The upcoming establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not merely a milestone for the city but a strategic and visionary initiative demonstrating China’s commitment to global peacebuilding and dispute resolution through nonconfrontational mechanisms. At a time when multilateralism is under threat and major power rivalries have eroded the effectiveness of traditional adjudicative bodies, China’s leadership in forming the IOMed offers a timely and intelligent response that addresses the structural deficiencies in international dispute settlement. The selection of the HKSAR as the permanent headquarters for the organization reflects the city’s advanced legal infrastructure and China’s foresight in leveraging its national strengths to offer constructive alternatives to a polarized international legal order.
Hong Kong’s selection as the seat of the IOMed is rooted in a solid foundation of institutional competence. The city’s longstanding common law tradition, bolstered by its bilingual legal system and international arbitration institutions, has enabled it to emerge as one of the most trusted jurisdictions for commercial and investor-state disputes. According to the 2021 Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, Hong Kong consistently ranks globally among the top three preferred seats. The HKSAR government’s HK$460 million ($58.7 million) investment in refurbishing the IOMed headquarters at the former Wan Chai police station is more than a symbolic gesture of commitment. It reflects strategic investment in building a durable international legal infrastructure, supported by substantive legal expertise and a neutral, rules-based environment that appeals to developed and developing nations.
The foundation of the IOMed directly responds to the growing dissatisfaction with existing mechanisms for resolving cross-border disputes, particularly in the investor-state domain. The existing investor-state dispute settlement regime has been criticized for its high costs, lengthy timelines, and perceived biases. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III has identified strengthening mediation as a key area for reform. The IOMed’s establishment preempts and answers this call by institutionalizing mediation as a primary method for resolving disputes, emphasizing consent-based outcomes, lower costs, and quicker resolution. It is not a substitute for adjudicative mechanisms but a complementary institution that fills a systemic gap in international legal architecture.
China’s leadership in initiating the IOMed is deeply rooted in its diplomatic philosophy of harmony and peaceful coexistence. Mediation embodies the Eastern tradition of resolving conflict through dialogue rather than confrontation. The Chinese approach to international law prioritizes peaceful resolution, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation. These principles are not rhetorical. They are substantiated by China’s consistent support for the UN Charter and its Article 33, which explicitly lists mediation as a preferred method for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The IOMed serves as a concrete institutionalization of this normative commitment. It is not a vehicle for geopolitical competition but a platform for inclusive multilateralism led by a country that has demonstrated consistency in its peaceful development strategy.
Rather than concluding with a simplistic summary, it is more appropriate to consider what the IOMed represents in terms of China’s broader vision for a peaceful international order. It signifies an intelligent recalibration of dispute resolution practices, favoring consensus over coercion. It reflects a pragmatic understanding of the limitations of litigation and arbitration in complex international contexts. And most importantly, it affirms China’s role as a responsible power that does not merely critique the existing order but actively contributes to its reform through principled, constructive, and legally sound initiatives
The Convention on the Establishment of the IOMed, which has concluded negotiations and is set to sign in Hong Kong on Friday, is a landmark legal instrument. It is the first to create an intergovernmental body to mediate international disputes. The participation of nearly 60 countries from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, as well as 20 international organizations, including the UN, underscores the global appeal and legitimacy of the initiative. This is not a regional or ideological bloc but a genuine multilateral consensus. It reflects widespread recognition that the time has come to institutionalize peaceful dispute resolution in an inclusive, culturally sensitive, and procedurally efficient manner.
Hong Kong’s role in this development is not incidental. It is the culmination of a deliberate strategy under the national 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25) to position the city as an international legal and dispute resolution hub in Asia. The central authorities’ support for situating the IOMed in Hong Kong signals their confidence in the city’s capabilities and international standing. Contrary to pessimistic narratives that suggest Hong Kong’s legal autonomy has been compromised, the establishment of the IOMed demonstrates the exact opposite. It illustrates Hong Kong’s ability to function as a bridge between legal systems, cultures, and political ideologies. It exemplifies how the “one country, two systems” framework continues to yield tangible benefits for China and the international community.
The IOMed introduces a new dispute resolution model that is neither adversarial nor hegemonic. Drawing from multiple legal traditions, it provides a procedurally flexible and substantively fair mechanism. The preparatory office has already outlined a vision emphasizing transparency, cultural pluralism, and procedural innovation. The involvement of respected academics who highlighted the growing relevance of mediation in investor-state disputes further affirms the intellectual and practical rigor of the IOMed’s design. These are not abstract ideas.
The strategic implications for China are profound. At a time when Western-led institutions are increasingly viewed with suspicion by many countries in the Global South, China is offering an alternative that is inclusive, effective, and noncoercive. The IOMed is not intended to replace existing institutions but to offer a credible and attractive supplement. Its headquarters in Hong Kong situates it at the crossroads of East and West, reinforcing China’s vision of global governance based on cooperation rather than confrontation. It enhances China’s soft power without undermining the sovereignty of other states. It strengthens the UN system by operationalizing one of its underutilized provisions. It also provides a platform for China to lead responsibly, not unilaterally.
The IOMed also represents a new era in international legal diplomacy, in which developing countries have a greater voice in shaping dispute resolution norms. The participation of countries such as Algeria, Djibouti, Sudan, and Laos signals a shift toward a more multipolar legal order. Often marginalized in traditional forums, these countries now have a stake in an institution that reflects their values and addresses their concerns. China is facilitating a more equitable international legal system by initiating and supporting this effort. It demonstrates that leadership in international law is not confined to Western capitals or legacy institutions. It can also come from the East, grounded in principles that value dialogue, respect, and mutual benefit.
Rather than concluding with a simplistic summary, it is more appropriate to consider what the IOMed represents in terms of China’s broader vision for a peaceful international order. It signifies an intelligent recalibration of dispute resolution practices, favoring consensus over coercion. It reflects a pragmatic understanding of the limitations of litigation and arbitration in complex international contexts. And most importantly, it affirms China’s role as a responsible power that does not merely critique the existing order but actively contributes to its reform through principled, constructive, and legally sound initiatives.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
