At a time of growing global polarization and waning confidence in international governance institutions, Hong Kong witnessed last month the establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) with 33 founding member states. This new body could mark a major shift in global governance.

IOMed’s establishment is a response to the long-standing absence of a global body dedicated to conflict resolution. Although its launch has yet to receive widespread media coverage, IOMed’s potential to revolutionize dispute settlement — especially among nations in the Global South — is monumental.

Since World War II, the United Nations Charter has recognized several peaceful means of resolving disputes, including negotiation, arbitration, judicial settlement and mediation, as listed in Article 33. While judicial and arbitral institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes have developed over time, mediation has remained ad hoc. There was no global body specifically dedicated to mediation.

This institutional vacuum led to numerous disputes either being funneled into costly legal processes or left unresolved, deepening mutual suspicion and mistrust among states. The establishment of IOMed offers an alternative that is conciliatory rather than adversarial, discreet rather than public, and jointly owned rather than imposed.

Notably, China played a central role in IOMed’s conception and launch. China has long worked to promote international cooperation and contribute its wisdom and solutions to the development of global governance.

Mediation, which emphasizes harmony, compromise and diplomacy, fits well with Confucian traditions. These traditions value maintaining balanced relationships over seeking outright legal victories.

In contrast to the zero-sum mentality of litigation, mediation seeks solutions acceptable to all parties, even if no one emerges as a complete winner. This approach is attractive to most nations, particularly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, which have long felt alienated by global legal frameworks and institutions where Western nations play a prominent role.

The choice to locate IOMed’s headquarters in Hong Kong makes sense both symbolically and strategically. As a major financial and legal hub that blends Chinese cultural traditions with a common law background, Hong Kong reflects IOMed’s mission to bridge diverse legal and cultural systems. Its status as the seat of IOMed also signals that China is offering a globally accessible framework rooted in its own philosophy but open to the world.

China’s active role in establishing IOMed may be seen as an effort to resolve conflicts on a platform that is more inclusive and culturally sensitive than Western courts or arbitration panels.

Most Global South nations lack the financial resources and judicial apparatus to pursue protracted litigation at the ICJ or to mount defenses at arbitration tribunals in The Hague or Washington. IOMed offers a setting where participants can exchange views on an equal footing, using procedures that emphasize consensus over confrontation and where proceedings can remain confidential — a key concern in politically sensitive disputes.

Although the outcomes of mediation may be nonbinding, they are typically more sustainable, as parties voluntarily accept them rather than having solutions imposed.

IOMed’s benefits are not limited to state-to-state disputes. The organization has the tools to find consensus on investment disputes, debt refinancing, environmental concerns and other contractual interpretations. It can also mediate issues involving state-to-commercial contracts, or even matters involving multiple state parties.

As globalization increases the reach of transnational legal controversies, cross-border infrastructure development, public-private partnerships, environmental standards and cyberspace governance, IOMed could play an important role as more member parties join. With rising demand for flexible, responsive and culturally sensitive resolution processes, mediation plays a perfect role in satisfying these needs. IOMed could serve as a neutral venue for both governmental and nongovernmental actors.

But IOMed’s future is not free from significant hurdles. The immediate challenge is that of administration. The organization must ensure transparency in its practices, internationalize its mediating and administrative staff, and ensure its management remains independent from the influence of member states’ policies.

A second difficulty lies in the voluntary nature of mediation. Unlike judicial rulings or arbitral awards, which can, in some cases, be enforced by international law, settlements reached through mediation depend solely on the goodwill of the parties involved. This may limit IOMed’s effectiveness in highly geopolitical conflicts, where entrenched interests and domestic politics may make compromise impossible. Moreover, IOMed needs support from all major global actors — including Western powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union — in order to extend its reach to broad areas around the globe rather than regional or South-South disputes only.

However, IOMed could serve as an indispensable platform for ironing out enduring differences in Central Asia over water sharing and border demarcation, settling maritime disputes in Southeast Asia, or even helping facilitate transitional justice arrangements in post-conflict African states. It could also provide a secure means of de-escalation in areas such as cybersecurity, climate conflict and AI governance — all emerging fields where traditional legal tools risk falling behind.

Within the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), IOMed also has the capacity to enhance the sustainability and credibility of Chinese-financed projects. Instead of relying solely on bilateral arrangements, stakeholders including host countries could express concerns within a more structured and internationally recognized forum. This could reduce reputational and operational risks for both sides, helping dispel criticism that the BRI induces dependency or encourages opaque deal-making.

Perhaps most importantly, IOMed represents a subtle but profound transformation in how global order is established — not through force or domination, but through dialogue and adaptability. As multipolarity becomes not just a prediction but a reality, institutions like IOMed can, in theory, decentralize power in international law, making it more representative and more attuned to the agendas and cultures of the broader world.

At a time when multilateral institutions are under pressure and geopolitical tensions are rising, the creation of this specialized international mediation organization is a step in the right direction.

In creating IOMed, Beijing is offering a different vision of international relations — one that values soft solutions over hard clashes and consensus over coercion. Its success will depend on how its recommendations are implemented and whether it can win the global community’s trust. But if it succeeds, IOMed may prove to be one of the most revolutionary developments in global governance in decades — a quiet revolution with far-reaching implications.

Yasiru Ranaraja is a commentator on current affairs, a researcher on maritime issues and an expert on Belt and Road Initiative development. He is the founding director of BRISL, an international development organization in Sri Lanka.