Track Two processes were developed to facilitate movement in difficult international conflicts. Since Montville first coined the term, Track Two processes have considered deliberate and strategic ways to bring together adversaries in unofficial, private face-to-face interactions that allow for joint analysis and mutual learning. Such processes create the conditions for more nuanced problem definition and solution exploration. Ideally, these insights are then transferred into official peace processes, policymaking and decision-making. Transfer acknowledges a strategic dimension to planning for change; Track Two approaches abridge and accelerate the long-term accumulation approach by the strategic choice of participants, agenda and goals. This article reviews and summarizes our knowledge to date about how best to encourage Track Two inputs into negotiation and other Track One diplomatic efforts. It then offers a checklist for designing initiatives to best promote both intergroup learning and timely transfer to generate effective change.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Agha, H. S., S. Feldman, A. Khalidi, and Z. Schiff (2004). Track II Diplomacy: Lessons from the Middle East. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Anderson, M. and L. Olson (2003). Confronting War: Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative for Development Action.
Babbitt, Eileen and Tamra Pearson d’Estrée (1996). “An Israeli-Palestinian women’s workshop: Application of the interactive problem-solving approach,” in C. Crocker, editor, Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Bar-Tal, Daniel (2000). Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bar-Tal, Daniel and Phillip L. Hammack (2012). “Conflict, delegitimization, and violence,” in Linda R. Tropp, editor, Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. London: Oxford University Press.
Burton, John W. (1969). Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations. London: Macmillan.
Burton, John W. (1987). Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict: A Handbook. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Burton, John W. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Capie, D. (2010). “When does Track Two matter? Structure, agency and Asian regionalism,” Review of International Political Economy 17, 2.
Carnevale, Peter, R. Lim, and M. McLaughlin M., (1989). “Contingent mediator behavior and effectiveness,” in Kenneth Kressel and Dean G. Pruitt, editors, Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third Party Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chataway, Cynthia J. (1998). “Track II diplomacy: From a Track I perspective,” Negotiation Journal 14: 269–287.
Chataway, Cynthia J. (2002). “The problem of transfer from confidential interactive problem-solving: What is the role of the facilitator?” Political Psychology 23: 15–189.
Chataway, Cynthia (2004). “Assessing the social-psychological support for Kelman’s interactive problem-solving workshops,” in A. Eagly, R. M. Baron and V. L. Hamilton, editors, The Social Psychology of Group Identity and Social Conflict: Theory, Application and Practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chigas, Diana (2007). “Capacities and Limits of NGO as Conflict Managers,” in Chester Crocker, Fen O. Hampson and Pamela Aall, editors, Leashing of the Dogs of War. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Cross, Susan and Robert Rosenthal (1999). “Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup expectancies and attitudes,” Journal of Social Issues 55: 561–580.
Çuhadar, Esra (2004). Evaluating Track Two Diplomacy in Pre-Negotiation, PhD dissertation, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Çuhadar, Esra (2009). “Assessing transfer from Track Two diplomacy: The cases of water and Jerusalem.” Journal of Peace Research 46, 5: 641–658.
Davidson, W. D. and Joseph V. Montville (1981). “Foreign policy according to Freud.” Foreign Policy 45, Winter: 145–157.
Davis, Albie and R. Salem (1984). “Dealing with power imbalance in the mediation of interpersonal disputes.” Mediation Quarterly 6: 17–26.
d’Estrée, Tamra Pearson (2006). “Identifying the impact of interactive conflict resolution: How political influentials create frameworks for peace,” in T. Gärling, G. Backenroth-Ohsako and B. Ekehammar, editors, Diplomacy and Psychology: Prevention of Armed Conflicts after the Cold War. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
d’Estrée, Tamra Pearson (2008). “Problem-solving approaches,” in J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk and I. W. Zartman, editors, Handbook on Conflict Resolution. New York: Sage.
d’Estrée, Tamra Pearson (2012). “Addressing intractable conflict through interactive problem-solving,” in L. Tropp, editor, Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. London: Oxford University Press.
d’Estrée, Tamra Pearson, editor (2019). New Directions in Peacebuilding Evaluation. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
d’Estrée, Tamra Pearson and Eileen Babbitt (1998). “Women and the Art of Peacemaking: Data from Israeli-Palestinian Interactive Problem-Solving Workshops.” Political Psychology 19: 185–209.
d’Estrée, Tamra Pearson, Larissa A. Fast, Joshua N. Weiss and Monika S. Jakobsen (2001). “Changing the debate about ‘success’ in conflict resolution efforts.” Negotiation Journal 17, 2: 101–113.
Diamond, Louise and John McDonald (1996). Multi-track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Doob, Leonard W. (1981). In Pursuit of Peace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Doob, Leonard W. and W. J. Foltz (1973). “The Belfast workshop: An application of group techniques to a destructive conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 17: 489–512.
Doob, Leonard W., W. J. Foltz and R. B. Stevens (1969). “The Fermeda workshop: A different approach to border conflicts in eastern Africa.” Journal of Psychology 73: 249–266.
Fisher, Ronald J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Fisher, Ronald J. (2005). Paving the Way: Contributions of Interactive Conflict Resolution to Peacemaking. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Fisher, Ronald J. (2010). “Challenges of power asymmetry and justice for problem- solving workshops.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflicts 3: 145–161.
Fisher, Ronald J. (1972). “Third party consultation: A method for the study and resolution of conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 16, 1.
Fisher, Ronald J. and Loraleigh Keashly (1991). “The Potential Complementarity of Mediation and Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention.” Journal of Peace Research 28, 1: 29–42.
Fisher, Ronald J. and Loraleigh Keashly (1988). “Third party interventions in intergroup conflict: Consultation is not mediation.” Negotiation Journal 4: 381–393.
Foltz, W. J. (1977). “Two forms of unofficial conflict intervention: The problem-solving and the process-promoting workshops,” in M. R. Berman and J. E. Johnson, editors, Unofficial Diplomats. New York: Columbia University Press.
French, John R.P. and Bertram H. Raven (1959). “The bases of social power,” in Dorwin Cartwright, editor, Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Galtung, Johann (1976). “Three approaches to peace: Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding,” in Johann Galtung, Essays in Peace Research: II. Peace, War, and Defense. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
Hadjipavlou, Maria and B. Kanol (2008). Cumulative Impact Case Study: The Impacts of Peacebuilding Work on the Cyprus Conflict. Cambridge, MA: CDA Collaborative Learning Projects.
Job, Brian (2002). “Track 2 diplomacy: Ideational contribution to the evolving Asia security order,” in M. Alagappa, editor, Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jones, Peter (2015). Track Two Diplomacy in Theory and Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kavaloski, V. C. (1990). “Transnational Citizen Peacemaking as Nonviolent Action.” Peace and Change 1(2).
Keashly, Loraleigh and Ronald J. Fisher (1996). “A contingency perspective on conflict interventions: Theoretical and practical considerations,” in J. Bercovitch, editor, Resolving International Conflicts. London: Lynne Rienner.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1986). “Interactive problem-solving: A social psychological approach to conflict resolution,” in W. Klassen, editor, Dialogue: Toward Interfaith Understanding. Jerusalem: Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1992). “Informal Mediation by the Scholar/Practitioner,” in Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Rubin, editors, Mediation in International Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1993). “Coalitions across conflict lines: The interplay of conflicts within and between the Israeli and Palestinian communities,” in S. Worchel and J. Simpson, editors, Conflict between People and Groups. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1995). “Contributions of an Unofficial Conflict Resolution Effort to the Israeli-Palestinian Breakthrough.” Negotiation Journal 11: 19–27.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1997). “Social-psychological dimensions of international conflict,” in I. W. Zartman and J. L. Rasmussen, editors, Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Kelman, Herbert C. (2008). “Evaluating the contributions of interactive problem- solving to the resolution of ethnonational conflicts.” Peace and Conflict 14: 29–60.
Kelman, Herbert C. (2010). “Interactive problem-solving: Changing political culture in the pursuit of conflict resolution.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 4: 389–413.
Kelman, Herbert C. and Stephen P. Cohen (1976). “The problem-solving workshop: A social-psychological contribution to the resolution of international conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 13: 79–90.
Kelman, Herbert C. and Ronald J. Fisher (2003). “Conflict analysis and resolution,” in David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis, editors, Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kriesberg, Louis (2009). “Changing conflict asymmetries constructively.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 2: 4–22.
Lederach, John Paul (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Lund, Michael S. (1996). Preventing Violent Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Mitchell, Christopher R. (1973). “Conflict resolution and controlled communication: Some further comments.” Journal of Peace Research 10, 1/2: 123–132.
Mitchell, Christopher R. (1981). Peacemaking and the Consultant’s Role. Westmead: Gower.
Mitchell, Christopher R. (2005). “Ending confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia: A pioneering contribution to international problem-solving,” in R. J. Fisher, editor, Paving the Way: Contributions of Interactive Conflict Resolution to Peacemaking. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Mitchell, Christopher R. and M. Banks (1996). Handbook of Conflict Resolution: The Analytical Problem-Solving Approach. London: Pinter.
Montville, Joseph V. (1987). “The arrow and the olive branch: The case for track two diplomacy,” in John W. McDonald and D.B. Bendahmane, editors, Conflict Resolution: Track Two Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute, US Department of State.
Nan, Susan Allen (1999). “Complementarity and Co-ordination of Conflict Resolution Efforts in the Conflicts over Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria.” Ph.D. diss., George Mason University.
Nan, Susan Allen (2010). “The roles of conflict resolution scholars in Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian conflict and conflict resolution.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23: 237–258.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. (1997). “Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23: 173–185.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. (1998). “Intergroup contact theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85.
Pruitt, Dean G. (1997). “Ripeness theory and the Oslo talks.” International Negotiation 2: 237–250.
Pruitt, Dean G. (2002). “Mediator behavior and success in mediation,” in Jacob Bercovitch, editor, Studies in International Mediation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rothman, Jay (1997). Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rouhana, Nadim N. (2000). “Interactive conflict resolution: Issues in theory, methodology, and evaluation,” in P. C. Stern and D. Druckman, editors, International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Saunders, Harold H. (1995). “Possibilities and challenges: Another way to consider unofficial third party intervention.” Negotiation Journal 11: 271–275.
Saunders, Harold H. (1999). A Public Peace Process. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Saunders, Harold H. (2001). A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflict. New York: Palgrave.
Wright, Stephen C., Arthur Aron, Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe Stacy A. Ropp (1997). “The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 73–90.
Zartman, I. William (1987). “The Middle East – The ripe moment?,” in G. Ben-Dor and D. Dewitt, editors, Conflict Management in the Middle East. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Zartman, I. William and Saadia Touval (1985). “International mediation: Conflict resolution and power politics.” Journal of Social Issues 41: 27–45.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 705 | 150 | 13 |
Full Text Views | 145 | 32 | 12 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 338 | 77 | 25 |
Track Two processes were developed to facilitate movement in difficult international conflicts. Since Montville first coined the term, Track Two processes have considered deliberate and strategic ways to bring together adversaries in unofficial, private face-to-face interactions that allow for joint analysis and mutual learning. Such processes create the conditions for more nuanced problem definition and solution exploration. Ideally, these insights are then transferred into official peace processes, policymaking and decision-making. Transfer acknowledges a strategic dimension to planning for change; Track Two approaches abridge and accelerate the long-term accumulation approach by the strategic choice of participants, agenda and goals. This article reviews and summarizes our knowledge to date about how best to encourage Track Two inputs into negotiation and other Track One diplomatic efforts. It then offers a checklist for designing initiatives to best promote both intergroup learning and timely transfer to generate effective change.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 705 | 150 | 13 |
Full Text Views | 145 | 32 | 12 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 338 | 77 | 25 |