by Abdul HAQ
The International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) established in Hong Kong is more than just an institutional development 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:
First, make mediation a popular and reliable means of resolving interstate conflicts by emphasising its adaptability, results that are agreed upon by both parties, and appeal to states that are hesitant to engage in legally binding arbitration or litigation that might violate their sovereignty.
Second, instead of resorting to adversarial adjudication, develop practical, expert-led, development-focused solutions to the political and technical complexity of transboundary issues, such as trade, transit, energy, and water.
Third, by instituting conciliation-based, culturally based dispute-resolution methods from Asia and Africa, which provide inclusive substitutes for Western-centric legal frameworks, we can strengthen the voices of the Global South in global governance.
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. Therefore, 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 assistance has to be crucial to the institutional improvement of IOMed and the expansion of its ability to facilitate amicable conflict resolution. This collaboration demonstrates a shared commitment to creating multilateral frameworks that promote communication and collaboration rather than undermining independence. In order to ensure that its approach reflects global diversity, IOMed continues to strengthen its legitimacy by enlisting experts from a wide range of legal systems and geographical areas. IOMed strengthens rather than replaces established channels for justice by positioning mediation as a voluntary, non-binding process that supplements current judicial institutions.
Despite its potential, IOMed faces three interrelated challenges that will determine its credibility:
First, neutrality issues are inevitable, given the role of China as an architect and early funder, the organisation must clearly implement impartial procedures and diverse leadership to allay concerns that it serves the strategic interests of one state.
Second, enforceability is still a major issue, since mediation is voluntary, IOMed will need creative, non-coercive incentives and follow-up mechanisms to ensure that agreements are respected and long-lasting.
Third, systemic integration is essential to IOMed’s long-term relevance. Without recognition and practical buy-in from the UN, major powers, and a geographically diverse membership, IOMed runs the risk of remaining a useful but limited forum rather than a truly global institution.
Pakistan can benefit 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.
At a time when many current mechanisms are stalled by political impasse and enforcement anxieties, the establishment of IOMed represents a significant turning point in the development of global governance, indicating a preference for communicative, non-confrontational modes of conflict regulation. As a mediation-focused platform, IOMed provides a positive and practical way out of long-standing impasses, but its legitimacy will be firmly based on three principles: neutrality, inclusivity, and institutional and financial sustainability.
The emergence of new institutions like IOMed appeals for a close examination of how Chinese mediation diplomacy functions in the larger framework of a more multipolar world. As a founding member, Pakistan thus takes on the role of both opportunity and responsibility: to participate in a constructive manner, to help shape transparent procedures, and to prevent the perception that the body is used for limited geopolitical purposes. The future of IOMed ultimately depends on whether states accept it as a legitimate and bonafede worldwide public good based on justice and pluralism or treat it as a tool of local advantage. If the latter is successful, IOMed may emerge as one of the most pragmatic and efficient contributions to collaboration and peacebuilding in the 21st century.
