Michaela Mattes and Jessica L.P. Weeks, write for International Organization (2025), the article “Apology Diplomacy: The International Image Effects of Interstate Apologies.” examines the role of formal state apologies in international relations. Contrary to the assumption that apologies expose states to reputational costs or signal weakness, the authors argue that official apologies can enhance a country’s global standing, even when the apology is rejected by the victim state or provokes domestic criticism. Drawing on original survey experiments and historical analysis, the authors demonstrate that apologies function as acts of public diplomacy, shaping how third-party audiences perceive the moral character and reliability of states.
Their central claim is that apologies do not merely aim to reconcile with the victim party. Rather, they act as broader signals of normative commitment, particularly to the outside observers. To test this, Mattes and Weeks conducted two large-scale public opinion experiments in the United States. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which Russia apologises for its invasion of Ukraine. The experiments varied key conditions: whether an apology was issued or withheld, whether Ukraine accepted it, how Russian citizens responded, and whether Russia was described as a democracy. Across these scenarios, the results were consistent, states that apologised were viewed more favourably by respondents, regardless of the apology’s reception.
What sets this article apart is its shift in focus from apology as a bilateral exchange to apology as a reputational device in a global arena. Whereas much of the existing literature centres on whether apologies restore relations between states, Mattes and Weeks are interested in how they shape third-party perceptions. Their findings are clear: apologies enhance diplomatic favourability, increase support for cooperation, and reduce perceptions of threat. Crucially, they find no evidence that apologising diminishes a state’s credibility or signals weakness, debunking a common concern among policymakers.
The authors also examine the role of contextual factors, such as the recipient’s response and domestic approval. While these factors may amplify or moderate the effect, they do not determine it. Even when Ukraine is portrayed as rejecting the apology, or when Russian citizens are shown as opposing it, the act of apologising still leads to improved perceptions among US respondents. This suggests that the reputational value of apology lies in the gesture itself, not necessarily in its acceptance.
To substantiate their argument, Mattes and Weeks revisit West Germany’s 1951 apology for the Holocaust. Though met with mixed responses at the time, the apology played a key role in reconstructing West Germany’s international reputation and facilitating its re-entry into the post-war order. The case supports their experimental findings: even partial or contested apologies can serve as credible signals of political change and moral intent.
One of the article’s understated yet important contributions is its invitation to take the communicative dimensions of diplomacy more seriously. Apologies, like speeches, declarations, or symbolic acts, are not always about generating immediate policy change. They shape the environment in which policy is made: what is seen as legitimate, who is viewed as trustworthy, and which states are believed to act with restraint or principle. In this way, the article fits within broader constructivist thinking in international relations, which sees language and communication not just as descriptions of politics, but as actions that help shape political outcomes.
In conclusion, the article offers a compelling reassessment of the diplomatic utility of apology. Mattes and Weeks show that apologies are not simply acts of contrition; they are strategic tools that can shape how states are judged on the international stage. By reframing apology as a form of image management rather than a risk to status or strength, they make a significant contribution to our understanding of diplomatic communication, norm signalling, and the politics of reputation. For policymakers navigating histories of conflict, contested memory, and global scrutiny, this research offers a timely reminder: carefully chosen words can carry strategic weight, shaping how nations are perceived long after the moment has passed.
