Unofficial International Conflict Resolution: Is There a Track 1 1 /2? Are There Best Practices? SUSAN ALLEN NAN DANIEL DRUCKMAN JANA EL HORR Analysis of twenty-four cases of unofficial international conflict resolu- tion initiatives, done according to similarities across seven variables, shows that the practice of “Track 1 1 /2” 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 1 1 /2 process-focused, Track 1 1 /2 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. P eaceful resolution of international conflict is the objective of both offi- cial and unofficial diplomacy. The distinction between Track 1 and 2 diplomacy, as introduced by Davidson and Montville (1981–82), captures the idea that these are parallel forms of intervention. Track 1 practitioners are foreign service professionals who primarily implement the policies of their governments; they are representatives of the state. Track 2 practition- ers, on the other hand, are citizens from a variety of sectors who consult with parties on all sides of a dispute; they are nonstate actors. These practices have developed separately, as have the corresponding academic CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 1, Fall 2009 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 65 and the Association for Conflict Resolution • DOI: 10.1002/crq.248