Cultural Imperialism in the Mediation of a Cultural Heritage Dispute, occurs when dominant ‘Western frameworks’, ‘values’, and ‘legal norms’ are imposed on indigenous or non-Western parties, often perpetuating ‘colonial-era’ power imbalances under the guise of neutral dispute resolution. While Mediation is intended to be a collaborative process, it can become a mechanism for maintaining ‘hegemony’ when the Mediator (‘M’), process, or desired outcome privileges Western concepts of ownership, stewardship, and ‘universal’ art history over the intangible, spiritual, or community-based connection to cultural objects. As I will discuss in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, this is manifest in ‘Orientalism.’ Western institutions often argue they are the best guardians of heritage, framing restitution as a loss to humanity, which minimizes the cultural, spiritual, and educational significance of the artifacts to their origin communities. Mediation may focus heavily on legal technicalities, such as statutes of limitations or the legality of acquisition at the time of removal, ignoring the unethical, coercive, or violent nature of colonial looting. The holding institutions (usually in Western nations) often possess far superior financial resources, legal counsel, and time, putting the source community or country at a disadvantage. Standard Mediation techniques may not suit collective cultures. The pressure to reach a ‘win-win’ settlement can obscure the fundamental injustice of the initial theft and coerce the weaker party into accepting a compromise (e.g., long-term loan) rather than full restitution. M’s may fail to recognize that the Participants (‘P’s’) are operating under different assumptions about the value of the artefact, turning the negotiation into an exercise where one P must adopt the other’s worldview to be heard. Cultural Imperialism can lead to decisions where the original owner is forced to accept ‘shared stewardship’ or symbolic gestures, rather than the unconditional return of items. Mediation may fail to account for the ongoing harm caused by the absence of sacred items, prioritizing the physical preservation of the object over its role in living cultural traditions. The process can reinforce the idea that source communities are ‘not yet ready’ to curate their own heritage, validating the ‘civilizing’ mission of colonial collectors. To avoid Cultural Imperialism, M’s, P’s and other stakeholders, are urged to: 1. Acknowledge Power Imbalances. 2. Explicitly address historical and systemic inequities. 3. Focus on returning artefacts to their source, rather than just long-term loans, which keeps ownership in the hands of the colonial power. 4. Utilize traditional dispute resolution mechanisms alongside Western legal models. 5. Focus on the ethics of retention and the ‘living’ nature of the Cultural Heritage, rather than simply legal ownership.