Ready and able

The successful resolution of the International Organization for Mediation's first case brings the institution to life

The true value of an international dispute settlement institution lies not in its legal framework, facilities or personnel, but in its ability to help parties resolve disputes and reach mutually acceptable solutions. In early May, a maritime dispute was successfully resolved through mediation administered by the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) at its Hong Kong headquarters. Parties from China and Singapore reached a written settlement in an international maritime dispute involving a charter party chain, bringing a series of complex and interconnected disputes to a comprehensive conclusion. The successful conclusion of the case marks an important milestone for IOMed, demonstrating that the organization has moved beyond institution-building to actual dispute resolution practice.

IOMed has been developing at remarkable speed. On May 30, 2025, representatives of 33 countries signed the Convention on the Establishment of IOMed in Hong Kong. The convention entered into force on Aug 29, 2025, and IOMed formally commenced operations on Oct 20, 2025, when it adopted key instruments including the State-to-State Mediation Rules, the International Commercial and Investment Mediation Rules and the Code of Conduct for Mediators. In less than a year, the organization progressed from treaty signing and institutional setup to handling and successfully concluding its first case, apart from handling other cases. The key question now is no longer why IOMed was established, but whether it can resolve international disputes consistently, impartially and effectively.

Mediation itself is not a new form of dispute settlement. Article 33 of the United Nations Charter has long recognized it as one of the principal means for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. What is genuinely innovative is that IOMed, as the world's first intergovernmental organization dedicated specifically to mediation, places this method on the stable foundation of a multilateral convention and equips it with international legal personality, a member-State governance structure, a professional secretariat, common procedural rules and international panels of mediators. Rather than serving as another mediation center, IOMed gives mediation a clear, durable and professional institutional home within the broader architecture of international dispute settlement. In doing so, it contributes to strengthening mediation's role in addressing international disputes through peaceful means.

Every procedure remains grounded in the consent of the parties concerned. Its rules emphasize voluntariness, impartiality, independence, good faith, efficiency, and time- and cost-effectiveness. Mediators may assist the parties in narrowing their differences, but they have no authority to impose a settlement. Courts and arbitral tribunals entrust the determination of the outcome to a third party. Mediation leaves control of the outcome in the hands of those directly affected by it. This may be where mediation offers its greatest value, particularly in disputes that cannot, or should not, be resolved entirely through a decision imposed by an external adjudicator. What IOMed provides is the institutional support needed to make party autonomy operate within a professional, neutral and orderly framework.

Where the relevant parties consent to participate, mediation can move beyond the confines of a single claim. It can place legal liability, commercial interests and future arrangements on the same negotiating table. Instead of determining, issue by issue, and who wins and who loses, the process can seek an overall solution for how an entire transaction chain should settle its differences, perform its obligations or withdraw from the relationship in an orderly manner. The written settlement reached in IOMed's first case may therefore offer an early indication of mediation's distinctive capacity to address interconnected, chain-based cross-border disputes.

The strength of international mediation does not lie simply in its ability to persuade parties to compromise. It depends on the combination of legal judgment, sectoral expertise, cross-cultural communication and negotiating skill. The first mediation case was conducted chiefly by Rosita Lau, a Hong Kong lawyer with extensive experience in international shipping law. Her maritime expertise, combined with IOMed's institutional management of the process, provided strong professional support for the resolution of the dispute. Hong Kong, in this case, was more than the nominal location of IOMed's headquarters. It served as a practical platform where professional talent, an international shipping market, the common law tradition and the capacity to bridge Chinese and international legal cultures came together. Hong Kong's value does not lie in replicating London, Singapore or any other established dispute resolution center. Rather, under the unique framework of "one country, two systems", it can provide a new point of connection between the operation of an intergovernmental organization and the practical resolution of cross-border disputes.

More broadly, IOMed represents a new effort by China and the other participating countries to provide an additional public good for the international rule of law. Its purpose is not to create a parallel system, still less to displace international courts, arbitral institutions or existing mediation mechanisms. Its contribution is to offer the international community an additional option based on consent, equality and cooperation. As interstate investment and commercial disputes become increasingly intertwined, a single adjudicative mechanism cannot meet every need. A mature international dispute settlement system should allow different mechanisms to coexist, complement one another and operate in a coordinated manner. China's role in advancing the establishment of IOMed reflects an effort to translate the principle of peaceful dispute settlement, through multilateral means, into an institution that is both operational and accessible.

One successful case, of course, demonstrates the viability of an institution rather than its maturity. Credibility cannot be built overnight; it requires gradual accumulation, long-term practice and sustained commitment. IOMed still needs to demonstrate its independence and professionalism through cases involving a wider range of subject matters, regions and parties. It must also carefully manage the relationships between confidentiality and transparency, party autonomy and enforcement, and member-State governance and institutional neutrality. The amount in dispute, the specific claims, the course of the mediation, the settlement terms and the state of implementation in the first case have not been disclosed. Such restraint is consistent with the confidentiality essential to mediation. Yet as a new institution, IOMed will also need to make its stable operation visible to the international community through anonymized statistics, carefully calibrated disclosure of procedural experience and other appropriate means.

The convention gave IOMed its legal birth certificate; cases will give it practical life. At a time when international disagreements are increasingly politicized, securitized and divided along geopolitical lines, preserving a table at which parties remain willing to sit down and talk is itself an important contribution to the international rule of law. The first step taken through IOMed's inaugural case has turned that table from an institutional aspiration into a working reality.

The author is an associate professor at China Foreign Affairs University.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.