Varieties of international reconciliation: the configuration of interest and reflection after conflict
| Author | Jae-Jung Suh,Jahyun Chun |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211066224 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211066224
International Relations
2022, Vol. 36(3) 403 –427
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178211066224
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Varieties of international
reconciliation: the
configuration of interest
and reflection after conflict
Jae-Jung Suh
International Christian University, Japan
Jahyun Chun
Yonsei University Mirae Campus, Korea
Abstract
After conflict, states occasionally succeed in reconciling with former adversaries. When they do,
they do so in different ways. Some grudgingly sign a treaty to signal the end of a conflict. Others
provide for not only reparations and compensations but also economic assistance as material
evidence of reconciliation. Yet others offer apologies, official and unofficial, and engage their
former adversaries in reflective dialog that transforms their relationship from enmity to amity.
Is there a way to systemically organize different ways in which states reconcile? Can different
types of reconciliation be identified? If so, what explains the types? We address these questions
in this article. Based on our survey of war terminations in the post-World War II period, we
identify four different types of reconciliation that former injurious states have made with their
victim states – procedural, material, ideational, and substantial. We hypothesize that their choice
of a reconciliation type can be explained in terms of a configuration of national interest and
national reflection. In this article, we engage in a structured comparative analysis of the cases of
reconciliation between France-Algeria, Japan-Korea, Germany-Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic,
and Germany-Poland – that we argue closely resemble the four ideal types – and demonstrate
that our hypotheses are confirmed. We conclude with a consideration of how likely it is for
ideational and material reconciliation to develop into substantial reconciliation
Keywords
international reconcilition, national interest, national reflection, war termination
Corresponding author:
Jahyun Chun, Department of International Relations, Yonsei University Mirae Campus, #438, Justice Hall,
Wonju, 26493, Korea.
Email: jahyunchun@gmail.com
1066224IRE0010.1177/00471178211066224International RelationsSuh and Chun
research-article2021
Article
404 International Relations 36(3)
Introduction
After a conflict is past, states occasionally succeed in reconciling with their former
adversaries.1 This occurs in different ways. Some grudgingly sign a treaty to signal a
conflict’s end. Others may provide reparations or economic assistance as material evi-
dence of reconciliation while balking at making a contrite statement. Yet others offer
apologies, both official and unofficial, and engage their former adversaries in reflective
dialog to transform their relationship from enmity to amity. Is it possible to systemati-
cally organize the different ways in which states reconcile? Can different types of recon-
ciliation be identified? What explains the differences among them?
On the basis of our examination of post-conflict relations after World War II and colo-
nialism we have identified four ideal types of reconciliation: procedural, material, idea-
tional, and substantial.2 We hypothesize that states tend to choose one type over the
others under pressure of the combined force of national interest and national reflection.
To test the hypothesis, we conduct a structured comparative analysis of cases of recon-
ciliation between France and Algeria, Japan and Korea, West Germany/Germany and
Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic, and West Germany/Germany and Poland that
closely resemble the four ideal types.
In the first section we articulate the four ideal types of international reconciliation,
mindful that ideal types do not correspond to real political phenomena observed but
highlight the important features and forces that shape the phenomena. We then identify
explanatory variables and formulates hypotheses on how they might explain divergence
in international reconciliation. In the third section, we examine the four cases listed
above to determine whether different levels of national interest and reflection can explain
the differences among them. Finally, we conclude with a consideration of the theoretical
and policy implications that our findings have for reconciliation.
Ideal types of international reconciliation and their
explanations
Previous studies have identified international reconciliation as a critical phenomenon
whose salience is growing in modern international affairs,3 but there is a lack of agree-
ment on the definition of reconciliation because of relatively recent attention to recon-
ciliation and the multi-disciplinary nature of reconciliation studies. In an often-cited
study, for example, Kriesberg acknowledges that reconciliation has more than one mean-
ing and is shaped by many elements.4 For the purpose of this article, which highlights the
role of the state in international reconciliation, we define it as an international political
process between state parties to a former conflict through which they address issues
related to the past conflict in a way that helps them move towards a relatively coopera-
tive and amicable relationship.5 While reconciliation involves, by definition, both parties
to a conflict taking action, our analysis focuses on the state that initiated an action that
resulted in injury to the other state. Its injurious actions during the conflict can be a legal
ground on which the injured state demands reparations or compensation after the conflict
while at the same time it may have produced resentment, mistrust, and even hatred
among those who were negatively affected. Because the initiating state bears a legal and/
To continue reading
Request your trial