Democratic peace as a historical phenomenon (original) (raw)
Related papers
The democratic peace and the new evolution of an old idea
European Journal of International Relations, 2011
Since the democratic peace was ‘rediscovered’ in the 1970s, the phenomenon has become a mainstream research agenda. Significant attention and page space has been dedicated to large- N statistical tests of the phenomenon. Indeed, the methodological composition of the field is significantly tilted toward quantitative studies, creating significant lacunae in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that generate the democratic peace. The central argument in this review is that academics need to pay much greater attention to the underlying mechanisms of the democratic peace, and in the process of doing so, the democratic peace has the potential to expand into a much more significant field of study: democratic security.
An inconvenient truth about the Democratic Peace Thesis
This work tries to give a reasonable alternative explanation to the democratic peace thesis by presenting its major points and weaknesses compared to other, more convincing, counter-arguments. This thesis, which assumes that democracies do not go into war with each other and which finds the ultimate solution to war in the spread of democracy all over the world, is fragile since it does not take enough into consideration the several aspects that characterized the periods of peace and the war outbreaks.
Review Article: The Democratic Peace and the New Evolution of an Old Idea
European Journal of International Relations, 2012
Since the democratic peace was ‘rediscovered’ in the 1970, the phenomenon has become a mainstream research agenda. Significant attention and page space has been dedicated to large-N statistical tests of the phenomenon. Indeed, the methodological composition of the field is significantly tilted toward quantitative studies, creating significant lacunae in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that generate the democratic peace. The central argument in this review is that academics need to pay much greater attention to the underlying mechanisms of the democratic peace, and in the process of doing so the democratic peace has the potential to expand into a much more significant field of study: democratic security.
“While the democratic peace theory is acknowledged as one of the few “law-like” in social sciences, its causal logic is continuously argued. Furthermore, its application throughout democratization justifies the use of violence worldwide.”
The Validity of the Democratic Peace Theory
The democratic peace theory, which originates from Kant’s theory of ‘Perpetual Peace’, states that democracies do not go to war with each other. However, it differs from Kant’s theory in the fact that the democratic peace theory sets forth the notion that democracies don’t go to war with other democracies but do go to war with states which have other forms of government (Layne 8). There are several reasons as to why this is considered a robust theory, including institutional constraints, democratic norms and cultures, implementation of one of the key postulates of liberal states, the satisfaction of liberal states with absolute gains and their economic interdependence as well as conditions of empire, hegemony and equilibrium. Perhaps the most powerful reason to believe the theory is it’s justification by empirical data and statistics. However, in this essay, I will state my reasons for disagreeing with the democratic peace theory, some of which are the vague definition of a democracy, the small sample size of empirical data, rise of democracies in a period conflict, the distinction between correlation and causation along with case studies which show that the reason two states don’t go to war may have nothing to do with the fact that they are democracies. Finally, I conclude the paper by putting forth a theory as to why democratic superpowers would back the DPT and prosper from it.
Does Democratic Peace Theory Genuinely Envision Global Peace? A Critical Approach
Does Democratic Peace Theory Genuinely Envision Global Peace? A Critical Approach, 2019
Democratic Peace Theory has been one of the most hotly debated topics ever since the 1980s. From Kant to the present day, the meaning of Democratic Peace Theory has changed, while the theory nowadays claims in principle that democratic states wage war against each other less often owing to their institutions' and citizens' abilities to urge their governments to establish a peaceful foreign policy. At this point, the critical theory offers an alternative explanation for the behaviors of democratic countries. This study was designed as a theoretical discussion utilising the analysis of primary and secondary sources in the field, both in printed and electronic materials. Employing the viewpoint of the critical theory, this paper argues that Democratic Peace is the disguise of hegemonic relations and the product of the historical block. This study revealed that democracies are not pacifist actors in the international realm. As articulated by the critical approach, the study also puts forth that the concept of Democratic peace facilitates the expansionist ambitions of hegemonic powers in the international system by utilizing various humanitarian interventions and serves as a means to maintain imperialist peace. Empirical evidence from the military intervention in Libya further reinforces this argument. Thus, this study asserts the idea to be cautious against the propositions of the Democratic Peace Theory because any activities done in the name of spreading democracy may involve a hidden agenda and disrupt the internal stability of non-democratic countries.
A Critique of the Democratic Peace Theory
The question whether democracy causes peace has been the focus of much investigation in recent years. It has been observed that no democratic state has ever gone to war with another, and the expectation naturally arises that as more states become democratic, the occasions for armed conflict will be reduced, leading to a more peaceful international system. The hope that a structural or institutional means of eliminating war might be found is not new. Adherents of the democratic peace theory point to Kant's essay of 1795 on "Perpetual Peace" as the origin of the idea. Democratic peace proponents today seek to explain the observed statistical correlation between democracy and peace by reference to inherent features of democratic governance such as the constraints placed on decision-makers by the separation of powers and their need to respect the will of the people, or-more vaguely-by reference to the cultural characteristics of democracies. But the recurrence of war has been a perpetual feature of human history, and the standard of proof must be high on those who would claim that the spread of democracy will result in a significant and sustained reduction of wars in the future. It is my contention in this essay that the empirical support for the democratic peace theory is based on too narrow a group, and that the analytical explanations for the theory are weak, and hence that there is insufficient warrant at this time for excessive confidence in the proposition that the spread of democracy will lead to a more peaceful world.
One of the most interesting and extensively researched phenomenons in international relations is the "democratic peace" -an empirical observation that throughout the course of time, democratic countries have rarely fought one another. What is most curious about this trend is the fact that it is not explained by democracies being inherently more peaceful than other forms of government: there are countless historical examples of democracies and autocracies that have engaged in violent conflict against one another. This question is significant from a policy and decision-making perspective, since international peace is conventionally viewed as increasing the utility of state actors, while its alternative -war -detracts from it. If a state actor adhered to the view that democracies rarely fight one another due to shared, innate characteristics (a view that I will refer to from now on as the "theory of democratic peace"), they may reason that it would be in their best interests to spread democracy to foreign countries through certain policy actions, such as foreign-imposed regime change.
The article examines democratic peace theory. Considerable research has examined how the regime type and the level of democracy relate with the probability of war. In addressing this issue, the article rests on the premise that democratization can be seen in two forms: a) as an internal process towards democracy b) as an external effort to promote or establish democratic regimes. Contributing to the debate regarding democratic peace theory, it is argued that democratization fails to deter states from pursuing their interests through war. However, and with regard to new forms of 'wars' like "terrorism", democratization can provide both the much needed space for cooperation and the creation of pluralistic societies that will accordingly help to confront some of the sources of rage.