Exploring Africa’s Role in the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) : African Solutions with a Chinese Touch ?

On May 30, 2025, a new organization aimed at promoting and facilitating the peaceful settlement of international disputes and fostering friendly relations and cooperation among states through mediation was established in Hong Kong. This Chinese-backed multilateral organization, named the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed), is said to have been designed to offer a viable alternative to existing international dispute settlement avenues. At the opening ceremony, which according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, was attended by high-level representatives from more than 85 countries and 20 international organisations, Chinese Premier Wang Yi remarked that the organization would “fill the institutional gap” in international mediation. At the ceremony, 33 Countries signed the founding convention, thus becoming the founding members of IOMed. Chimdessa Fekadu Tsega provides some insights on the aims, functions, prospects and even questions regarding the new organisation.

What does the IOMed do ?

Its constitutive document indicates that IOMed will advance and promote the use of mediation, and would be a useful complement to existing international dispute settlement mechanisms. Under Article 24 of its constitutive document, IOMed is designed to address disputes between states, disputes involving a state and a national of another state, and commercial disputes among private parties. Notably, internal conflicts, such as civil wars and insurgencies, are excluded from the scope of cases for which the organization will provide mediation services. This exclusion is further reinforced by Article 4, which provides that respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, equality, and non-interference in the internal affairs of States is among the guiding principles of the organization. This is consistent with China’s longstanding foreign policy principles that include mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.

However, in an interview, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok stated that the organization could mediate anything, with the sole exception being a state’s refusal to engage in the mediation process. It is to be seen if this would mean that the organization would offer mediation services if two conflicting parties consent to the process, even when the dispute is strictly internal.

The Role of Africa in the establishment of IOMed

It is said that IOMed was conceived in response to an African dispute, specifically the conflict between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam (GERD). Construction of the dam began in 2011, and the Ethiopian Prime Minister has recently noted that the dam’s operation is approaching completion. The project has sparked tensions among the three nations due to concerns that it will significantly reduce the flow of Nile water to downstream countries, particularly Egypt. Ethiopia, which supplies 80% of the Nile’s water, asserts that the dam will not adversely affect either Egypt or Sudan, and that its utilization aligns with the international principle of equitable and reasonable use. In 2021, it was reported that China offered to mediate the dispute among Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan, eventually leading to the establishment of IOMed.

Although no official list of signatories has been unveiled, reports indicate that many African countries are among the founding members of the organization. The signatories of the Joint Statement on the Future Establishment of the organization include Algeria, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Madagascar, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Africa was well represented at the signing ceremony, perhaps suggesting that African nations will play a key role in the organization.

Lessons on Legitimacy : Africa’s Complicated Relationship with International Dispute Resolution and Its Relevance to IOMed

Africa’s relationship with international dispute settlement bodies is complex, influenced by historical, economic, and institutional factors. Many African countries have no trust in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its dispute resolution processes, seeing it as biased towards developed nations. This feeling is intensified by the reality that many African states lack the financial and human resources needed to effectively engage in the world of international trade disputes. The high costs of legal representation and trade litigation often discourage these nations from pursuing disputes, further putting them at a disadvantage. This issue is echoed in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where similar barriers to participation marginalize African voices within global legal frameworks.

Additionally, African representation in international dispute resolution mechanisms remains disproportionately low. Data indicates that Sub-Saharan Africa comprises only a small fraction of individuals on WTO panels, highlighting a critical imbalance in global governance. Many perceive the ICJ as Eurocentric, which diminishes its legitimacy in the eyes of African states due to its colonial legacy and the injustices tied to it. Despite this, African countries have historically opted to arbitrate disputes in jurisdictions outside the continent and appoint non-African arbitrators. Such decisions reflect a lack of confidence in local mechanisms and perpetuate reliance on foreign legal systems.

In this context, IOMed emerges as a new player in the international dispute settlement arena. While the initial participation of African states during its launch is encouraging, the power imbalance will persist as long as Africa remains dependent on foreign systems. There have been suggestions, for instance, that the growing trade, investment, and political ties between China and Africa in recent years have this unbalanced dynamic. The crucial question remains : can IOMed meaningfully address these disparities in its operations ? It is essential for African nations to actively designate African mediators to the Panel of Mediators, adopt principles in mediation processes which are fair to Africa, and ensure greater involvement of African mediators in cases between African states. Without these efforts, Africa risks remaining a passive participant in international organizations, merely expressing dissatisfaction when faced with unfavourable rules. Now is the time for African countries to assert their agency and influence the future of international dispute resolution.

African Solutions with a Chinese Touch : Regional Agency or Tokenism ?

The slogan “African Solutions to African Problems” referring to the idea that African countries should take a lead in addressing their own challenges rather than relying on external interventions, has become a catchphrase for many when discussing the process of settling conflicts in Africa. While the idea is to emphasize the importance of African agency and ownership in conflict resolution processes, the approach has also faced criticism for potentially promoting disengagement from the global community and evading accountability. Central to the concept of African solutions is the need to move away from traditional adversarial approaches to conflict resolution and embrace alternative methods such as mediation. For instance, the African Union’s flagship document, Agenda 2063, emphasizes the need for effective mechanisms for the peaceful prevention and resolution of conflicts at all levels. One of its key aspirations is to actively promote dialogue-centred conflict prevention and resolution, with the goal of achieving a future where “all guns will be silent” by 2020. However, the reality has been starkly different, as the sound of guns has only grown louder across the African continent, with more countries involved in armed conflict.

During the signing ceremony for IOMed, the Chinese Premier remarked that the initiative would facilitate the settlement of disputes with a “Chinese Touch.” Although he did not specify the exact meaning of this phrase, he highlighted China’s advocacy in addressing disagreements in a spirit of mutual understanding and accommodation, building consensus through dialogue and consultation, promoting development through win-win cooperation, and solving issues with a future-oriented perspective. For now, the organization is poised to avoid internal conflicts, which enhances its appeal given the sensitivity of sovereignty among African nations. This alignment of principles could help IOMed become a preferred organization, thereby enhancing trust and its competitive edge.

However, significant concerns remain regarding what IOMed can genuinely offer Africa. Historical precedents suggest that similar initiatives have often failed to benefit the continent. The China-Africa Joint Arbitration Centre (CAJAC), established in 2015, serves as a pertinent example. Intended to facilitate dispute resolution between Chinese and African entities, CAJAC has yet to resolve any significant disputes nearly a decade after its inception. This raises questions about its effectiveness and operational capacity, indicating it may not be fulfilling its role in promoting arbitration as a viable alternative for dispute resolution in cross-border transactions. If IOMed follows a similar trajectory, African countries risk being used as pawns in yet another aspirational initiative, reflecting a broader trend of unfulfilled promises in China-Africa relations.

Africa must Navigate the Crossroads of Geopolitical Rivalry with Caution

Parallel to the mediation service it offers, IOMed represents China’s latest strategic initiative in redefining global governance. While IOMed claims to complement existing dispute resolution venues, it also serves as a viable alternative. Its intention to provide competition to the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague is well-stated. Hong Kong leader John Lee remarked that IOMed will be “on par” with these two organizations. In his speech during the signing ceremony, he emphasized the significance of IOMed amidst rising geopolitical tensions, stating, “When protectionism threatens to derail the international trade order, and when unilateralism looms over global supply chains, it is dialogue – not division – that restores balance.” Secretary Paul Lam further asserted that IOMed will enhance Hong Kong’s soft power and help address challenges posed by “hostile external forces” attempting to “de-internationalize and de-functionalize” the city.

This suggests that while IOMed functions as an international dispute resolution body, its establishment also aligns with a geopolitical strategy aimed at countering Western-dominated international organizations and restructuring the global governance framework. Africa must tread carefully to avoid appearing partisan in this rivalry. The re-election of President Trump, promising to restore American supremacy, has reshaped the diplomatic landscape, aggressively advancing U.S. geopolitical interests. The U.S.’s threats toward BRICS nations and potential members illustrate that aligning with entities viewed as counter to U.S. interests—especially those backed by China—could carry significant consequences. Africa should navigate these geopolitical tensions with its own interests in mind, avoiding the perception of taking sides.

It can be argued that these evolving geopolitical developments could position IOMed as a preferred venue for dispute resolution among African countries. The ties between Africa and China have strengthened, marked by increasing trade and investment relations, as well as China’s vaccine diplomacy during the COVID pandemic. However, the United States is still seen as a significant power in facilitating the resolution of conflicts in Africa, given its role in facilitating the declaration of principles for a peace deal to end the Rwanda-Congo conflict in the resource-rich eastern Congo which, nevertheless, many see as hypocritical. This is because the US has been linked to activities which stoke and sustain this conflict, including supplying arms to serve their resource extraction interests in Congo. This alone can add to the appeal of China and IOMED, because the US remains more of a party to, rather than mediator in, African conflicts.

Despite its retreat from global governance and a reduction in aid to Africa, the U.S. still exerts considerable influence across the continent. While IOMed, as a China-led initiative, could leverage these geopolitical tensions and the US’s double-standards to become an appealing option for African nations seeking a supportive dispute resolution environment, Africa must carefully assess the potential benefits before collectively endorsing the organization.

Conclusion

The active involvement of African nations in the establishment of IOMed underscores not only the strengthening China-Africa relations but also Africa’s longstanding dissatisfaction with traditional international dispute settlement mechanisms. However, it remains to be seen whether IOMed genuinely offers what existing forums have not : legitimacy and agency. Africa must closely monitor IOMed’s entry into operation, expected in late 2025 or early 2026, to evaluate whether it delivers meaningful solutions or remains merely aspirational.

As reflected in the guiding principles of its foundational document, IOMed aligns closely with Africa’s tradition of employing alternative dispute resolution methods as a preferred approach to conflict resolution. Mediation provides agency and ownership of the dispute resolution process, resonating with the slogan “African solutions to African problems,” or, in the case of IOMed, “African Solutions with a Chinese Touch.” Nonetheless, historical and geopolitical factors should encourage Africa to proceed with caution before fully embracing this new initiative.

Chimdessa Fekadu Tsega is a postdoctoral fellow at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law (CUHK Law), where he also did his PhD. His research interests encompass international trade, intellectual property, public health, human rights, and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). In addition to his academic pursuits, he is a keen follower and writer on China-Africa relations, often focusing on the legal practices and trade between the two.

Featured photo : Leaders from Africa and China at the signing ceremony of the Convention on the Establishment of IOMed (credit : international-mediation.org)

Subscriptions and donations are essential to keeping our review and website alive. Please consider subscribing or donating today.