RESEARCH

1. Comparative Efficacy: Virtual vs. Physical Modalities

How do the affordances of e-diplomacy compare to traditional in-person engagement within a Track II context? We aim to move beyond simple "pros and cons" to analyze the two formats. This includes evaluating the trade-offs between the accessibility and scalability of digital platforms versus the privacy and intimacy of physical venues. Does the removal of logistical barriers in virtual settings outweigh the potential loss of interpersonal nuance?

2. Trust, Generational Fluency, and Best Practices
Under what conditions can digital platforms successfully foster the trust required for conflict transformation? Conventional diplomatic wisdom posits that deep trust is exclusively forged in private, face-to-face settings, which is a view held by many senior practitioners. However, this orthodoxy is challenged by "digital native" and "Zoom native" cohorts for whom virtual interaction is intuitive and legitimate. We investigate this generational divergence in diplomatic practice:
Adaptation: How must traditional mediation techniques (elicitive vs. prescriptive) be modified for a digital interface?
Scope: Which categories of conflict (e.g., trade disputes vs. armed proxy wars) are amenable to virtual intervention?

3. Academic Freedom as a Diplomatic Vehicle
How can the principle of academic freedom facilitate dialogue between nations in active conflict? Academics—ranging from scientists to former officials—often serve as the backbone of Track II initiatives. We examine the unique utility of academic freedom as a mechanism to bypass political gridlock. To what extent does the "scholar-diplomat" enjoy a privileged space for mutual problem-solving that state actors do not? Conversely, where are the ethical and practical limits of using academic inquiry as a cover for sensitive political negotiation?

4. Artificial Intelligence in Conflict Problem-Solving
Can AI agents and simulations enhance the cognitive diversity and predictive power of Track II dialogues? Expanding on research into complex negotiation systems (such as that by Claude Bruderlein at Harvard), we explore the integration of AI into the "mutual problem-solving" phase of Track II diplomacy.
Augmentation: Can AI be used to generate novel solution sets that human participants might overlook due to cognitive bias or the lack of more time for problem solving?
Simulation: How effective are AI-driven simulations of "contact groups" in predicting the outcomes of actual human dialogues? As such, how effective are they in training contact group secretariats or mediators? 
 

5. Feasibility Assessments in Active Conflicts
Which contemporary conflicts demonstrate the highest potential for de-escalation via Track II e-diplomacy? Utilizing data from subject matter experts and citizen diplomats with ground-level access, this pillar aims to map the viability of digital intervention. We seek to identify specific and current conflict theaters where physical access is less ideal, but digital channels remain open, while cataloging the necessary security precautions and ethical guardrails for engaging in these volatile digital environments. We aim at providing commentary on all current interstate conflicts that Track II e-diplomacy can address (e.g., India-Pakistan, Turkey-Greece, Ukraine-Russia, Russia-West, China-West, Iran-US, Iran-Israel, Thailand and Cambodia). 
 

6. The "Transfer" Problem: Institutionalizing the Track II–Track I Interface
How can Foreign Ministries worldwide systematically integrate the insights generated by digital Track II initiatives? A persistent challenge in unofficial diplomacy is the "transfer" of consensus recommendations to official government policy. We investigate mechanisms to formalize this pipeline, such as creating dedicated digital channels for the submission of contact group recommendations. How can we construct better diplomatic-academic frameworks that allow Foreign Ministries to harvest the intellectual problem solving capital generated in Track II sessions without compromising the unofficial nature of the talks?