Flashpoints | Diplomacy | East Asia

The International Organization for Mediation Is 1 Year Old. How Is It Faring?

The Hong Kong-based IOMed is testing a new path for international dispute settlement, but the road ahead is challenging.

Representatives from the contracting and signatory states of IOMed post for a group photo at the first Governing Council meeting, Oct. 20, 2025.

May 30, 2026, marked the first anniversary of the inauguration of the Hong Kong-based International Organization for Mediation (IOMed). The anniversary may appear modest compared to the decades-long histories of institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Yet the significance of IOMed lies not in its age, but in its ambition: it is the world’s first intergovernmental organization dedicated to mediation as the primary means of settling international disputes.

As of June 1, the IOMed Convention has attracted 43 signatories and 13 state parties. While the number of signatories is still small by the standards of universal international organizations, it nevertheless indicates growing interest in an alternative approach to international dispute settlement mechanisms at a time when geopolitical rivalry is increasingly straining traditional legal and diplomatic mechanisms. 

One year after its establishment, IOMed has moved beyond symbolism and begun building the institutional foundations necessary for long-term credibility. Its early achievements, its first successful case, and persistent challenges together offer a useful glimpse into whether mediation can truly emerge as a more prominent feature of global governance in the years ahead.

Building an Institution From the Ground Up

The first year of any international organization is primarily about institution-building. In this regard, IOMed has made notable progress. A major milestone came on October 20, 2025, when the organization formally commenced full operations. On the same day, it published a comprehensive set of procedural rules governing its work, including the State-to-State Mediation Rules, the Commercial and Investment Mediation Rules, and accompanying explanatory notes. It also released a Code of Conduct for Mediators, providing ethical and professional standards for those participating in proceedings.

These developments were more important than they might initially appear. Admittedly, one of the long-standing obstacles to the use of mediation in international disputes has been the lack of a dedicated institutional framework. States, companies, and investors have long been familiar with litigation and arbitration; those mechanisms usually possess established procedures, recognized institutions, and predictable outcomes. Mediation, by contrast, has often been viewed as informal and heavily dependent on the personalities and abilities of the mediators and relevant participants.

By publishing detailed rules and making them accessible to the public, IOMed sought to reduce that uncertainty. It has attempted to strike a balance between procedural flexibility and the predictability necessary to attract potential users. As such, it combines the merits of mediation and arbitration.

Progress has also been made in establishing a roster of qualified state-to-state mediators. As of late April 2026, five state parties – Nicaragua, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Kiribati – had each nominated five state-to-state mediators pursuant to the IOMed Convention. While the pool remains limited, the nominations represent an important first step toward creating a diverse body of experts capable of handling disputes involving different legal traditions, cultures, and regions.

The First Mediation Case Proves the Possibility of Success

Institutional design matters only if parties are willing to use it. For that reason, reports in May 2026 that IOMed had successfully resolved a maritime dispute involving private parties from mainland China and Singapore attracted considerable attention. Although the details of the case remain vague, the reported settlement is significant for several reasons. 

First, it demonstrates that parties are willing to entrust real disputes to the IOMed. New institutions often struggle to secure their first cases. Without cases, an institution cannot establish credibility; without credibility, it cannot attract cases. The lack of any case may even raise the question of the institution’s survival.

Second, the reported success highlights one of mediation’s principal advantages: its capacity to produce mutually acceptable outcomes without generating “winners” and “losers.” Unlike judicial proceedings or arbitration, mediation does not require a binding ruling imposed by a third party. Instead, it encourages disputing parties to identify practical solutions that accommodate their respective interests. This feature may be particularly valuable in maritime, commercial, and investment disputes, where preserving long-term relationships can be as important as resolving the immediate disagreement. In many cases, parties do not simply want a legal judgment; they want a solution that allows cooperation to continue.

Third, the case provides evidence that mediation can complement rather than replace existing dispute settlement mechanisms. International adjudication and arbitration remain indispensable tools for resolving legal disputes. However, not every disagreement is best addressed through a legally binding judgment. Some disputes involve political sensitivities, economic considerations, or future cooperation that formal litigation may not adequately address. 

Fourth, since Singapore has yet to sign the IOMed Convention, the case illustrates that even a non-party to the IOMed can successfully use this innovative mechanism to settle disputes. The IOMed Convention expressly endorses that a non-party may use the mediation service, provided that they wish to submit their dispute to the IOMed.

Of course, one successful case does not establish a track record. Sustained credibility will depend on whether IOMed can consistently facilitate settlements across different........

© The Diplomat