Comparative analysis of psychological research on the role of the third party in conflicts in Russian and foreign traditions is presented in this article. The author's classification of the third party’s intervention strategies in a conflict based on two criteria is discussed. The first criterion is a degree of the third party’s activity in a conflict. The second criterion is the aspect which third party emphasizes in the process of solving a conflict - the relations between disputants and their emotions, or the result of a conflict. Hence, a classification of the third party’s intervention strategies in solving interpersonal conflicts can be presented. For example, when a third party’s activity is high and the third party emphasizes the relations between disputants and their emotions in the process of solving a conflict, the third party’s intervention strategies are facilitative, evaluative, transformative, as well as mediation strategies. When the third party’s activity is high and the third party emphasizes the outcome of a conflict, the third party’s intervention strategies are pressing, directive, arbitration, problem-solving, and deal-making. Then, when the third party’s activity is low and the third party emphasizes the relations between disputants and their emotions in the process of solving conflicts, the third party’s intervention strategies are differentiated, narrative, storytelling, and understanding-based. Finally, when third party’s activity is low and the third party emphasizes the result of a conflict, the third party’s intervention strategies are analytic, neutral, strategic, pragmatic, as well as orchestration strategies. Different strategies of third-party intervention in a conflict and their efficiency are analyzed.