Mediation has
become an important instrument of contemporary conflict management and
peacebuilding, but its increasing standardisation raises questions about the
assumptions embedded within dominant models. This article examines how
assumptions concerning neutrality, rational negotiation, formal institutional
authority, and negotiated settlement can become problematic when mediation
encounters societies where authority, legitimacy, justice, and reconciliation
are organised through different social and cultural relationships. It argues
that the problem is not that Western mediation is inherently ineffective, nor
that local approaches are inherently superior. Rather, mediation can become
less legitimate when historically situated assumptions are treated as universally
transferable. Drawing on critical peacebuilding, postcolonial scholarship, and
recent work on localisation, the article proposes mediation pluralism: an
approach that recognises multiple sources of mediation knowledge and authority
while retaining commitments to consent, inclusion, accountability, and human
dignity. The article concludes that a more plural and context-sensitive
approach can strengthen mediation theory without requiring the rejection of
established international practice.
Keywords: mediation; conflict resolution; Western mediation; peacebuilding; localisation; indigenous knowledge; cultural context; mediation pluralism.
