In the article, an attempt is made to interpret various practices of mediation from the point of view of communication theory. This allows to give a broader context to the understanding of essence of conflict and technologies of conflict-solving. The author identifies three primary paradigms of analysis of communication that are formed on the basis of three types of rationality, which are represented in modern science. They are classical paradigm (the understanding of communication as an exchange of information), non-classical paradigm (the understanding of communication as an interaction of subjects, which results in the production of common meanings and imports), post-non-classical paradigm (the understanding of communication as a process of constructing symbolic meanings in the process of interaction of these meanings). These paradigms are viewed as interconnected but at the same time they complexify sequentially. The most common models of mediation were systematized in accordance with the way they understood communication and management of communicative processes. The classical paradigm corresponds with directive and evaluative mediation in which the leading role of mediator in management of the content of the process and organization of the procedure, in elimination of informational and semantical noises for rational conflict resolution is actualized. Non-classical paradigm is represented by such models of mediation as humanistic, client-centered, facilitative and transformative that are orientated on working with the participants (subjects) of a conflict, on creating cognitive and psychological conditions for uncovering true intentions of the parties and independent production of inter-acceptable resolution by the parties. Post-non-classical paradigm corresponds with narrative model of mediation, in which the work of the mediator is orientated on the work with meanings, with deconstruction of the old and construction of the new narratives for conflict resolution.