How important is Democracy for the absence of war between states? (original) (raw)

Domestic Political Survival and International Conflict: Is Democracy Good for Peace?

The Review of Economic Studies, 2011

We build a game-theoretic model where aggression can be triggered by domestic political concerns as well as the fear of being attacked. In the model, leaders of full and limited democracies risk losing power if they do not stand up to threats from abroad. In addition, the leader of a fully democratic country loses the support of the median voter if he attacks a non-hostile country. The result is a non-monotonic relationship between democracy and peace. Using Polity data, we classify countries as full democracies, limited democracies, and dictatorships. For the period 1816-2000, Correlates of War data suggest that limited democracies are more aggressive than other regime types, including dictatorships, and not only during periods when the political regime is changing. In particular, a dyad of limited democracies is more likely to be involved in a militarized dispute than any other dyad (including "mixed" dyads, where the two countries have di¤erent regime types). Thus, while full democratization might advance the cause of peace, limited democratization might advance the cause of war. We also …nd that as the environment becomes more hostile, fully democratic countries become more aggressive faster than other regime types.

Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory

1998

A study was conducted to examine the effects of nation-states' political institutions on state relations. War-fighting and selection-effects explanation were compared to explain why democracies were more likely to win wars. An analysis of all interstate wars between 1816 and 1982 revealed that democracies that initiate wars often win them. Results also suggest that domestic political structure is one factor that should not be omitted from the study of international relations.

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.

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.

Democratisation and Inter‐State War: Why Reform does not Encourage Conflict1

Politics, 2004

The 'democratic peace theory' argues that democratic states do not initiate war against one another and that democratic institutions discourage that initiation of international conflict. In general, this theory has mostly been applied to existing liberal democracies. However, the peaceful nature of the process of democratisation is far less evident. Some scholars argue that the instability of democratic transitions increases the likelihood that democratising states will initiate international conflict, making the democratic peace theory less valuable in its explanatory power. This article, however, argues that democratising states, as opposed to authoritarian states exhibiting a brief period of liberalisation, are inherently less prone to periods of international conflict.

FROM WAR TO PEACE: WHEN DEMOCRACY PREVAILS

Why are some war-torn countries able to make the transition to democracy? This paper intends to bring to light central dilemmas originating from the efforts of building peace and democracy in fragile states after war. We will focus on understanding the tensions and contradictions in post-conflict democratization, the challenges facing interim governments and the role of the international community. We will first analyze the set of structural and common dilemmas of peace-building and democratization in the aftermath of civil war, such as temporal, systemic, horizontal, and vertical dilemmas. The paper highly contributes theoretically to the body of knowledge by proposing a spiral of interrelated additional 8 dilemmas: security, safety, moral, sequencing, design, transparency, financial, and resources. Secondly, the different dilemmas will be addressed in relation to elections. Thirdly, constitutionalism is a sine qua non mechanism for establishing the new " social contract " based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Finally, the processes of democratization and peace-building are promoted by international actors who also face their own range of varying and even mutually contradictory dilemmas. In conclusion, from war to peace, democracy might prevail initially with a minimalist approach. But only if certain choices of