Description
Whether in Ankara or Budapest, key historical peace treaties are frequently invoked by politicians, with important implications for long-term stable peace, reconciliation, statehood, and international cooperation. Recent literature attributes such dynamics largely to the rise of populist leaders. While this is partly accurate, it is also important to recognize that major treaties themselves contain features such as power-sharing arrangements or territorial and population exchanges that shape postwar relations among former belligerents and rivals. We argue that transitions to higher levels of peace hinge on whether treaties are predominantly punitive (past-looking, focused on reparations and blame) or constitutive (forward-looking, establishing new, mutually accepted institutional setups). To assess this claim, we draw on an original dataset on peace treaties, complemented by several datasets measuring levels of peace. We analyze the post-treaty environment over time by examining internal debates within the main defeated parties, with particular attention to the major World War I treaties. Our findings contribute to academic and policy discussions on recurrent conflict and the conditions necessary for the achievement of stable peace.
