Unofficial international conflict resolution: Is there a Track 1½? Are there best practices?

Abstract

Analysis of twenty‐four cases of unofficial international conflict resolution initiatives, done according to similarities across seven variables, shows that the practice of “Track 1½” diplomacy is distinct from Track 2 diplomacy. Furthermore, these initiatives are distinguished by their focus on process or diverse goals. Multidimensional scaling organized the cases into four groupings of similar initiatives: Track 1½ process‐focused, Track 1½ diversified, Track 2 process‐focused, and Track 2 diversified. The variety of approaches used in these twenty‐four cases of high‐quality international conflict resolution initiatives suggests best practices. These practices should be considered sensitive to context rather than a standard set of procedures used regardless of conflict environment.

Explaining Expulsions of U.S. Diplomatic Personnel from Latin America, 1991–2016

“…The Vienna Convention, and the general norms concerning diplomatic missions, has been identified as a type of “track‐one” diplomacy (see Wilson, ; Schaub, ), the conventional form of diplomatic relations. Murray (, p. 22) observes that track‐one diplomacy covers issues “…where the state endures as the only diplomatic actor of significance.” More recently, scholars have discussed the growth of “track‐two diplomacy,” which includes non‐state actors engaging transnationally with diplomats, citizens, and a variety of other actors in the international system (Nan, Druckman & El‐Horr, ; Schiff, ). Closely associated is the concept of “…[t]rack‐three [diplomatic] activities…as unofficial interventions at the grass‐roots level aimed at bringing people together across conflict lines and designed to promote peace in a state of conflict” (Chigas, , pp.…”

“…In the recent international relations literature, track one diplomacy has received less attention than the other tracks (Davidson & Montville, ; Chataway, ; Murray, ; Nan, Druckman & El‐Horr, ; Schiff, ). Likewise, as a form of track one diplomacy, diplomatic expulsion has not received much attention in the existing literature.…”

Innovations in Doing Conflict Research: The Legacy of Daniel Druckman

“…Our analysis of characteristics of conflict resolution initiatives showed that track one and a half diplomacy does indeed stand out from other types of initiatives as a unique approach. We published that article in Conflict Resolution Quarterly, when I was publishing under my previous name Allen Nan (Nan, Druckman, & El Horr, 2009).…”

Talking with al Qaeda: Is There a Role for Track Two?

“…Kelman and Fisher have defined specific types and kinds (see Kelman 1996;Fisher 1997), while others have developed models which stress the concept of a peace process as the sum of activities on different levels (see Diamond & McDonald 1996;Saunders 1996). Nan and others have developed the concept of "Track One and a Half" -unofficial dialogues within which all or most of the participants are officials participating in their "private capacities," and rely on a third party to facilitate in secrecy (Nan, Druckman & El Horr 2009). Chigas (2007 has explored the idea that different kinds of activities taking place under the name 'Track Two' have different audiences and objectives -some aimed at Track One, while others (which Chigas and others have called "Track Three") are oriented towards influencing civil society, often as a means to bring about changes in policies, or even in governments.…”