Between principle and practice: the illusion of neutrality in international conflict mediation

Abstract

In contemporary international relations, mediator neutrality exists largely as a declarative ideal that conflicts with the realities of political and economic interests. Mediation practices by the UN, the OSCE, the African Union, and states such as Norway, Qatar, Indonesia, the US, and China demonstrate that impartiality is systematically compromised by structural factors. These factors include geopolitical priorities and the mediator’s asymmetrical perceptions of conflicting parties. The analysis contrasts American and Chinese approaches to mediation: while Washington integrates mediation with the promo­ tion of its values, Beijing emphasises economic pragmatism without abandoning engagement. The article examines three dimensions of neutrality (institutional, strategic, and perceptual) revealing its contingent nature. Findings suggest mo dern mediation functions as a «diplomacy of the possible», where strict neutrality yields to tactical flexibility, and negotiation effectiveness correlates with transparency regarding mediators’ interests.