Abstract
The issue of rapprochement between former adversaries has received scant scholarly attention meaning there is little understanding of why some foes reconcile quickly, while others remain hostile for decades. Moreover, a specific facet of reconciliation, diplomatic normalization, while a crucial part of diplomacy, has not been explained by scholarly work. This study advances research on diplomatic normalization while proposing a novel theory of reconciliation involving Kantian elements: commerce, democracy, and law. Specifically, the paper proposes that significant economic incentives generate domestic lobbies in favour of normalization, while democratic norms and international institutions generate trust and transparency. This theory is tested on a new dataset that includes all potential cases of reconciliation after warfare since World War II. Survival analysis shows that market size, shared democracy, and joint international organization membership are significantly related to faster reconciliation. The causal mechanisms are examined in a case study of US—Vietnamese rapprochement. The policy implications for these findings and the limitations for political leaders are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Appendix 2 for details on the differences between the two datasets.
In instances where states fought more than one war, the period under study begins with the conclusion of the first conflict and continues until normalization. In the case of India-Pakistan, normalization occurred between conflicts, meaning three separate dyads were included in the data (see Appendix 1).
A trichotomous scale was also tried but did not resolve collinearity issues. Moving the cut-point from the fiftieth percentile to the fortieth did not substantively change the results.
The count variable of IO memberships correlates with trade dependence at .51, land border at .5, and war over territory at .43.
Specifically, this variable receives a one when the “durable” variable in Polity is zero.
An anonymous reviewer made the helpful suggestion to include this variable.
I wish to thank an anonymous review for suggesting including this variable.
In alternative tests, where territory, land border, and trade dependence were all removed due to high correlation (> 0.5), a count version of shared IO membership led to a 4% increase in the likelihood of normalization for each shared membership.
Unfortunately, this model requires shared IO membership to be removed in order to achieve convergence and only has 375 observations across 15 dyads.
It is also important to note that all these numbers proceed the USA extending Normal Trade Relations (NTR) to Vietnam in December 2001, which caused trade volume to double in one year.
References
Akcinaroglu, S., J.M. DiCicco, and E. Radziszewski. 2011. Avalanches and Olive Branches: A Multimethod Analysis of Disasters and Peacemaking in Interstate Rivalries. Political Research Quarterly 64: 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909358581.
Argentina, Kingdom, U., 1989. Letter dated 24 October 1989 from the Permanent Representatives of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.
Barbieri, K. 1996. Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate CONFlict? Journal of Peace Research 33: 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033001003.
Baumgartner, F.R., and B.L. Leech. 2001. Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics. J. Polit. 63: 1191–1213.
Bennett, D.S. 1997. Measuring Rivalry Termination, 1816–1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 227–254.
Ben-Shabbat, M. and D. Aaronson. 2022. The Abraham Accords, Two Years On: Impressive Progress, Multiple Challenges, and Promising Potential. Institute for National Security Studies.
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., and B.S. Jones. 2003. Timing and Political Change: Event History Models in Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., D. Reiter, and C. Zorn. 2003. Nonproportional Hazards and Event History Analysis in International Relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47: 33–53.
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., and B.S. Jones. 1997. Time is of the Essence: Event History Models in Political Science. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 1414–1461.
Brown, F. 2000. The United States and Vietnam. In Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions and Foreign Policy, ed. R.N. Haass and M.L. O’Sullivan, 137–158. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Brown, F.Z., 1997. U.S.-Vietnam Normalization—Past, Present, Future, in: Morley, J., Nishihara, M. (Eds.), Vietnam Joins the World. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 200–224.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., J. Morrow, R.M. Siverson, and A. Smith. 1999. An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93: 791–807.
Defense Manpower Data Center. n.d. “Defense Casualties Analysis System 2.1.00.” Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense. Accessed July 2, 2014. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/casualties.xhtml.
Childress, R.T., and S.J. Solarz. 1998. Vietnam: Detours on the Road to Normalization. In Reversing Relations with Former Adversaries, ed. C.R. Nelson and K. Weisbrode, 88–125. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Chou, D.S. 1984. Tokyo’s Relations with Taipei and Peking Since 1972. Asian Perspectives 8: 246–267.
Colaresi, M. 2005. Scare Tactics: The Politics of International Rivalry. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Colaresi, M., K. Rasler, and W. Thompson. 2007. Strategic Rivalries in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Copeland, D. 1999. Trade Expectations and the Outbreak of Peace: Detente 1970–74 and the End of the Cold War 1985–91. Security Studies 9: 15–58.
Cox, E., 2010. Why Enduring Rivalries Do - or Don’t - End. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.
Dafoe, A., Liu, S., O’Keefe, B., Weiss, J.C., 2022. Provocation, Public Opinion, and International Disputes: Evidence from China. Int. Stud. Q. 66, sqac006. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac006
DiCicco, J.M. 2011. Fear, Loathing, and Cracks in Reagan’s Mirror Images: Able Archer 83 and an American First Step toward Rapprochement in the Cold War. Foreign Policy Analysis 7: 253–274.
Diehl, P.F. 1998. The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Diehl, P., and G. Goertz. 2001. War and Peace in International Rivalry. University of Michigan Press.
Diem, B., and W. Alpert. 2005. Toward a Market Economy in Vietnam, in: Alpert, W. (Ed.), The Vietnamese Economy and Its Transformation to an Open Market System. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 3–12.
DiFilippo, A. 2018. Cold war Stasis. North Korean Review 14: 64–86.
Dixon, W.J. 1993. Democracy and the Management of International Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 42–68.
Douglas, S., J. Tir, S. Philip, and G. Charles. 2002. The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19: 59–68.
Doyle, M. 1981. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Parts I and II: Philos. Public Aff.
Doyle, M. 1986. Liberalism in World Politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 80: 1151–1169.
Dreyer, D.R. 2012. Issue Intractability and the Persistence of International Rivalry. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29: 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894212449090.
Ekman, A., E. Atanassova-Cornelis, K. Brown, M. Duchâtel, M. Huotari, M. Makocki, C. Parton, F.-P. van der Putten, K. Shi-Kupfer, and G. Wacker. 2017. Foreign Policy: The Domestic Drivers, Chinese futures: European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).
Fearon, J. 1995. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49: 379–414.
Fischer, C. 2012. The Failed European Union: Franco-German Relations during the Great Depression of 1929–32. The International History Review 34: 705–724.
Forte, R., and N. Santos. 2015. A Cluster Analysis of FDI in Latin America. Lat. Am. J. Econ. 52: 25–56.
Fortna, V.P. 2003. Scraps of paper? Agreements and the Durability of Peace. International Organization 57: 337–372.
Galtung, J. 1969. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research 6: 167–191.
Gandhi, J., and E. Lust-Okar. 2009. Elections Under Authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 403–422.
Garrison, J.A. 2000. Framing the National Interest in U.S.-China Relations: Building Consensus Around Rapprochement. Asian Perspectives 24: 103–134.
Gartzke, E. 2007. The Capitalist Peace. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51: 166–191.
Gartzke, E., Q. Li, and C. Boehmer. 2001. Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict. International Organization 55: 391–438.
Gleditsch, K.S. 2002. Expanded Trade and GDP Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46: 712–724.
Goertz, G., and P.F. Diehl. 1995. The Initiation and Termination of Enduring Rivalries: The Impact of Political Shocks. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 39: 30–52.
Goertz, G., P.F. Diehl, anb A. Balas. 2016. The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System. Oxford University Press.
Gökatalay, S. 2019. Turkey’s Attempts to Improve its Reputation During the Making of the Post-war Turkish-American Rapprochement (1945–1950). Turkish Studies 20: 754–775.
Greig, J.M. 2001. Moments of Opportunity: Recognizing Conditions of Ripeness for International Mediation between Enduring Rivals. Journal of Conflict Resolution 45: 691–718.
Greig, J.M., and P.F. Diehl. 2006. Softening Up: Making Conflicts More Amenable to Diplomacy. Int. Interact. 32: 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620601011032.
Hess, G. 1998. Vietnam and the United States. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Holsti, K. 1991. Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648–1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huth, P. 1996. Standing your ground: Territorial disputes and international conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Huth, P. 1999. Enduring Rivalries and Territorial Disputes, 1950–1990. In A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, ed. P. Diehl, 37–72. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Jackson, V. 2018. Threat Consensus and Rapprochement Failure: Revisiting the Collapse of US–North Korea Relations, 1994–2002. Foreign Policy Analysis 14: 235–253.
Kant, I. 1795. To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophic Sketch, in: Humphrey, T. (Tran.), Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis.
Klein, J.P., G. Goertz, and P.F. Diehl. 2008. The Peace Scale: Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Non-rivalry and Peace. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25: 67–80.
Kolodziej, E., and I.W. Zartman. 1996. Coping with Conflict After the Cold War. In Coping with Conflict: A Global Approach, ed. E. Kolodziej and I.W. Zartman, 3–32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Koubi, V. 2005. War and Economic Performance. Journal of Peace Research 42: 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343305049667.
Kupchan, C. 2010. How Enemies Become Friends. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lee, B.K. 2023. Triangles, Major Powers, and Rivalry Duration. Journal of Conflict Resolution 67: 1128–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221134781.
Lee, B.K., S.M. Mitchell, C.J. Schmidt, and Y. Yang. 2022. Disasters and the Dynamics of Interstate Rivalry. Journal of Peace Research 59: 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211063333.
Levitsky, S. and L.A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
Levitsky, S., and L.A. Way. 2002. Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 13: 51–65.
Li, X., and D. Chen. 2021. Public Opinion, International Reputation, and Audience Costs in an Authoritarian Regime. Conflict Management and Peace Science 38: 543–560.
Li, Q., and M. Wen. 2005. The Immediate and Lingering Effects of Armed Conflict on Adult Mortality: A Time-Series Cross-National Analysis. Journal of Peace Research 42: 471–492.
Maoz, Z., and B.D. Mor. 2002. Bound by Struggle: The Strategic Evolution of Enduring International Rivalries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Marshall, M. and J., 2001. Polity IV: Political Regime Change and Transitions, 1800–2001. Integrated Network for Societal Conflict Research (INSCR) Program, University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Mattes, M., and J.L. Weeks. 2019. Hawks, Doves, and Peace: An Experimental Approach. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 63: 53–66.
Millwood, P. 2019. (Mis) perceptions of Domestic Politics in the US-China Rapprochement, 1969–1978. Diplomatic History 43: 890–915.
Nation, R.C., 2003. Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, WAR IN THE BALKANS, 1991–2002. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
Oneal, J.R., and B.M. Russet. 1997. The Classical Liberals were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985. International Studies Quarterly 41: 267–293.
Oneal, J.R., and B. Russett. 1999. Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict. Journal of Peace Research 36: 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343399036004003.
Organski, A.F.K., and J. Kugler. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Owen, J. 1994. How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security 19: 87–125.
Pei, M. 2014. Exploring Emerging Domestic Drivers of Chinese Foreign Policy. German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Pevehouse, J.C., T. Nordstrom, R.W. McManus, and A.S. Jamison. 2020. Tracking Organizations in the World: The correlates of War IGO Version 3.0 Datasets. Journal of Peace Research 57: 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319881175.
Pham, C.D., and D.V. Le. 2003. A Decade of Doi Moi in Retrospect: 1989-99. In The Vietnamese Economy, ed. B. Tran-Nam and C.D. Pham, 30–52. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Rooney, B. 2018. Sources of Leader Support and Interstate Rivalry. Int. Interact. 44: 969–983.
Russett, B. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Russett, B. 1996. Why Democratic Peace. In Debating the Democratic Peace, ed. M. Brown, S. Lynn-Jones, and S. Miller, 82–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Russett, B.M., and J.R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.
Sarkees, M.R., and F.W. Wayman. 2010. Resort to War: a Data Guide to Inter-State, Extra-State, Intra-State, and Non-State Wars, 1816–2007. CQ Press.
Saunders, R.J. 2023. A Certain Gamble: Institutional Change, Leader Turnover, and Their Effect on Rivalry Termination. Conflict Management and Peace Science 40: 281–303.
Schellhorn, K.M. 1992. Political and Economic Reforms in Vietnam. Contemp. Southeast Asia 14: 231–243.
Simmons, B.A. 2005. Rules over Real Estate: Trade, Territorial Conflict, and International Borders as Institution. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49: 823–848.
Singer, J.D. 1987. Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985. Int. Interact. 14: 115–132.
Singer, J.D., S. Bremer, and J. Stuckey. 1972. Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965. In Peace, War, and Numbers, ed. B. Russett, 19–48. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Solomon, R.H. 2000. Exiting Indochina: U.S. Leadership of the Cambodia Settlement and Normalization with Vietnam. United States Institute of Peace, Washington D.C.
Sutter, R.G. 1998. Normalization with China. In Reversing Relations with Former Adversaries, ed. C.R. Nelson and K. Weisbrode, 44–65. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Tho, T.V. 2003. Economic Development in Vietnam During the Second Half of the Twentieth Century. In The Vietnamese Economy, ed. B. Tran-Nam and C.D. Pham, 15–29. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Thompson, W. 1999. Why Rivalries Matter and What Great Power Rivalries Can Tell Us about World Politics. In Great Power Rivalries, ed. W. Thompson, 3–30. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Thompson, W.R. 2001. Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics. International Studies Quarterly 45: 557–586.
Tucker, N.B. 2005. Taiwan Expendable? Nixon and Kissinger Go to China. The Journal of American History 92: 109–135.
United States Census Bureau, 2014. Trade in Goods with Vietnam. Washington, D.C.
Vasquez, J. 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vasquez, J., and M.T. Henehan. 2001. Territorial Disputes and the Probability of War, 1816–1992. Journal of Peace Research 38: 123–138.
Vasquez, J. 1993. The War Puzzle, Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Wälde, T.W., and A. McHardy. 1996. Argentina-United Kingdom: Joint Declaration on Cooperation Over Offshore Activities in the South West Atlantic. International Legal Materials 35: 301–308.
Weeks, J. 2008. Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve. International Organization 62: 35–64.
Werner, S. 1999. The Precarious Nature of Peace: Resolving the Issues, Enforcing the Settlement, and Renegotiating the Terms. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 912–934.
Williams, P. 2004. Who’s Making UK Foreign Policy? Int. Aff. r. Inst. Int. Aff. 1944–80: 911–929.
Wolfenson, G.F. 1987. Argentina: Democracy and International Relations. PS 20: 679–684. https://doi.org/10.2307/419350.
Woosang, K. 1993. South Korea’s Diplomatic Normalization with China and Its Impact on Old Ties Between South Korea and Taiwan. J. East Asian Aff. 7: 371–403.
World Bank, 2014. WITS: World Integrated Trade Solution. Washington, DC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
State 1 | State 2 | War | Diplomatic relations end | Diplomatic relations resume |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Israel | Egypt | Arab–Israeli/ Sinai/ Six-Day/ War of Attrition/ Yom Kippur War | 1948 | 1980 |
Jordan | Israel | Arab–Israeli/ Six-Day/ Yom Kippur War | 1948 | 1995 |
Syria | Israel | Arab–Israeli/ Six-Day/ Yom Kippur/ War over Lebanon | 1948 | – |
Iraq | Israel | Arab–Israeli/ Yom Kippur War | 1948 | – |
India | China | Assam | 1962 | 1976 |
Armenia | Azerbaijan | Azeri-Armenian | 1992 | – |
Ethiopia | Eritrea | Badme Border | 1998 | – |
India | Pakistan | Bangladesh | 1971 | 1977 |
Bosnia | Yugoslavia | Bosnian Independence | 1992 | 1996 |
Croatia | Yugoslavia | Bosnian Independence | 1992 | 1996 |
UK | Argentina | Falkland Islands War | 1982 | 1990 |
El Salvador | Honduras | Football War | 1969 | 1982 |
Canada | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 2004 |
Egypt | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 2001 |
France | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 2004 |
Kuwait | Iraq | Gulf War | 1990 | 2004 |
Morocco | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 1991 |
Oman | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 1991 |
Saudi Arabia | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | – |
Syria | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 2007 |
United Arab Emirates | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 1991 |
USA | Iraq | Gulf War | 1991 | 2004 |
UK | Iraq | Gulf War/ Invasion of Iraq | 1991 | 2004 |
France | Morocco | Ifni War | 1958 | 1958 |
Spain | Morocco | Ifni War | 1957 | 1958 |
Canada | Afghanistan | Invasion of Afghanistan | 2001 | 2002 |
France | Afghanistan | Invasion of Afghanistan | 2001 | 2002 |
USA | Afghanistan | Invasion of Afghanistan | 2001 | 2002 |
Australia | Iraq | Invasion of Iraq | 2003 | 2004 |
Iran | Iraq | Iran-Iraq War | 1980 | 1991 |
India | Pakistan | Kargil War | 1999 | 2001 |
Australia | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1972 |
Australia | PR Korea | Korean War | 1950 | 2000 |
Belgium | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1972 |
Belgium | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | 2001 |
Canada | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1970 |
Canada | PR Korea | Korean War | 1950 | 2001 |
Colombia | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1981 |
Colombia | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | 1989 |
Ethiopia | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1971 |
Ethiopia | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | 1975 |
France | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1964 |
France | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | – |
Greece | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1972 |
Greece | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | 2001 |
Netherlands | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1953 |
Netherlands | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | 2001 |
Philippines | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1975 |
Philippines | PR Korea | Korean War | 1950 | 2000 |
Republic of Korea | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1992 |
Republic of Korea | PR Korea | Korean War | 1950 | – |
Thailand | China | Korean War | 1951 | 1975 |
Thailand | PR Korea | Korean War | 1951 | 1975 |
Turkey | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1975 |
Turkey | PR Korea | Korean War | 1950 | 2001 |
UK | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1953 |
UK | PR Korea | Korean War | 1950 | 2000 |
USA | China | Korean War | 1950 | 1979 |
Taiwan | China | Off-shore Islands/ Taiwan Straits | 1954 | – |
India | Pakistan | Second Kashmir | 1965 | 1966 |
Laos | DR Vietnam | Second Laotian | 1968 | 1973 |
Cuba | Somalia | Second Ogaden | 1977 | 1990 |
Ethiopia | Somalia | Second Ogaden | 1977 | 1988 |
France | Egypt | Sinai War | 1956 | 1964 |
UK | Egypt | Sinai War | 1956 | 1960 |
China | DR Vietnam | Sino-Vietnamese Putative/Border War | 1979 | 1991 |
Hungary | USSR | Soviet Invasion of Hungary | 1956 | 1956 |
Turkey | Cyprus | Turco-Cypriot War | 1974 | – |
Libya | Tanzania | Ugandan-Tanzanian | 1978 | 1979 |
Uganda | Tanzania | Ugandan-Tanzanian | 1978 | 1980 |
Australia | DR Vietnam | Vietnam War | 1965 | 1973 |
Philippines | DR Vietnam | Vietnam War | 1966 | 1976 |
Republic of Korea | PR Vietnam | Vietnam War | 1965 | 1993 |
USA | DR Vietnam | Vietnam War | 1965 | 1995 |
DR Vietnam | Cambodia | Vietnam War/ Veitnamese Cambodian | 1970 | 1979 |
France | Yugoslavia | War for Kosovo | 1999 | 2000 |
Germany | Yugoslavia | War for Kosovo | 1999 | 2000 |
Italy | Yugoslavia | War for Kosovo | 1999 | 2000 |
Netherlands | Yugoslavia | War for Kosovo | 1999 | 2000 |
UK | Yugoslavia | War for Kosovo | 1999 | 2000 |
Angola | DR Congo | War over Angola | 1975 | 1978 |
Angola | South Africa | War over Angola | 1975 | 1992 |
Cuba | DR Congo | War over Angola | 1975 | 1979 |
Cuba | South Africa | War over Angola | 1975 | 1994 |
Chad | Libya | War over the Aouzou Strip | 1986 | 1988 |
Saudi Arabia | Israel | Yom Kippur War | 1973 | – |
Appendix 2
(See Table 6).
Appendix 3
Data sources and coding
Coding
The variable diplomatic rapprochement covers all countries involved in international conflict between 1945 and 2010, based on the Correlates of War Project (Sarkees and Wayman 2010). The unit of analysis in this study is dyad-year, yielding 86 dyads and 1,798 observations. Since diplomatic rapprochement requires both states to reach an agreement over mutual recognition, the dyadic approach makes the most sense.
While dyads enter the dataset when conflicts begin, duration of lack of diplomatic relations does not start until hostilities end according to Correlates of War. The duration of estrangement is from the end of hostilities until full diplomatic relations are mutually restored. In the dataset this varies from zero to 62, mean that in some instances diplomatic relations are restored as soon as or shortly after fighting ends. In all instances, diplomatic recognition was mutual and occurred at the same time.
India and Pakistan represent the sole dyad where diplomatic relations were broken and restored more than once. Therefore, the countries were treated as three separate dyads with each period between the breaking and restoration of relations counted separately.
Sources
Bayer, Resat. 2006. “Diplomatic Exchange Data Set, v2006.1” Online: http://correlatesofwar.org
Europa World Year Book.
Statesman’s Year-Book.
In instances of ambiguity of missing information in the above sources, specific countries’ foreign ministries were consulted.
Government of Canada | |
United States State Department | |
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Philippines Embassy in China | http://www.philembassychina.org/index.php? option = com_content&view = article&id = 8&Itemid = 6&lang = en |
Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs | |
Vietnam Embassy in Thailand | |
Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
National Committee of North Korea | http://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations |
Greece Ministry of Foreign Affairs | https://www.mfa.gr/en/blog/greece-bilateral-relations/china/ |
Indian Embassy, Beijing | |
Afghan Embassy in Australia | |
Australian Embassy | |
United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office | https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office |
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs | https://www.gov.il/en/departments/ministry_of_foreign_affairs/govil-landing-page |
France Ministry for European and Foreign Affairs | |
Armenia Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Croatia Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs | |
Ethiopia Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
El Salvador Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Morocco Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Oman Foreign Ministry | |
Saudi Arabia Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
Syria Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
United Arab Emirates Ministry for Foreign Affairs | |
Spain Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Union, and Cooperation | |
Belgium Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade, and Development Commission | |
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs | https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-foreign-affairs |
Colombia Ministry of Foreign Affairs | https://www.cancilleria.gov.co/en/minister-foreign-affairs?ref=freakingnomads.com |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fehrs, M. Making up is hard to do: reconciliation after interstate war. Int Polit (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00565-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00565-w