z-logo
Premium
Unofficial international conflict resolution: Is there a Track 1½? Are there best practices?
Author(s) -
Nan Susan Allen,
Druckman Daniel,
Horr Jana El
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
conflict resolution quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.323
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 1541-1508
pISSN - 1536-5581
DOI - 10.1002/crq.248
Subject(s) - track (disk drive) , diplomacy , context (archaeology) , conflict resolution , process (computing) , best practice , political science , variety (cybernetics) , set (abstract data type) , public relations , computer science , geography , law , artificial intelligence , programming language , archaeology , politics , operating system
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.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom