Focusing primarily on questions of methodology, this article argues that mediation in international affairs has yet to be properly analysed using the theoretical tools provided by the post-positivist turn in international relations theory. Recognizing the familiar distinction between power-political and facilitative approaches, the article makes the case for a third approach based on the political theory of Jurgen Habermas. The debate between neorealist forms of analysis and critical theory is well known. More contentious, however, is the argument that facilitative forms of third party intervention, such as the Norwegian mediation of the Oslo Accords, cannot operate without a more formal and abstract notion of the ‘right’ in politics. Facilitation's gently working of the lifeworld has much in common with the hermeneutic approach to social science. Like hermeneutics, therefore, facilitation may suffer as it fails to root out relations of power and domination. Even ‘interim stages’ in conflict resolution need a sense of ‘final status’ to gather a sense of pace and direction. The Oslo Accords, for example, demonstrate the need to create a strong vision of ‘final status’ during the interim stage. The article leaves the practical political questions to one side. However, a ‘methodological space’ for critical theory opens up once the defects of the tradition are highlighted, a space which may be filled by distinct forms of mediation practice.