International Organisation for Mediation in Hong Kong: Bridging Global Disputes Through Mediation

Xinyu Li

Introduction

On 30 May  2025, China launched the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed), a new international organisation focused on dispute mediation.

IOMed is headquartered in Hong Kong and will be the first intergovernmental organisation dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation. The IOMed will seek to provide flexible, cost-effective and efficient mediation services for international disputes. The IOM is supported by a number of countries, including China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia, Serbia, Belarus, Sudan, Algeria, and Djibouti^[1].

Nature

IOMed is a formal intergovernmental international organisation that is dedicated to the legal, voluntary, and nonbinding mediation of international disputes that are political and economic in nature^[2]. IOMed covers three types of cases: interstate disputes, international investment disputes, and international commercial disputes.  Pursuant to the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed Convention), the IOMed provides mediation services for disputes between States submitted by mutual consent. The dispute must not be excluded by a concerned State through a declaration and may not involve a third State without their prior consent^[3].

Structure

From an organisational perspective, IOMed consists of a governing council, a secretariat, panels of mediators, and subsidiary institutions or advisory bodies. The governing council, comprising one representative from each contracting state, serves as the primary decision-making body, setting policies, adopting rules and appointing leadership. Member countries may submit  panels of expert mediators for disputes of various natures. The secretariat is expected to be fully operational by late 2025 to carry out the daily operations of the IOMed^[4].

Key Differences

Many international dispute settlement bodies are already operational; most notably, the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration, and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. However, these mechanisms mainly focus on litigation and arbitration^[5].

IOMed is distinguished by its particular focus on the needs of developing countries, as outlined in the IOMed Convention. It aims to offer an affordable and accessible forum for dispute resolution, thus making participation more feasible for states with limited legal or financial resources. It is marked by its confidential procedures, optional and voluntary participation, and non-binding outcomes. This structure is designed to promote mutual respect among parties, facilitate win-win solutions, and allow for greater flexibility in resolving disputes.

The enforcement of settlement

At present, there remains no clear enforcement mechanism under the IOMed Convention. According to the IOMed Convention, Article 41 stipulates that a protocol to the Convention should be negotiated by the Contracting States to specify the conditions under which a Contracting State shall enforce and be subject to the settlement agreements. However, the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation (Singapore Convention) is generally not excluded, given the broad scope of cases accepted by IOMed. As noted in an article by the Director-General of the IOMed Preparatory Office, the Singapore Convention may provide an enforcement basis for settlement agreements reached through IOMed for state-related commercial disputes. Some countries have also enacted domestic legislation addressing the enforcement of commercial settlement agreements^[6]. Nonetheless, such attempts to address enforceability may only address a minority of settlement agreements;  the majority of agreements still await a comprehensive solution under the IOMed Convention. The absence of an enforcement mechanism diminishes the attractiveness of mediation, potentially deterring parties from choosing mediation as a means of dispute resolution.

For disputes between states and foreign investors, arbitral awards are granted the same legal effect as final judgments of national courts, allowing for their enforcement through the ICSID Convention while explicitly preserving states’ immunity from execution. However, the Convention makes no provision regarding the legal effect of settlement agreements, requiring only that parties give serious consideration to the recommendations of the conciliation commission^[7]. The Singapore Convention applies to settlement agreements resulting from international commercial mediation and does not explicitly define the term “commercial”. Based on UNCITRAL’s broad interpretation, “commercial” includes investment matters; therefore, settlement agreements reached through international investment mediation may also be enforced under the Singapore Convention. However, the Singapore Convention allows Contracting States to enter reservations, thus preventing its application in settlement agreements to which a government or a person acting on its behalf is a party^[8]. Consequently, these reservations may limit the enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from international investment mediation.

Regarding inter-state disputes, there are various types of settlement agreements that may result from mediation, and their legal effect or nature will depend on the specific content of each agreement. In such cases, enforcement typically relies on voluntary compliance by states or good faith performance based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be observed).

Conclusion

China’s initiative in establishing the IOMed signals key steps toward conciliation and equity in commercial and state disputes, particularly for the Global South. While the IOMed’s chief differentiation stems from its protection of state consent and confidentiality, these characteristics also substantiate the foremost criticisms of its effectiveness. As such, its true value in resolving commercial disputes remains to be seen.

___________________________________________

[1] Antony Crockett, Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation to be signed in Hong Kong in 2025, <https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/adr/2025-posts/convention-on-the-establishment-of-the-international-organization-for-mediation-to-be-signed-in-hong-kong-in-2025>.

[2] Yun Sun, The Purpose and Promise of China’s International Organization for Mediation,

<https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-purpose-and-promise-of-chinas-international-organization-for-mediation/>.

[3] Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation, opened for signature 30 May 2025, art 24-26.

[4] The Structure of IOMed, <https://www.international-mediation.org/about-us/#structure>.

[5] IOMed: Another China-led Global Organization?, <https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/iomed-another-china-led-global-organisation>.

[6] Sun Jin and Ji Xiaoxue, Establishing the international Organization for Mediation: Context, Basis and Progress, (2023)6, Chinese Review of International Law, 14-15.

[7] ICSID Convention, entered into force on 14 October 1966, art 34, 54-55.

[8] Singapore Convention on Mediation, entered into force April 2019, Art 8.