Appeasement a jeho význam pro současné mezinárodní vztahy

The policy of appeasement is seen as a controversial strategy in international relations because of its historical failure in the 1930s. This thesis aims to develop its own conceptualization of appeasement and apply it to two contemporary armed conflicts - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The analysis proceeds in two steps: first, four analytical questions are used to identify the aggressor in each conflict, then these aggressors are evaluated based on four key attributes - type of leader, type of adversary, motivation, and range of demands. Using qualitative comparative analysis, differences between cases are identified and the factors that most influence the appropriateness of using appeasement are determined. The results show that the analysed aggressors exhibit different characteristics - Hamas was identified as a rebel actor with a high degree of escalatory behaviour and low strategic rationality, while Azerbaijan represents an authoritarian state leader who concentrates power in his own hands. In terms of what attributes are crucial for deciding whether appeasement is appropriate, the comparison showed that the type of adversary and the extent of its demands have the greatest influence. The thesis shows that appeasement cannot be understood as a universally applicable or reprehensible tool - its effectiveness depends on the specific context of the conflict, the structure of relations between the actors and the nature of the adversaries themselves.