Mediation has been acknowledged and utilised for a number of decades as an effective method of alternative dispute resolution in a variety of areas of law, including family law, commercial law and medical law. A uniform, standardised framework exists within legal discourse which clearly identifies and categorises three main styles of mediation as facilitative, evaluative and transformative mediation. In the post-Cold War period, mediation has also emerged as an important resolution tool in armed conflict situations,2 and this type of mediation has become known as international peace mediation. However, there is significant discord within international peace mediation discourse regarding its conceptualisation and categorisation.3 This paper considers whether the extant legal framework of traditional mediation is readily applicable to international peace mediation. The paper proposes to explain how the legal framework of traditional mediation can influence the development of international peace mediation as a more effective and successful, conflict resolution tool. The first part of this paper examines the mediation framework which has been firmly established in legal studies, and analyses the different categories of mediation identified within legal discourse. The paper then discusses the conceptualisation of international peace mediation underlining the lack of consensus that exists in the literature.