Private mediation services matter. Here’s why.
True neutrality is pivotal in today’s heavily contested political environment. While traditional mediating powers have somewhat lost their influence, private firms are stepping in.
Crisis creates opportunity – and 2026 is set to be a boom year for the private mediation sector. Disputes and emergencies are multiplying and resolving them calls for the skills, talents and attentions of seasoned negotiators. This once fell to traditional mediating powers such as the UN and countries including Norway and Switzerland.
Today, those erstwhile arbiters of fairness have lost some of their clout and moral authority. So private mediation firms, often founded by former diplomats and humanitarian workers, are filling the void. Maryna Domushkina, an independent mediator who began her career at the UN before joining the Geneva-based Center for Humanitarian Dialogue, explains.
Why is private mediation on the rise?
Conflicts have become more fragmented. It probably began about 10 years ago. We’re now in a landscape of multipolarity without multilateralism. We have moved from a rules-based order to a transactional one. Private mediators fill the gap between formal and informal actors in negotiations. They can help to build confidence where official channels are blocked, can operate more discreetly and, because they’re not constrained by institutions or public opinion like states are, can move faster.
What do you think will be the global flashpoints in 2026?
We’re in a period of sustained geopolitical instability. The Middle East will continue to be a flashpoint; some states are looking for fast solutions without addressing the root causes but they won’t work. The Ukraine crisis will continue; the challenge lies beyond the battlefield in how to build a lasting and just peace. There’ll be new flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific too: climate- and resource-driven instability are amplifying existing conflicts.
How might things change?
Mediators need to be able to integrate competing alignments and non-state actors. The global consensus mechanisms will weaken further and there will be more transactional diplomacy. That requires layers of engagement, with various interests and incentives. There will also be a new demand for state-to-state negotiation, with a third state as a mediator. There still needs to be someone guaranteeing agreements.
Comment:
In an increasingly disordered world, trust is at a premium. An outside perspective can be crucial: at their best, private mediators can offer genuine neutrality and help to bring down the temperature of heated, high-stakes negotiations.
