© The Author(s) 2014. Research on third parties’ conflict management has traditionally proposed a stark dichotomy between neutral mediators and non-neutral military joiners. Recent studies have blurred this dichotomy but have not investigated joiners’ use of techniques other than military action. Using data from Corbetta and Dixon (2005) on non-neutral interventions in post-Second World War interstate disputes, this paper explores non-neutral third parties’ choice of diplomatic, economic or military intervention techniques. It hypothesizes that such a choice is a function of third parties’ intensity of preferences for one side in conflict and antagonism toward the other side, which result from social proximity to the disputants.