Virginia Lee, Solicitor
The establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) in Hong Kong marks a significant development in international dispute resolution and illustrates China’s commitment to peaceful conflict settlement. Amid growing dissatisfaction with traditional adjudicative mechanisms and rising geopolitical tensions, IOMed offers a timely and structured alternative rooted in mediation, complementing rather than replacing existing forums.
Hong Kong’s selection as IOMed’s headquarters is a strategic decision grounded in the city’s robust legal infrastructure. Its common law system, bilingual judiciary, and established arbitration institutions have positioned it as a global centre for legal services. The 2021 Queen Mary University of London Arbitration Survey ranked Hong Kong among the top three preferred seats for arbitration. The government’s HK$460 million investment in the organisation’s headquarters reflects a broader commitment to consolidating the city’s role as a legal hub, aligning with China’s 14th Five-Year Plan.
IOMed responds directly to the shortcomings of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) regime, which has drawn criticism for its high costs, extended timelines, and perceived partiality. Mediation offers a consensual, cost-effective, and faster alternative. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III has recognised the need to institutionalise mediation, and IOMed answers this call by providing a formal, multilateral platform for resolving international disputes through dialogue.
China’s leadership in establishing IOMed reflects its diplomatic approach centred on peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. Mediation aligns with Chinese legal traditions and international positions, particularly Article 33 of the UN Charter, which endorses mediation as a preferred method for peaceful dispute resolution. Demonstrating the importance Beijing places on the initiative, China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, will visit Hong Kong next Friday to attend a ceremony linked to the mediation organisation established in the city with Beijing’s backing. This high-level engagement underscores the central government’s endorsement of IOMed as a pillar of China’s international legal strategy.
The Convention on the Establishment of IOMed, set to be signed in Hong Kong, is a pioneering legal instrument. It will be the first to create an intergovernmental organisation specifically for mediation. The involvement of nearly 60 states across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, and over 20 international institutions, including the UN, reflects broad-based support. This inclusivity enhances the legitimacy of IOMed and signals a shift toward a more balanced international legal order.
Hong Kong’s role is emblematic of its continued relevance under the “one country, two systems” framework. Far from eroding the city’s legal autonomy, IOMed’s presence highlights its capacity to bridge legal traditions and foster international cooperation. It also reinforces China’s soft power by offering an effective, non-coercive alternative to Western-led institutions, particularly for developing nations seeking equitable participation in global legal processes.
IOMed represents a forward-looking contribution to international legal diplomacy. It institutionalises mediation, strengthens the UN framework, and empowers states historically sidelined in global dispute resolution. China’s initiative reflects a pragmatic and principled leadership style, aiming not to displace existing systems but to enhance them through constructive reform and a commitment to global peace.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor
The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.
One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.
The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.
The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.
The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.
The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.
Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.
Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.
The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.
In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.
