Democratic Peace Theory

Classical political theorists such as Thucydides, Kant, Rousseau, Smith, Hegel, Grotius, Mill, Locke and Clausewitz are often employed to explain and justify contemporary international politics and are seen to constitute the different schools of thought in the discipline. However, traditional interpretations frequently ignore the intellectual and historical context in which these thinkers were writing as well as the lineages through which they came to be appropriated in International Relations. This collection of essays provides alternative interpretations sensitive to these political and intellectual contexts and to the trajectory of their appropriation. The political, sociological, anthropological, legal, economic, philosophical and normative dimensions are shown to be constitutive, not just of classical theories, but of international thought and practice in the contemporary world. Moreover, they challenge traditional accounts of timeless debates and schools of thought and provide new conceptions of core issues such as sovereignty, morality, law, property, imperialism and agency.

Ever since the revival of Kant's Perpetual Peace thesis, the linkages between democracy and peace has been a central topic in international relations research, with sustained debate over whether it exists and if it does, why it does. In this stimulating volume, two leading IR scholars place the democratic peace debate within a broader context, including the extent of threats in international relations, degree of satisfaction with the status quo, the diffusion of democracy, and the rise of the trading state. Step by step, Thompson and Rasler examine the democratic peace through a series of puzzles concerning arguments at the dyadic, systemic, and individual state levels. Synthesizing a broad range of knowledge and linking islands of theory, Puzzles of the Democratic Peace provides a distinctive look at the state of the field and paths forward.

By illuminating the conflict-resolving mechanisms inherent in the relationships between democracies, Bruce Russett explains one of the most promising developments of the modern international system: the striking fact that the democracies that it comprises have almost never fought each other.

Essay from the year 2013 in the subject Politics - International Politics - General and Theories, grade: 16, University of Aberdeen, language: English, abstract: The democratic peace theory has been widely discussed by scholars of international relations and whereas on the one hand it is acclaimed as the “closest thing we have to a law in international politics”, it is rejected as not being true by the other side. Whether the democratic peace theory is a useful guidance for policy-makers or not is the conflict of different theories in international relations, namely liberalism and realism. This paper wants to clarify the disparity of liberalism and realism in the aspect of the democratic peace theory and therefore it will start with the idealist perspective, followed by the view of the opponents of the theory and then ending with a conclusion on the merits of democratic peace theory. In the regard of the democratic peace theory it is difficult to find any reliable and meaningful statistical date because this is a field of research that demands various definitions which vary from author to author. They set up different meanings for the terms 'democracy' and 'war' respectively 'conflict'. However, specific ideas of those terms are essential as this paper will point out. However, there have been examples of democracies fighting other democracies in wars, for instance the Kashmir conflicts between India and Pakistan, or in more modern history the 2006 Lebanon War and the five-day war between Georgia and Russia in 2008.

Ever since the revival of Kant's Perpetual Peace thesis, the linkages between democracy and peace has been a central topic in international relations research, with sustained debate over whether it exists and if it does, why it does. In this stimulating volume, two leading IR scholars place the democratic peace debate within a broader context, including the extent of threats in international relations, degree of satisfaction with the status quo, the diffusion of democracy, and the rise of the trading state. Step by step, Thompson and Rasler examine the democratic peace through a series of puzzles concerning arguments at the dyadic, systemic, and individual state levels. Synthesizing a broad range of knowledge and linking islands of theory, Puzzles of the Democratic Peace provides a distinctive look at the state of the field and paths forward.

Comprising essays by Michael W. Doyle, Liberal Peace examines the special significance of liberalism for international relations. The volume begins by outlining the two legacies of liberalism in international relations - how and why liberal states have maintained peace among themselves while at the same time being prone to making war against non-liberal states. Exploring policy implications, the author focuses on the strategic value of the inter-liberal democratic community and how it can be protected, preserved, and enlarged, and whether liberals can go beyond a separate peace to a more integrated global democracy. Finally, the volume considers when force should and should not be used to promote national security and human security across borders, and argues against President George W. Bush’s policy of "transformative" interventions. The concluding essay engages with scholarly critics of the liberal democratic peace. This book will be of great interest to students of international relations, foreign policy, political philosophy, and security studies.

Essay from the year 2009 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 8.0, University of Amsterdam, course: International Security, language: English, abstract: The theory of democratic peace is perhaps one of the most widely accepted propositions among international relations scholars today. A vast body of literature, from theoretical elaborations to statistical measurements, concerning liberal peace and/or democratic peace theory has been developed and has explored the proposition profoundly. While it is almost empirically proven that the probability of wars between democratic states is very low or even zero, war is obviously – while having a look on recent or current armed conflicts in which democratic states are engaged – still an option for liberal democracies with regards to disputes with non-democratic states. On a first glance this seems to be paradox. But, while having a deeper look into the scientific discussions, approaches and explanations, it seemingly becomes clear that these two parts – namely the peaceful conflict-resolution between democratic states and democracies’ use of military force – are not conflicting.

Are democracies less likely to go to war than other kinds of states? This question is of tremendous importance in both academic and policy-making circles and one that has been debated by political scientists for years. The Clinton administration, in particular, has argued that the United States should endeavor to promote democracy around the world. This timely reader includes some of the most influential articles in the debate that have appeared in the journal International Security during the past two years, adding two seminal pieces published elsewhere to make a more balanced and complete collection, suitable for classroom use.