The term appeasement policy typically refers specifically to the politics in the prelude to WW2 to appease the at the time aggressive powers that later would form the Axis. Therefore it is clear that examples refer that era.
Quote from the Wikipedia article:
"Appeasement policy, the policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini, operating jointly at that time, during 1937 and 1938 by continuous concessions granted in the hope of reaching a point of saturation when the dictators would be willing to accede to international collaboration. ... It came to an end when Hitler seized Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939, in defiance of his promises given at Munich, and Prime Minister Chamberlain, who had championed appeasement before, decided on a policy of resistance to further German aggression."
Therefore there is no other instance that actually fits. There are at best instances of other policies that also aim to appease rather than to confront. In that sense, any time a diplomat is sent instead of a soldier to achieve a nation's goal, that could be seen as appeasement - the very least when the other side made any kind of demand and your nation is open to discuss rather than outright rebuff.
In that sense, the cold war was full of appeasement. While in the policy sense it sure wasn't.
Today the term is mostly used either as a true reference to that eras policy or as a way to denounce a stance of some country that is deemed too defensive. It's a way to paint policy makers as cowardly and push-overs in rhetoric arguments.