Towards mediation

On May 30 (2025), while the global media remained ever-captivated by the latest performance in the absurd theatre that is American politics – complete with another act of hastily withdrawn tariffs, an uncertain stock market, and billionaire feuds – a quieter, yet substantially more consequential development was unfolding in the other corner of the globe.

Spearheaded by China and headquartered in Hong Kong, the International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) was quietly brought into being. Though not ushered in with extravagant fanfare or sweeping declarations, its creation belies the magnitude of what it represents. As the world’s first intergovernmental legal organisation solely dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation, the IOMed challenges the Western dominance that permeates older dispute resolution frameworks, not through confrontation but by embracing dialogue. It enables its 33 initial signatories, including economic powerhouses like Pakistan and Indonesia, to find seats not merely at the table, but on equal footing.

For the scores of nations dissatisfied with the existing international dispute settlement regime, the IOMed may prove to be a shining beacon in the fog of an increasingly fragmented global order, offering guidance and certainty in waters where old maps no longer hold.

At a time when confidence in traditional institutions is faltering, no system showcases this crisis more apparently than the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. Once celebrated as a trailblazer and the most prolific forum for state-to-state dispute resolution, it now appears to be thoroughly defunct. Though its comprehensive, multi-tiered structure was designed to deliver impartial justice, the system has been brought to its knees by the very superpower that once championed it: the US. Through a deliberate and persistent refusal to appoint judges to the Appellate Body, beginning in 2019, the US has rendered the system inoperable, with any cases appealed subsequently being cast into indefinite legal limbo. What was once the world’s highest trade court has been frozen by political obstruction, revealing just how vulnerable the rules of trade can be to the will of the powerful.

Even when the system is operational, however, it suffers from a deeper structural flaw – one rooted not in obstruction but in exclusivity. Under the current rules, only states may bring claims before the Dispute Settlement Body, with individuals and private actors being barred from initiating proceedings in their personal capacity.

While this may appear to be a sensible way of managing international legal traffic, in practice it breeds inefficiency. Investors suffering from trade violations must navigate layers of bureaucracy and political hokum just to persuade their governments to take action on their behalf. The resulting stagnation experienced by willing participants to the WTO’s dispute settlement regime, demonstrates how the effectiveness of global trade adjudication has been fundamentally eroded.

The IOMed, by contrast, offers a welcome detour from the deadlocked streets of the current dispute resolution regime. Grounded in Hong Kong, a city renowned for its robust dispute resolution infrastructure, created as a consequence of both its British common law past and its current ‘One Country, Two Systems’ framework, the IOMed benefits greatly from the jurisdiction’s legal hybridity. Its culturally attuned framework not only promotes sensitivity to each dispute but also offers states like Pakistan a chance to resolve disputes without the adversarial baggage or steep costs that accompany traditional adjudication.

However, the IOMed’s value lies not merely in the pitfalls it avoids, but also in the steps it enables. Its expansive scope covers far more than the WTO’s narrow state-to-state model, including investor-state disputes and cross-border commercial conflicts. By doing so, it sidesteps the rigid procedural requirements that have rendered existing systems slow and ineffective. Instead of forcing disputes through rigid pipelines, the IOMed prioritises adaptability, instead offering a path designed to maximise efficiency in a multipolar global economy.

The IOMed also possesses the unique characteristic of covering all facets of disputes between nations, not merely their economic woes. It subsequently provides a suitable alternative to bodies like the ICJ which, whilst certainly authoritative, remain constrained by rigid procedure, unduly lengthy timelines and contradictory precedents. By contrast, the IOMed offers a voluntary, confidential mediation process that promotes constructive dialogue, as opposed to confrontation. Each mediation is uniquely tailored to each specific dispute, freeing parties from the shackles of precedents past, and helping to preserve or even strengthen diplomatic and commercial relationships.

There are those who, understandably, believe the IOMed to be another pointless venture away from the entrenched systems that, though flawed, have still provided nations with a method of settling their differences. A deeper examination of the international sphere, however, yields the opposite view; one that signals a slow retreat from post-World War II institutional frameworks. Gone are the days of the economic models that once flourished under the shadow of Bretton Woods, for these are increasingly perceived as relics of a bygone era – marred by institutional paralysis and skewed powerful interests.

Conversely, however, this has allowed new mechanisms to bloom that better reflect the current multipolar world. From the BRICS alliance to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and now, finally, the IOMed, a new generation of institutions is taking center stage, prioritizing flexibility above all. The IOMed does more than merely mediate disputes; it allows its participants to slip the surly bonds of the old-world order and instead approach conflict resolution through a distinctly 21st-century lens.

The writer is a barrister. He can be reached at: saadmuhammadrai@ gmail.com