Conflict resolution is an integral component of international relations, both in the academic and general sense. With the war in West Asia entering its second month, discussions around mediation have gained prominence. A significant section of the international community is keen on bringing a resolution to end this war. Although the possibility of mediation in the Iran conflict is shrouded in ambiguity, the debate intensified following reports suggesting a potential role for Pakistan. Without delving into the specifics of Pakistan’s involvement, which still remain unclear, it is more useful to examine what mediation is and why it continues to be a relevant and effective tool for conflict resolution.
Understanding mediation
Mediation has deep historical roots, with one of the earliest recorded instances dating back nearly 4000 years, when the Sumerian king Mesilim mediated a dispute between the city-states of Lagash and Umma. Despite its long history, mediation remains a complex process, and scholars have offered diverse perspectives on its dynamics. One of the most influential contributions is by Jacob Bercovitch, who developed the Contingency Model of mediation. Based on empirical research, he argued that the success of mediation depends on multiple factors, like the nature of the parties, the characteristics of the dispute, and the role and capabilities of the mediator. He emphasised that effective mediators must possess credibility as well as personal attributes such as communication skills, intelligence, and patience.
Another major contribution is by I. William Zartman, who introduced the ‘theory of Ripeness’. According to Zartman, mediation becomes effective only when a conflict is “ripe” for resolution, particularly when parties face a ‘Mutually Hurting Stalemate’. The Lancaster House Agreement (1979), which led to Zimbabwe’s independence, illustrates this dynamic, as negotiations occurred when all parties had reached such a stalemate. Additionally, the concept of biased mediation challenges the assumption of neutrality. It suggests that mediators can be effective precisely because of their power and leverage, enabling them to offer incentives or exert pressure on conflicting parties to reach an agreement.
Legal position on mediation
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which led to the adoption of the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, marked a significant step in the development of mediation as a diplomatic practice. They promoted the peaceful resolution of conflicts by encouraging the use of mediation, good offices, and arbitration, and by legitimising third-party involvement in disputes. The conventions also established the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), providing an institutional mechanism for arbitration. While they did not fully codify mediation as binding international law, they laid the normative and institutional groundwork that later influenced the dispute resolution frameworks of the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The United Nations framework provides important principles and guidance for mediation, particularly through the UN Charter, which emphasises the peaceful settlement of disputes, and through various resolutions supporting mediation practices. Chapter VI of the UN Charter provides the framework for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 33 explicitly calls upon parties to resolve disputes through peaceful means such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other agreed methods. The United Nations has further strengthened the role of mediation through General Assembly Resolution 65/283 (2011), which emphasises its importance in conflict prevention and resolution and calls for enhanced mediation capacity. This was complemented by the UN Guidance for Effective Mediation (2012), which outlines key principles, including preparedness, consent, impartiality, inclusivity, national ownership, coordination, and the need for implementable agreements. In practice, the UN and its affiliated actors have facilitated numerous mediation efforts across conflicts worldwide. Additionally, since 1948, the UN has undertaken over 70 peacekeeping missions, with around a dozen active operations in recent years, often working alongside mediation initiatives to maintain international peace and security.
Instances of mediation
There are several good examples of individuals and states playing an important role in mediation; however, success relates to their stature. For instance, Kofi Annan’s mediation in Kenya in 2008 helped prevent further instability and led to a power-sharing agreement. Mediation at times, opens channels of communication that are often absent during conflict, as seen in Norway’s role in facilitating the Oslo backchannel negotiations between Israel and Palestine.
Mediation also creates political space for negotiation, witnessed in the Camp David Accords (1978), where the U.S. suceeded in bringing Egypt and Israel together, despite deep hostility. It can reshape perceptions of conflict, as in the Colombian Peace Process (2016), where political solutions gained prominence over military approaches.
Furthermore, mediation helps manage time and information, as evidenced by the tightly controlled U.S.-led negotiations of the Dayton Agreement (1995) in Bosnia. Mediation also relates to trust between parties, as demonstrated in the Good Friday Agreement (1998), mediated by former U.S. senator George Mitchell. Finally, mediation provides opportunities for face-saving, allowing conflicting parties to enter negotiations without appearing weak, which is often critical for successful conflict resolution.
On the West Asian crisis
Drawing on the theoretical insights of Bercovitch and Zartman, it can be argued that while media reports suggest that Islamabad may serve as a venue for dialogue between the U.S. and Iran, this should not be interpreted as Pakistan playing the sole mediatory role. Mediation processes in international conflicts are often multi-layered, involving several actors and countries like Turkiye and Egypt are also reportedly engaged in facilitating dialogue.
Moreover, Pakistan’s close strategic ties with the United States may limit its credibility as a neutral mediator in the eyes of Iran. Instead, Iran is likely to prefer a relatively more independent and influential actor. In this context, China emerges as a strong choice for Iran. As a major importer of Iranian oil and a country with significant economic investments in Iran, China holds considerable leverage. It also facilitated the 2023 rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that adds to its credibility as a mediator.
Additionally, China’s consistent anti-war stance and its broader economic and political influence in international affairs, position it as a capable and acceptable intermediary. An early resolution of the conflict is desirable. However, all will depend on the strategic calculation of the U.S. and Iran and their willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.
(Dhananjay Tripathi is an Associate Professor, and Tabshir Shams is pursuing an MA, Faculty of International Relations, South Asian University, New Delhi.)
Published – April 08, 2026 08:30 am IST
