Abstract
This study conceptualizes the peace generated by summit diplomacy as discursive pacification and This study conceptualizes the peace generated by summit meeting as discursive pacification and empirically analyzes the conditions under which it emerges. Unlike existing research that evaluates summit outcomes through substantive agreements, this study explains summit peace effects through dynamic shifts in global media tone toward country pairs. We argue that the trajectory of discursive pacification following a summit is conditional on summit format, regime types of participating states, and whether the dyad is a rivalry. For analysis, we construct a panel dataset combining all bilateral and multilateral summits from the COLT dataset (2015–2024) with country-pair weekly media tone data from GDELT 1.0, and estimate summit fixed-effects models across time windows of one to twelve weeks before and after each summit. Results show that bilateral summits produce significant short-term increases in discursive pacification, whereas multilateral summits show no significant effect. A higher share of authoritarian participants generates larger short-term gains, but these effects decline sharply thereafter. For rival dyads, post-summit media tone is more likely to fall below pre-summit levels, indicating a reversal of peace effects. These results show that summit peace effects are not automatic but are contingently shaped by summit format, participant regime types, and the historical structure of bilateral relations.
BibTeX citation
@article{ParkSong:2026,
Author = {Park, Sanghoon, and Young Hoon Song},
Journal = {The Journal of Peace Studies},
Number = {1},
Pages = {000--000},
Title = {When Does Summit Diplomacy Make Peace? An Empirical Analysis of the Conditional Effects of Summit Format, Regime Type, and Interstate Rivalry},
Volume = {27},
Year = {2026}}