Executive Summary
This policy brief draws on the panel discussion ‘Why is mediation failing to resolve so many armed conflicts today?’ organised by the Oxford Global Society on 6 October 2025. The discussion brought together international mediation experts Katia Papagianni,[1] Neha Sanghrajka,[2] Matt Waldman,[3] and Betty Bigombe,[4] and was moderated by Paul Dziatkowiec.[5]
The panellists explored the factors limiting mediation, what it can still achieve despite these challenges, and how it might adapt to remain credible in a rapidly changing global landscape.Peace mediation is under strain. Armed conflicts have multiplied and fragmented, international norms have weakened, and the institutions built to protect global peace have lost influence and resources. Deterrence and hard power increasingly replace diplomacy as the language of peacemaking. But against this backdrop, mediation remains an essential practice of international politics. It is perhaps the only channel sustaining dialogue when other peacemaking tools fail and a return to violence seems imminent. Although the practice of mediation has changed and its effectiveness weakened in the current juncture, its promise and value have not.
Panellists emphasised that mediation today is marked by a climate of disillusionment with multilateral diplomacy and intensifying geopolitical rivalry. As states invest more heavily in deterrence and defence, trust in diplomacy as a means to resolve and manage conflict has diminished. This imbalance was described as strategically short-sighted. The experts argued that mediators are increasingly expected to achieve quicker and more measurable results with fewer resources and less support. Still, the panel agreed that mediation continues to offer something unique: it preserves the possibility of dialogue in conflicts that grow more protracted each day.
The discussion concluded that the current crisis of peace mediation stems less from flawed foundations than from the erosion of the geopolitical and economic conditions that can make those very foundations effective. These include long-term and adaptive political commitment, stable yet flexible resourcing, public legitimacy, and robust institutional support. Restoring these enabling conditions will determine the extent to which mediation can meaningfully support current and future international peace efforts.
1. Mediation at a crossroads
Around the world, mediation efforts are faltering, and the practice is widely seen to be in crisis. Conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Yemen, and elsewhere have revealed profound shifts in the international order that the existing conflict response architecture seems ill-equipped to confront. Mediators face diminishing space and support for dialogue as a means of resolving conflict, whilst mounting geopolitical pressures constrain their ability to mediate effectively.
Convened by the Oxford Global Society, the panel of experts in international mediation examined how these conditions are reshaping peacemaking practice and what remains possible when formal diplomacy fails to contain violence.
To set the context for the discussion, Paul Dziatkowiec, Director of Mediation and Peace Support at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), depicted a dynamically changing conflict landscape to which today’s mediator must adapt in order to be effective. He noted that there is more armed conflicts (both inter- and intra-state) than we have seen in decades, and that these are increasingly proxy conflicts – which means they can be multi-layered (not only local or national, but often regional, and sometimes even geopolitical).
At the same time, Dziatkowiec observed not only a proliferation of non-state actors fighting in these conflicts, but also of different mediators (both state and private) inserting themselves as intermediaries. Meanwhile multilateral institutions are being sidelined, often by one or both conflict parties or by big powers, which removes a rich source of experience, leverage and know-how. There is also a change in approach in some recent interventions, with the rush for ‘quick fixes’ implying that important principles relating to inclusion and justice are left out, and emerging deals are often part solutions rather than comprehensive agreements. It is through these major shifts that the modern-day mediator needs to navigate and arrive at viable solutions.
Katia Papagianni, Director of Policy and Mediation Support, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD), described a growing gap between what mediators are expected to deliver and the conditions they must navigate. Many practitioners now work in conflicts shaped by transnational networks and shifting alliances, often with little political support or stable funding. Matt Waldman, Senior Adviser at the European Institute of Peace, added that mediators frequently operate in environments marked by entrenched grievances and tensions that permeate the local, regional, and international levels. All of this makes their work particularly testing. Even when conflict parties agree to negotiate, Betty Bigombe, Ugandan Special Envoy to the South Sudan peace process, cautioned, they may do so to win time or legitimacy rather than with the intent of reaching a meaningful settlement. These dynamics affect how peace processes are designed and how the success of mediation is measured.
Although trust between conflict parties takes time to build, most mediation mandates are short and focused on visible outcomes. Giving the example of South Sudan in 2018, Bigombe warned that such quick fixes often produce agreements out of convenience, and not conviction. She recalled how Sudanese President Bashir forced parties to sign a deal by keeping them confined in a hotel until signatures were secured, but that the agreement was dishonoured soon after political pressure waned. Similar dynamics, she added, marked President Carter’s Uganda-Sudan mediation and President Trump’s failed attempt to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, which publicly humiliated one side and eroded trust in the process.
This concern was echoed by Waldman and Papagianni, who both stressed that quick fixes undermine trust and the sustainability of peace. Politically convenient public announcements often come before the groundwork for a negotiation has been laid, producing results that rarely last. The recent turn towards humanitarian goals, such as temporary ceasefires or safe corridors, has saved lives, as seen in Libya and Yemen, but also reduced the space for deeper political work.
Papagianni and Waldman both noted that many of these shifts are in degree rather than kind. Effective mediation rests on sustained political will and enabling institutional environments, but these conditions have become scarce. Waldman observed that the professionalisation of mediation has improved standards and expert knowledge but limited mediators’ flexibility. Templates and checklists have replaced the judgement and intuition that skilled mediation demands. Oversight has become more rigid, leaving mediators cautious and less able to adapt to volatility. Nowadays, they tend to spend more time managing bureaucratic processes than managing relationships.
Panellists noted how the changing geopolitical context adds to the strain. Papagianni argued that multilateral envoys have lost leverage, whilst Bigombe argued that state-led efforts have become increasingly transactional, many times utilised as foreign policy instruments. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Bigombe claimed that conflict is likely to be prolonged because Rwanda and Uganda are pursuing competing regional agendas and using war in the DRC as a proxy. Optimistically, Papagianni cited the Libya process in 2020 as a positive example of focused ‘minilateral’ diplomacy, where the UN, the German government, regional governments, and major powers helped halt hostilities and paved the way for political transition. Waldman, too, emphasised the promise of closer synergies among middle power mediators. These efforts show that smaller, flexible partnerships can deliver positive results when wider multilateral frameworks stall.
Short-termism emerged as another key challenge. Waldman and Papagianni both observed that comprehensive peace agreements are rare nowadays, and that many peace processes stop at humanitarian relief that eases suffering but offers limited pathways to more substantive agreements. Linking these steps to longer-term goals, backed by credible monitoring mechanisms, is important for mediation to deliver on its promise. Bigombe echoed this point, warning that rushing negotiations undermines trust and ownership, whilst Neha Sanghrajka, an experienced negotiator and mediator, highlighted that long-term strategic thinking and investment in relationship-building, as seen in the 2019 Mozambique process, can lead to more durable settlements.
Bigombe also reflected on the decline of preventive diplomacy. Early-warning systems exist but rarely trigger decisive action before violence escalates. In Myanmar and Sudan, early-warning systems were once heralded as breakthroughs but have repeatedly failed to prevent violence from spiralling. Where such preventive efforts fail, mediation tends to begin too late, when the room for negotiation has already narrowed.
Neutrality and inclusion, two cornerstone principles of mediation, have also become harder to uphold. Bigombe emphasised that trust in the mediator and perceived neutrality are vital to mediation success. Sanghrajka added that gender sensitivity has been mainstreamed across the peacemaking sector and that women are playing a more active role in peace processes, such as the First Ladies of the US and Ukraine helping the Russia-Ukraine peace process move forward. However, she also claimed that most peace negotiations still reproduce ‘big man politics’ and tokenistic inclusion of under-represented groups. Processes that fail to represent the people and societies they claim to serve, she argued, cannot succeed.
The panellists agreed that the current crisis of mediation does not reflect inherent flaws in its principles or foundations, but rather arises from the continued erosion of the conditions that once sustained them. Restoring those conditions, including through long-term political commitment, sustained resourcing, public legitimacy, and institutional support, will determine how far mediation can go in meaningfully supporting global peacemaking.
2. The promise and value of peace mediation
Despite the constraints facing mediation today, panellists agreed that it still plays a vital role in global politics. It is one of the few tools capable of sustaining communication when conflict parties turn to hostility and coercion. When comprehensive peace settlements appear out of reach, mediation can maintain pathways for constructive dialogue and preserve fragile relationships.
Papagianni argued that the main strength of mediation is its ability to create and protect space for negotiation. It gives antagonists a forum to talk, test ideas, and explore compromise. Bigombe underlined that even when the process does not produce agreement, it can prevent total collapse and keep open the possibility of continued engagement.
Sanghrajka noted that this space is itself an achievement. Creating enabling conditions for conflict parties to meet signals that dialogue remains legitimate and that conflict can still be managed through words rather than violence. These encounters, however fragile, can interrupt cycles of escalation and demonstrate that alternatives to armed conflict exist.
Waldman reflected that mediation often works through gradual progress rather than big, visible breakthroughs. Ceasefires, humanitarian access, or local support structures rarely resolve conflicts but can bring stability to fragile situations and build habits of cooperation between adversaries. These steps matter because they can save lives in the short term and may later form the basis for renewed negotiation.
Papagianni cautioned against judging the success of mediation through signed agreements only. Because conflict resolution is not linear, what endures is most often the relationships and communication channels that persist when tensions rise again, and not just an agreed text. Seen from this angle, the value of mediation may rest more on process than on outcome.
Sanghrajka, Papagianni, and Bigombe also observed that the practice of mediation has recently diversified. Western governments and multilateral organisations no longer dominate peacemaking discourse and practice. Regional organisations, middle powers, faith-based actors, and private mediators now influence peace processes in significant ways. Papagianni mentioned that Türkiye, Indonesia and the Gulf states have become increasingly active mediators. She also pointed to the growing role of the African Union’s regional initiatives and the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue’s work in Mozambique and Libya. The involvement of these new actors, though often siloed or overlapping, has brought new political cultures and forms of legitimacy to the table.
In this vein, Bigombe and Sanghrajka emphasised the importance of articulating international mediation with local peacemaking efforts. Community leaders, women’s networks, and faith-based groups now broker or support talks where formal access to states and institutions is limited. They tend to rely on social authority and trust rather than institutional power. Sanghrajka cited Mozambique in 2019 as an example of this, since international efforts were geared towards producing a self-sustaining national dialogue forum, which still stands today. When local efforts connect with national or regional tracks, she argued, they can strengthen legitimacy and resilience. However, she also warned that these connections are often weak, and many key local actors find themselves excluded from decision-making or included only performatively.
Throughout the panel, there was consensus that mediation is much more than a technical practice. Its success largely depends on how mediators engage with the political and affective dimensions of conflict. Their ability to navigate complex power dynamics and build confidence can be more influential in shaping outcomes than formal process design. As Waldman concluded, mediation at its best keeps alive the possibility of dialogue when diplomacy is exhausted and a return to violence is seen by parties as the only viable course of action. In a world where coercion is increasingly replacing cooperation, that capacity is indispensable.
3. A constrained practice
Panellists described a field under immense structural pressure. The turn towards deterrence and militarised conflict management, Waldman noted, has undermined the standing of mediators and the legitimacy of multilateral peace efforts. These constraints have come to determine negotiation outcomes as much as the conflicts themselves. Mandates today are narrower and timelines shorter, but expectations are higher. Stronger parties increasingly dominate the agenda, leaving weaker actors little room to make their voices heard. These discrepancies limit mediators’ leverage and reduce their ability to act creatively.
Funding was a recurring concern raised by panellists. Donor cycles are short, and priorities become volatile in response to political shifts. Dependence on a small number of donors restricts flexibility and can fuel perceptions of mediator partiality. Bigombe suggested that this often leads mediators to prioritise low-risk conducts that produce visible, short-term results, even if these come at the expense of more sustainable gains. She recalled that in South Sudan, changing donor priorities repeatedly interrupted dialogue, forcing mediators to suspend their work mid-process whilst undermining local confidence.
Waldman also argued that the professionalisation of mediation has transformed the field of practice. A greater focus on specialist training and oversight has improved consistency but reduced mediators’ ability to adapt to the ebbs and flows of a peace process. Practitioners now spend more time reporting back to headquarters and on compliance procedures than in nurturing relationships with stakeholders at the negotiation table. Standardised guidelines breed risk aversion. As Waldman put it, mediators are becoming excellent administrators of process but have lost the ability to mediate effectively and meaningfully.
Bigombe pointed to the persistent divide between international and local mediation. She argued that many processes are still designed and negotiated abroad, even though their implementation depends on local actors. And frequently, the latter are not meaningfully included in the process. This disconnect weakens legitimacy and undermines the sustainability of mediation outcomes. Bigombe called for more locally grounded processes, echoing the localising logic of ‘African solutions to African problems’ for all war-torn contexts around the world.
4. Towards more effective mediation
Panellists shared several ideas on how, in their view, mediation might be made more effective. Their reflections converged on the need to restore and strengthen the political and human dimensions of mediation, and the institutional support that allows mediators to operate effectively in complex situations.
Mediation as political craft
Waldman and Papagianni agreed that the key strength of mediation is the less visible relational work carried out by mediators daily. For these two experts, mediation ought to be understood as much more than any measurable gains it might achieve. They called for a return to mediation as a fundamentally political tool grounded in a mediator’s soft skills and supported by firm and stable institutional backing. Formal institutions and professionalisation have an important role to play in enhancing the effectiveness of mediation, but they cannot replace the human qualities at the heart of the practice.
Drawing on nearly a decade working in Mozambique, Sanghrajka posited that enduring relationships, rather than formal procedures, are what preserve dialogue once international mediators depart. She also suggested that mediation teams must take psychological expertise more seriously to strengthen the relational dimension of peacemaking. Because conflicts are built on socio-political and affective relationships, understanding how parties think, respond, and process trauma can help mediators anticipate tensions and earn trust.
Balancing principle and pragmatism
Papagianni and Bigombe argued that the best mediators are those who can read context skilfully and adapt their methods and approaches to it. They balance discretion with openness, and principle with pragmatism. Their influence depends on the relationships cultivated with conflict parties and other stakeholders far more than on formal mandates. Waldman warned that when mediators focus primarily on procedure or institutional expectations, they risk losing the human connection with those they seek to help move beyond violence.
Articulating levels of action
The discussion also highlighted the need for greater coherence across peacemaking levels. For Sanghrajka, local actors cannot be confined to community dialogue whilst international mediators lead elite negotiations. Effective mediation links top-down with bottom-up efforts, creating feedback loops between them instead of hierarchies that might harm the process. In Mozambique, cooperation between community actors, domestic political leaders, and international facilitators strengthened local ownership. She also noted that the sustainability of agreements depends largely on the degree to which local, national, regional, and international initiatives coalesce around shared objectives.
Ensuring representation and diversity
Sanghrajka also suggested that mediators and their teams should better reflect the societies they serve. Diversity in background and skills, including the frequently overlooked psychological expertise, helps mediators recognise forms of authority and emotion that outsiders may miss. It also strengthens legitimacy among those most directly affected by conflict. But inclusion, she stressed, must extend beyond presence and bring with it meaningful voice and influence.
Sustaining support and leadership
Waldman and Bigombe stressed that effective mediation demands consistent political and financial support. Most donors have a short attention span, and their support tends to decline once visible crises subside, but processes need stability through transition and relapse. Long-term investment in peacemaking, in all its forms, allows for continuity and learning. In the absence of these commitments, mediators are forced to improvise with shrinking mandates and may be set up for failure.
Papagianni concluded that stronger political leadership in support of mediation is a necessary precondition for success. She noted that focused and well-connected coalitions, such as the one that facilitated the 2020 Libya ceasefire, can generate leverage and legitimacy. Mediation thrives when centres of political power treat it as a strategic tool in the service of global peace, rather than an instrument of foreign policy.
The way forward
The discussion concluded with cautious optimism. Despite narrowing political and institutional space for dialogic conflict resolution, mediation remains a vital peacemaking tool for producing and restoring communication within divided, war-torn societies. Looking forward, its ability to deliver on its promise depends on the extent to which states and institutions can bolster the foundations that make it uniquely suited to manage and resolve conflict.
5. Conclusion: What future for peace mediation?
Panellists’ reflections highlighted both the fragility and necessity of peace mediation today. They argued that it remains one of the few tools of international politics capable of bridging deep divisions and sustaining dialogue when other peacemaking mechanisms falter. However, its effectiveness depends on the political and institutional space granted to it by states, donors, and institutions, and by its ability to connect meaningfully with the communities it serves. Without consistent and credible backing, mediation will be ill-equipped to manage and resolve conflicts, and might end up reduced to an empty, performative exercise.
Panellists agreed that mediation remains one of the core instruments of international peacemaking and diplomacy. It works best when rooted in a wider political strategy that connects different levels of peacemaking action. Treated as a stand-alone exercise, it loses effectiveness. But understood as a continuous process that is responsive, inclusive, and context-driven, it strengthens the groundwork for sustainable peace even in the most protracted conflicts.
The experts emphasised that mediation does not need reinventing, but revitalising. Success must be measured beyond signed agreements, assessing the extent to which communication and trust are preserved through the ups and downs inherent to all peace processes. Mediation matters most when it prevents a complete breakdown of negotiations and keeps political space alive for dialogue until conditions improve.
For international stakeholders, panellists made it clear that supporting mediation means granting mediators the time, resources, flexibility, and political cover needed to deliver on their promise. It also means recognising and resourcing the local networks that sustain peace once formal processes end, since local actors often hold the social and communal legitimacy that formal institutions lack.
Ultimately, and despite the structural challenges facing peace mediation today, panellists consistently returned to the idea that mediation offers a unique contribution at all stages of a peace process. The experiences shared from Libya to Mozambique, from Uganda to South Sudan, illustrate both the promise and limits of contemporary mediation. They remind us that although conflict settings differ in important ways, sustainable peace depends on political commitment and the behind-the-scenes work of rebuilding trust across divides. The enduring value of mediation, then, is its ability to protect the space for constructive dialogue amid hostility, and to keep alive the possibility of a peaceful settlement when little else can.
[1] Katia Papagianni is the Director of Policy and Mediation Support, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) in Geneva.
[2] Neha Sanghrajka is a negotiator and mediator with more than seventeen years of experience in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and mediation. She is currently a Fellow at Harvard University and a Senior Advisor for UNOPS.
[3] Matt Waldman is Senior Adviser at the European Institute of Peace; Expert Adviser and Facilitator at the European Leadership Network; and Research Associate of the Department of Politics and International Relations at Oxford University.
[4] Betty Bigombe was former Senior Director ‘Fragility, Conflict and Violence’ at the World Bank; Ugandan Special Envoy to the South Sudan peace process.
[5] Paul Dziatkowiec is the Director for Mediation and Peace Support at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP); former senior Australian diplomat; Fellow of the Oxford Global Society.