by WANG Li
On May 30, a signing ceremony of the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) was held in Hong Kong, China. As an innovative step in international rule of law, it is seen as a seminal event in the history of international relations since China takes a significant step towards global governance that fills a crucial gap in international dispute resolution.
According to Chinese media and official discourse, IOMed aims to promote dialogue and win-win solutions while moving away from zero-sum thinking, which is seen as the Cold War mentality. In addition, it offers a fairer, more accessible alternative to Western-dominated dispute mechanisms, opening new avenues for all nations, particularly the Global South, to resolve conflicts peacefully, equitably and impartially. The idea originally came out of establishing the world’s first intergovernmental legal body specifically dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation, jointly proposed by China and 18 other countries in 2022. High-level representatives, former officials and renowned international experts from over 50 countries, along with nearly 20 international organizations, including the United Nations, witnessed the signing ceremony. Among them are 33 countries to sign the convention on-site, making them the founding members of the IOMed.
It is fair to say that there existed no intergovernmental legal organization previously dedicated to the peaceful resolution of international disputes. The IOMed is designed to mediate, on a voluntary basis, disputes between states, between states and foreign investors, as well as international commercial disputes. Put it simply, it is supposed to fill the institutional gap in international mediation and serve as a crucial public good for the rule of law to strengthen global governance through consultations among the convention’s negotiating states. China welcomes more states to join the IOMed as is expected to commence operations by early 2026.
It is also worth noting that conceptually, the 18th century law scholar Vattel put it that “mediation is a common practice, in which a common friend interposes his good offices, frequently proves efficacious in engaging the contending parties to meet each other half-way to enter into an agreement or compromise respecting their rights to offer and accept a reasonable satisfaction. To that end, the function of mediation requires as great a degree of integrity as of prudence and address. In practice, although mediation is not a guarantee for the treaty which the sides negotiated to sign, it is a necessary engagement of too great prospects to the sides if they consent to undertake to guarantee it. Particularly given the reality where sovereign states are so connected with each other, mediation is a mode of conciliation much used.
In short, whenever any dispute arises, the responsible powers, those who are afraid of seeing the flames of war kindled, offer their mediation, and make overtures of peace and accommodation. (Vattel, 1758) In realpolitik, if their mediation proves fruitless, such of them as are no bound by any treaty, they may take the merits of the cause into consideration with the view of regulating their own conducts. Or to say that they should have right on its side to judge the assistance to the party in disputes. Today, they are still applied universally to the cases in need.
On the day of founding the IOMed, China vows to endorse it in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, multilateralism, global governance, and global rule of law while calling on more countries to sign and ratify the convention. In addition, China opines that the IOMed would contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes and friendly cooperation among countries. Although it is the first organization of its kind to facilitate international disputes through mediation, the IOMed was essentially founded on the principle of mediating disputes between states, or between states and foreign investors, and international commercial disputes based on the will of relevant parties. By Article 33 of the UN Charter, the IOMed aims to offer mediation as one of the first means that should be tried in seeking peaceful solutions to the disputes in international affairs.
Then, China insists that resolving conflicts through dialogue and mediating disputes through consultation is a common value and aspiration of all major civilizations in the world. Due to this, the birth of the IOMed can help transcend the “you-lose-I-win” zero-sum mentality, promote the amicable resolution of international disputes and foster more harmonious international relations. Culturally, harmony-based conflict resolution principles are long embedded in Eastern traditions, like China where there is a well-known saying, “Harmony is precious,” which aligns with the concept of mediation as emphasizing mutual respect, compromise and the pursuit of win-win outcomes as the foundation for peacefully resolving disputes.
Beyond its peaceful nature, IOMed offers a more flexible, cost-effective and efficient approach to dispute resolution for all parties, especially for the states of the Global South. The newly-founded IOMed is explicitly designed to be different as it emphasis on neutrality and non-coerciveness ensures fairness. Accordingly, its creation represents a necessary evolution in global dispute resolution. Equally, China allows the IOMed to be headquartered in Hong Kong, referring to the advantages of it as the hub of multi-cultural, cosmopolitan and well-noted advantages in international mediation. Moreover, Hong Kong’s affinity to mainland China and connection to the world, let alone its highly-developed business environment and well-established legal system, and particularly its strength in both common law and civil law.
In sum, the establishment of the IOMed more reflects the aspirations of a world in transition – one where legal infrastructure must evolve to accommodate diversity, where peaceful dialogue must triumph over dominance and where cooperation must prevail over competition. For China, it is both a diplomatic initiative and a conceptual contribution to global governance – a concrete example of what it means to pursue a “community of shared future for mankind.” For the world, it is a hopeful step toward a more balanced, fair and effective system for managing disputes. And for global leaders, it is the era to recognize that peace along with justice is not merely the absence of conflict but the presence of practical mechanisms that foster mutual respect, inclusive understanding and multilateral cooperation. although Europe today is not the center of the global governance, historically and also conceptially, it is still the fountain of the law ideas and instituions.
Author: Wang Li is professor of international relations at Jilin International Studies University, China. He studied for his BA in international history, MA in international affairs & diplomacy and PhD in international relations & law respectively in China, the U.S. and UK with a focus on the great powers’ foreign policy.
This article reflects the author’s own opinions and not necessarily the views of Global Connectivities.
