This project is developed within a PhD scholarship with the funding reference UI/BD/152080/2021.   This research examines the mediation strategies of three key international organisations: the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) in the context of the Syrian conflict from 2011 until the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024. Drawing on Herberg's Seven Mediation Factors as an analytical framework, the study examines how institutional characteristics, political will, and strategic choices influenced the approach and effectiveness of each organisation. Employing a qualitative, comparative case study design, the study triangulates data from official documents, secondary literature and 18 semi-structured interviews with diplomats, practitioners, civil society actors and officials. The analysis reveals that the UN exhibited a high degree of procedural consistency, while the LAS suffered from internal fragmentation and the EU focused on normative, multi-track engagement. Despite their different profiles, all three organisations lacked the necessary mediation leverage and coherence to influence the central conflict dynamics. The study concludes that the effectiveness of mediation depends not only on technical competence and legitimacy, but also on the ability to adapt strategies to a complex geopolitical environment, exert pressure and maintain sustainable follow-up mechanisms. By critically engaging with theory and practice, the dissertation contributes to the literature on international mediation by highlighting the limitations of existing models when applied to asymmetric, multipolar conflicts. It underlines the need for more politically realistic and context-sensitive approaches by international organisations. The findings have implications for future mediation practice, institutional reform and the design of inclusive and enforceable peace processes in protracted conflicts. Key Words: Syrian Conflict; International M...