decision will be facing an issue of enforceability. One key difference is that the results obtained from a mediation process are not legally binding, as are court decisions.
The success of opposing parties depends on their political will. To guarantee compliance without coercion, careful balancing will be required.
Thirdly, there is still uncertainty surrounding integration with the larger international system. While IOMed aims to enhance current institutions, major powers’ recognition and the UN’s recognition will determine its capacity to carve out a niche. Its efficacy might be limited to local or issue-specific conflicts in the absence of wider support.
Pakistan benefits greatly from the IOMed framework as a founding member. The nation deals with several regional conflicts that are frequently politically unresolvable in hostile forums, such as water disputes with India and trade and transit conflicts in South Asia. A less confrontational approach, mediation may help to reduce hostilities and open doors to mutually beneficial agreements.
Panellists at the IRS seminar encouraged Pakistani policymakers to work closely with IOMed to settle conflicts and influence the future of the organisation. Pakistani diplomats and legal experts could contribute their expertise in preventing IOMed from appearing to be a Chinese project.
Concluding remarks, the reaction to these developments has been an important moment in the history of global governance, as exemplified by the emergence of IOMed highlighting communications-oriented tensions and diversity and conflict regulation without confrontation. IOMed provides a hopeful alternative to the then-existing log-jam of political impotence and compliance concerns. But its neutrality, inclusivity and sustainability will be the cornerstone of its legitimacy and success.
And again, given the multipolarity in world order and new institutions reflecting these changed power relationships, we also want to know how Chinese mediation diplomacy – IOMed here – works. Pakistan is a key member of IOMed, and with that comes ‘challenges and responsibilities’ for it. Ultimately, the future of IOMed will depend on whether it is treated as a national-interest vaccine or recognized for what it already is: a Bonafede global public good rooted in principles of fairness and inclusivity. If it succeeds, it could easily be one of the single most cost-effective (or simply effective) contributions to cooperation and peacebuilding in our young century.
