In an international climate marred by deepening fissures and geopolitical fault lines, resolving disputes through dialogue rather than domination seems almost quaint.

Yet on May 30 in Hong Kong, 400 dignitaries from 85 countries and regions and nearly 20 international organizations quietly ushered in what could prove to be a transformative moment in conflict resolution: the birth of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed).

With 33 nations signing on as founding members, IOMed becomes the first intergovernmental organization explicitly dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation.

READ MORE: Pakistan applauds HK mediation center

It is an institutional pivot away from the binaries of battlefield victories or courtroom edicts. Instead, it leans into the potential of dialogue, compromise, and mutual respect — concepts not always fashionable in a world dominated by zero-sum thinking and power politics.

IOMed’s provenance in China has raised eyebrows, predictably. There are mutterings about Beijing’s expanding influence in the Global South or whether it will merely mirror Chinese interests under a multilateral veil.

Though the concerns may not be unwarranted, they should not obscure this genuine attempt to reimagine dispute resolution.

For decades, the dominant frameworks of international dispute settlement have been litigation or arbitration — each replete with legalism, procedural rigidity, and, often, the implicit hegemony of Western jurisprudence.

Mediation, by contrast, hinges on outcomes mutually shaped by the disputing parties with the help of a neutral intermediary. It is a process that privileges consensus over coercion. And in a fractured world teetering on the edge of multipolar disorder, that is no small virtue.

The designated headquarters of IOMed is a symbolic anchor, as the birth of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was a fruition of peacefully settling international disputes. With its mixed legal heritage, bridging common and civil law traditions, and a robust infrastructure of arbitration and commercial resolution, the city offers fertile ground for a new chapter in multilateralism. The choice also reflects China’s growing confidence in presenting the SAR not just as a financial hub but as a legal base.

Some may balk at drawing too bold a contrast between IOMed and longstanding institutions such as the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. But the comparison, invited by Beijing officials and even Hong Kong’s leadership, is not without basis.

While the ICJ issues binding rulings that require both parties’ consent to jurisdiction, IOMed’s charter embraces a more inclusive and flexible architecture — welcoming not just states, but individuals and commercial entities embroiled in cross-border conflict. This adaptability could prove a strength in today’s fluid, decentralized world of international interactions.

It also offers a meaningful corrective to the inadequacies of existing legal orders, particularly for developing nations. The hurdles they face — high legal costs, unfamiliar procedural codes, and a paucity of representation in global judicial forums — are well documented.

In theory, IOMed’s mediation-first model could democratize access to justice and dilute the power asymmetries that often skew arbitration outcomes in favor of wealthier nations or corporate entities.

There is, of course, a strategic dimension to all of this. Beijing’s orchestration of IOMed is a calculated move to improve global governance and supplement it with a distinctly Asian sensibility.

The emphasis on “harmony,” “win-win cooperation,” and “consultation” represents a philosophical departure from the adversarial norms that have governed international relations for much of the post-1945 era.

Recent history lends some credence to this approach. From reconciling Saudi Arabia and Iran to intra-Palestinian dialogue that culminated in a Beijing Declaration, China has shown an appetite and an aptitude for mediation. IOMed institutionalizes this approach.

Skeptics will argue that mediation is toothless, lacking the coercive authority of judicial rulings. But that is precisely the point. In a time where “lawfare” has become a proxy for geopolitical skirmishes, and when compliance with international rulings is increasingly selective, perhaps soft power mechanisms rooted in mutual consent have more to offer than we have been willing to admit.

Furthermore, the notion that mediation cannot produce concrete outcomes is belied by data. In Hong Kong’s own judicial practice, court-linked mediation boasts a settlement rate of nearly 50 percent — a statistic that underlines both the process’s viability and its resonance in culturally diverse, politically complex settings.

ALSO READ: IOMed destined to contribute to better global governance

IOMed must prove that it can operate with independence and transparency. It must also deliver results in an international environment that is skeptical, if not hostile, to new multilateral projects.

Yet if nurtured wisely, IOMed could well chart a new path for diplomacy in the 21st century. One not constrained by the binaries of East versus West, or state versus non-state, but rather one that leans into the rational idea that talking is better than fighting.

In a world where the instruments of peace often feel dull against the sharpened blades of war, IOMed might be the unexpected whetstone. Let the skeptics watch — and let the mediators get to work.

The author is an international affairs commentator and freelancer based in Karachi, Pakistan. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.