Abstract
Amid rising conflict intensity and persistent risks of nuclear escalation, mediation is treated as a legal and in stitutional mechanism of de-escalation complementing non-proliferation and disarmament regimes. The study aims to identify, compare and assess international and national mediation practices in armed conflict settle ment and nuclear disarmament negotiations, and to map key legal instruments (mandates, procedural guaran tees, and interfaces with verification and sanctions compliance). The study’s original contribution lies in developing a legal checklist of mediation design parameters, introducing the concept of “verifiable confidentiality” and constructing a multilevel model linking international mediation standards, domestic implementation, and verification mechanisms. The methods combine comparative law and doctrinal analysis of treaties and soft law standards, case studies, and institutional review of mediator mandates. The results show that effectiveness increases when powers and neutrality criteria are predefined, transparency is ensured while protecting confidentiality, and mediation is legally linked to monitoring and implementation mechanisms, including safeguards. A multilevel model aligning international norms with national implementation is proposed, expanding crisis prevention options and informing mediation statutes, envoy mandates, and protocols for disarmament talks.