Rethinking the role of Track Two diplomacy in conflict resolution: the Democratic Progress Institute’s Turkey programme

References

• Agha, H., S. Feldman, A. Khalidi, and Z. Schiff. 2003. Track Two diplomacy: Lessons from the Middle East. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, N., and T. Sharp. 2017. Process peace: A new evaluation framework for Track Two diplomacy. International Negotiation 22, no. 1: 92–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azar, E.E. 1990. The management of protracted social conflict: Theory and cases. England: Dartmouth.
   Google Scholar
• Beaekgaard, M., J. Christensen, C.M. Dahlmann, A. Mathiasen, and N.B.G. Petersen. 2019. The role of evidence in politics: Motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. British Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3: 1117–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaydes, L., and J. De Maio. 2010. Spoiling the peace? Peace process exclusivity and political violence in North-Central Africa. Civil Wars 12, no. 1–2: 3–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2010.484896.
   Google Scholar
• Burton, J.W. 1969. Conflict and communication: The use of controlled communication in international relations. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Chataway, C.J. 2002. The problem of transfer from confidential interactive problem-solving: What is the role of the facilitator? Political Psychology 23, no. 1: 165–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chigas, D. 2007. Capacities and limits of NGOs as conflict managers. In Leashing the dogs of war: Conflict management in a divided world, ed. C.A. Crocker, F.O. Hampson, and P. Aall, 553–82. Washington, D.C.: USIP.
   Google Scholar
• Chigas, D. 2014. The role and effectiveness of non-governmental third parties in peacebuilding. In Moving toward a just peace: The mediation continuum, ed. J.M. Fritz, 273–216. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cuhadar, E. 2009. Assessing transfer from Track Two diplomacy: The cases of water and Jerusalem. Journal of Peace Research 46, no. 5: 641–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309336706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuhadar, E., and B.W. Dayton. 2012. Oslo and its aftermath: Lessons learned from Track Two diplomacy. Negotiation Journal 28, no. 2: 155–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00333.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darby, J. 2008. Borrowing and lending in peace processes. In Contemporary peacemaking: Conflict, peace processes and post-war reconstruction, ed. R. Mac Ginty and J. Darby, 339–51. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, W.D., and J.V. Montville. 1981. Foreign policy according to Freud. Foreign Policy 45, no. 1: 145–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1148317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davies, J., and E. Kaufman. 2003. Second track/ citizens’ diplomacy: Concepts and techniques for conflict transformation. New York: Raowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Democratic Progress Institute. 2012. DPI roundtable meeting: Constitution making in a divided society. London: Democratic Progress Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Democratic Progress Institute. 2015a. DPI roundtable meeting ‘getting the process back on track’. London: Democratic Progress Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Democratic Progress Institute. 2015b. Getting a process back on track- a continued conversation on international experiences. London: Democratic Progress Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Democratic Progress Institute. 2016. DPI roundtable meeting: ‘Keeping dialogue alive- how to get a process back on track in the aftermath of a major crisis?’ The Irish experience from a gendered perspective. London: Democratic Progress Institute. Our focus areas. http://www.democraticprogress.org/our-focus-areas/
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, L., and J. Mcdonald. 1996. Multi-track diplomacy: A systems approach to peace. Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, L., and R.J. Fisher. 1995. Integrating conflict resolution training and consultation: A Cyprus example. Negotiation Journal 11, no. 3: 287–301. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1995.tb00070.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilek, E., 2019. Reconsidering hybridity: The selective use of international norms in Turkey’s resolution/peace process. PhD diss., Bilkent University.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J.N. 2012. The politics of motivation. Critical Review 24, no. 2: 199–216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2012.711022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. 1997. Interactive conflict resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R.J. 2005. Analyzing successful transfer effects in interactive conflict resolution. In Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking, ed. R.J. Fisher, 1–18. Oxford: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R.J., and L. Keashly. 1991. The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party intervention. Journal of Peace Research 28, no. 1: 29–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343391028001005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie, J.J., L.L. Thompson, J. Lowenstein, and D. Gentner. 1999. Lessons from analogical reasoning in the teaching of negotiation. Negotiation Journal 15, no. 4: 363–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1999.tb00734.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazleton, W.A. 2013. Look at Northern Ireland: Leassons best learned at home. In Lessons from the Northern Ireland peace process, ed. T.J. White, 34–60. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, P. 2015. Track Two diplomacy in theory and practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kadıoğlu, A. 2019. The Oslo talks: Revealing the Turkish government’s secret negotiations with the PKK. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 42, no. 10: 915–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1430658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaye, D.D. 2007. Talking to the enemy: Track Two diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia. Pittsburgh: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Kelman, H.C. 1979. An interactional approach to conflict resolution and its application to the Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough. International Interactions 6: 99–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03050627908434527.
   Google Scholar
• Kelman, H.C. 1996. The interactive problem-solving approach. In Managing global chaos: Sources of and responses to international conflict, ed. C.A. Crocker and P. Aall, 501–19. Washington D.C.: USIP Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelman, H.C. 1997. Group processes in the resolution of international conflicts: Experiences from the Israeli-Palestinian case. American Psychologist 52, no. 3: 212–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.3.212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelman, H.C. 2006. The problem-solving workshop in conflict resolution. In Conflict resolution, ed. D. Druckman and P.F. Diehl, 78–107. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, M., and A. Özerdem. 2004. Guns, camps and cash: Disarmament, demobilization and reinsertion of former combatants in transitions from war to peace. Journal of Peace Research 41, no. 4: 499–516. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343304044479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108, no. 3: 480–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederach, J.P. 1997. Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington D.C.: USIP Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lederach, J.P. 1999. Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenstein, J., L.L. Thompson, and D. Gentner. 2003. Analogical learning in negotiation teams: Comparing cases promotes learning and transfer. Academy of Management Learning and Education 2, no. 2: 119–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2003.9901663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, C., and M. Banks. 1996. Handbook of conflict resolution: The analytical problem-solving approach. New York: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. 2020a. Comparative consultation: The theory and practice of ‘sharing lessons’ between peace processes. Cooperation and Conflict 56, no. 1: 65-82.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. 2020b. Learning from a peace process: Theory, practice, and the case of Northern Ireland. Government and Opposition ( online first publication): 1–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2020.6.
   Google Scholar
• Nadler, J., L.L. Thompson, and L. Van Boven. 2003. Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science 49, no. 4: 529–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.529.14431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nan, S.A. 2005. Track one-and-a-half diplomacy: Contributions to Georgian-South Ossetian peacemaking. In Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking, ed. R.J. Fisher, 161–74. Oxford: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Paffenholz, T., and C. Spurk. 2010. A comprehensive analytical framework. In Civil society & peacebuilding: A critical assessment, ed. T. Paffenholz, 65–76. London: Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson D’estrée, T. 2009. Problem-solving approaches. In The sage handbook of conflict resolution, ed. J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, and W.I. Zartman, 143–71. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Rouhana, N.N. 2000. Interactive conflict resolution: Issues in theory, methodology, and evaluation. In International conflict resolution after the Cold War, ed. P.C. Stern and D. Druckman, 294–337. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, H.H. 2000. Interactive conflict resolution: A view for policy makers on making and building peace. In International conflict resolution after the Cold War, ed. P.C. Stern and D. Druckman, 251–93. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uluğ, Ö.M., and C.J. Cohrs. 2016. An exploration of lay people’s Kurdish conflict frames in Turkey. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 22, no. 2: 109–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uluğ, Ö.M., and C.J. Cohrs. 2017. How do experts differ from politicians in understanding a conflict? A comparison of track I and track II actors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 35, no. 2: 147–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar