The term regional security dialogue brings to mind state-organised conferences and events; however, an under-appreciated subset of such dialogues are organised by non-state actors that have unique formal aspects. These quasi-formal dialogues operate alongside, and sometimes in competition to, state-sanctioned processes. Why do some of these forums appear to be more effective at fostering regional dialogue than strictly formal or informal processes with the same goals? Drawing from heterogenous discourse approaches, we address this question by identifying and expanding the concept of the quality of discursive space, as a key feature for the success of security dialogues. We then apply this concept to two of the most successful so-called Track 1.5 security dialogues: the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Europe and the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) in Asia. We analyse these cases using a mix of interviews with participants and organisers, participant observation, and public outputs with the aim of improving the understanding of the role and impact of Track 1.5 diplomacy in the practice of international security. Our findings highlight that it is what we call the quality of discursive space, as a mix of different components in this space, which differentiates effective dialogues from mere policy ‘talk shops’.

中文翻译：

---

欧洲和亚洲的区域安全对话：Track 1.5 论坛在国际安全实践中的作用

区域安全对话一词让人想起国家组织的会议和活动；然而，此类对话中的一小部分是由具有独特形式方面的非国家行为者组织的。这些准正式的对话与国家批准的程序并驾齐驱，有时甚至与之竞争。为什么其中一些论坛在促进区域对话方面似乎比具有相同目标的严格的正式或非正式进程更有效？借鉴异质话语方法，我们通过识别和扩展概念来解决这个问题话语空间的质量，作为安全对话成功的关键特征。然后，我们将这一概念应用于两个最成功的所谓 Track 1.5 安全对话：欧洲的慕尼黑安全会议 (MSC) 和亚洲的香格里拉对话 (SLD)。我们通过对参与者和组织者的采访、参与者观察和公共输出来分析这些案例，旨在提高对 1.5 轨道外交在国际安全实践中的作用和影响的理解。我们的研究结果强调，这就是我们所说的质量话语空间，作为该空间中不同组成部分的混合，将有效对话与单纯的政策“谈话商店”区分开来。