Rivalling ICJ

Listen to article

The establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) in Hong Kong last week marks a watershed in China's diplomatic ambitions. With 33 founding nations — including Pakistan, Indonesia, Belarus and Venezuela — and backing from 85 countries, the intergovernmental body is positioning itself as a rival to institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which critics often accuse of having a Western bias.

However, while China touts IOMed as a "public good" for peaceful dispute resolution, it is undeniable that its formation coincides with an era of increasing global polarisation between Western nations and China, which has accelerated due to the aggressive policies and frequent U-turns of US President Donald Trump. In fact, some analysts have said that the new organisation is a direct attempt to capitalise on the global power vacuum created by Trump's isolationist policies.

In a telling cultural flex, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi termed IOMed as a triumph of "Chinese wisdom" that transcends "zero-sum mentalities" through mediation. This, according to analysts, suggests that the focus will be on amicable solutions rather than straight 'win-lose' verdicts. The organisation will work like other international courts and tribunals, some of which already operate out of Hong Kong, as a forum for disputes between states, state-investor conflicts, and private international disputes.

However, the success of IOMed depends not on China and its allies, but the wider world. International courts can usually only arbitrate disputes between member states or companies and other entities that are subject to the laws of these states. IOMed will not be able to fully live up to its goals without widespread adoption, which is as much a political question as it is a legal one.

Keep in mind that BRI partners may be wary of arbitration on related projects at a Chinese-controlled venue. But if Beijing allows IOMed to be genuinely independent and can attract non-BRI countries, even without Western powers' involvement, the mediator could evolve into a legitimate alternative forum for international dispute settlement.