Rethinking United Nations Mediation

UN mediation is in crisis: in Gaza and Ukraine, the option to appoint a UN Special Envoy isn’t even on the table. In Syria and Yemen, existing Special Envoys have often been sidelined. Meanwhile, in Sudan and Iraq, UN political missions tasked with mediation have either been forced to withdraw or are on the verge of doing so.

What is driving this crisis? The answer lies in a combination of internal and external challenges to UN mediation efforts.

Internally, geopolitical competition has paralysed the UN Security Council (UNSC) on conflicts involving its permanent five members (the P5), such as Ukraine, Gaza, or Syria.On Ukraine, despite nearly a hundred meetings, the UNSC was unable for three years to adopt a single resolution.   On Ukraine, despite nearly a hundred meetings, the UNSC was unable for three years to adopt a single resolution. In November 2024, within the span of a single week, Russia vetoed a resolution on Sudan, and the United States vetoed a resolution on Gaza. And between 2011 and 2023, 18 resolutions on Syria were vetoed in the UNSC. This inability to address some of the most atrocious conflicts of our time has tarnished the reputation of the UNSC — in principle, the main UN organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security — and has led to accusations of double standards, fuelling a broader legitimacy crisis. More specifically, the UNSC’s deadlock makes the job of UN Special Envoys — if they are appointed at all — more difficult, because they lack the leverage gained from a united UNSC.

External factors are also challenging UN mediation efforts. New actors have entered the mediation field, which is not inherently problematic, as mediation has long been a “crowded field”. The challenge, however, lies in the fact that the core principles of mediation that the UN upholds are increasingly being called into question. The UN’s approach to mediation emphasises conflict resolution, with the long-term aim of achieving sustainable peace through impartial and inclusive processes, even if the immediate goal may simply be to halt the violence. This approach is outlined in the United Nations Guidance for Effective Mediation adopted in 2012 and was long regarded as a standard for mediation. However, a shift toward conflict containment has recently emerged, prioritising violence reduction through exclusive and transactional deal-making rather than peace-making. This approach is often driven by states that leverage peace processes to advance their own geopolitical interests, rather than fostering long-term stability. a shift toward conflict containment has recently emerged, prioritising violence reduction through exclusive and transactional deal-making rather than peace-making.  This is also because the deal-makers tend to be militarily involved in the conflict themselves, such as Russia in Syria or the US in Gaza. Because conflict parties have alternatives to turn to if they want to engage in a peace process and because they frequently depend politically or militarily on the deal-makers, their consent to UN-facilitated mediation processes is often weakened.

Due to these challenges, both internal and external, UN diplomats have seen their political influence in conflict contexts wane. They have lost the leverage of a legitimised and united UNSC and their approach to mediation has likewise been challenged by alternative actors that prioritise short-term deals over long-term peace. While this may seem bleak, we have not crossed a point of no return, but the way forward needs adaptation, strategy, and innovation.

Internally, bridge-building amongst the P5 and avoiding UNSC paralysis are more important than ever. One vital bridge is international law, as states have — at least in principle — once agreed on it. To maintain the legitimacy of the UN and avoid accusations of double standards, it is crucial for those states who are still committed to the rules-based order to put all their efforts into taking international law as a yardstick for decisions. Another strategy is coalition-building. A notable example is the May 2024 resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza. For the first time in history, all ten elected members (E10) of the UNSC jointly brought forward a resolution, successfully avoiding a US veto. This initiative demonstrates the power of coalitions among the E10, and highlights their ability to influence outcomes despite P5 divisions.

Externally, it is crucial to recognise that the diversity of mediation approaches can be a strength if harnessed effectively. This requires a case-by-case assessment to determine which actor is best positioned to lead a political effort. While the UN may not always take the lead, it plays a vital role in fostering unity of purpose among various peacemakers and leveraging its unique expertise on different aspects of mediation, such as ceasefire monitoring, confidence-building measures, and inclusion. At the same time, it is essential to maintain an approach to mediation that extends beyond merely containing violence. The fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria in December 2024 serves as a stark reminder that military victories do not always hold in the long term and that political solutions are indispensable to address armed conflicts sustainably. It is therefore important for the UN to continue to champion longer-term, impartial, and inclusive approaches. Even when other actors — particularly states — broker agreements, the UN can still play an indispensable role by overseeing the implementation of these deals and by supporting the transition toward a more peaceful future. However, this requires the UN to be prepared and equipped to step in when needed, ensuring that its contributions remain impactful and relevant.

In the end, it is time to rethink mediation no longer in terms of high-level peace processes with the UN generally in the lead, but as a method that can be used in different, interlinked processes at various levels. This broader understanding allows for a more flexible, collaborative approach, where the UN can complement other efforts while leveraging its own unique strength: to garner the legitimacy of its universal membership to address conflicts in a sustainable way.