Registration Number: 1304121 GV220 – International Relations

Word Count: 3,476 words 13th November 2014

Subject: The Democratic Peace Theory

“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.”

President George W. Bush declared major fighting over in Iraq, calling it "one victory in a war on terror" which he said would continue until terrorists are defeated.- Source: http://rt.com/usa/bush-amnesty-iraq-war-847/

Introduction

For the past fifty years, the number of democratic

states has been continuously increasing. In 1974, thirty-nine

democracies were established; more than a hundred and twenty

in 2003 were reckoned.1 This wave of democratization has been

carried out mainly by western countries but also by

international institutions. First, it was justified as a way

to “counter the expansion of communist” during the Cold War

1 Shenfield, Stephen, and Bruce Russett. "Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 70.2 (1994): 306. Web.

2

era. Subsequently, the establishment of democracies worldwide

was supported by a simple liberal argument: democracy leads to

peace. In other words, the establishment of democratic states

would make the world more peaceful.2 This idea of “democratic

peace” appeared in 1795 and was introduced by Immanuel Kant’s

“Perpetual Peace”. Yet, it is only in the 1980s that this thesis

caught the interest of scholars. First perceived as another

utopian liberal perspective, it became, after numerous

empirical researches and studies, the central focus of the

American foreign policy.3

However, the democratic peace theory – democratic states do

not fight one another4 – relies more on the fact that democracies do

not go to war when in conflict with other democracies than on

the “why” democratic states are more peaceful than other

regime-types.

As a matter of fact, even though democracies do not

wage war with one another, they are not always peaceful in

their relations with non-democratic states. The “preventive”

war of the United States in Iraq, the coup d’états organized by

2 Weart, Spencer R. Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 29. Print.3 Caillé, Alain. Paix Et Démocratie. Paris: UNESCO, 2004. 45. Print.4 Rasler, Karen A., and William R. Thompson. Puzzles of the Democratic Peace Theory, Geopolitics, and the Transformation of World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.

3

western countries, and the circumstances of modern colonialism

in the developing world are only few examples of how peaceful

democratic states can be.5 Numerous critics argue this liberal

causal logic, which remains the main flaw of the democratic

peace theory.

Moreover, democratic states may lead to peace in

theory, yet history demonstrates that the implementation of

democracies has engendered many conflicts. Furthermore,

democratizations of states occur in many cases using violence

to “defend” the liberal values abroad.6 In that sense, the

democratic peace theory is dangerous because it acknowledges

violent interventionist measures or democratic wars as necessary

to reach global peace.

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.

This essay will therefore analyse both the theoretical

explanations and the policy implications of the Democratic

5 Maoz, Zeev. "The Controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard Action or Cracks in the Wall?" International Security 22.1 (1997): 162-98. Web.6 Grugel, Jean. Democratization: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

4

Peace Theory with as main objective to critically analyse its

merits and its weaknesses.

PART ONE: THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS

From its introduction in the 1970s the democracy peace

theory took time to gain importance in the eyes of political

scholars.7 One of the main flaws of the original democratic

peace theory was its simplicity. To resolve it, liberalists

such as Adam Smith added more elementsi to fortify the theory

such as “greater trade (relative to GNP) and greater trade

openness (lower tariffs)”.8 By the end of the 19th century, the

main protectors of the theory such as Thomas Paine and Woodrow

Wilson have been able to push the democratic peace theory

recognition to the status of “most robust law-like finding

generated by the discipline of international relations”9. This

first part of this essay is divided into three sections: the

definition of the main terms used by the theory, the question

of the why democratic states do not fight each other will be

7 Shenfield, Stephen, and Bruce Russett. "Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 70.2 (1994): 306. Web.8 Gat, Azar. "The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact ofModernity."World Politics 58.01 (2005): 77. Web.9 Gat, Azar. "The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact ofModernity."World Politics 58.01 (2005): 75. Web.

5

addressed, and finally, the last section will analyse the

several explanations of the theory’s causal logic.

Section 1. Definition of terms

A theory consists of a hypothesis describing a

relationship between two variables. The independent and the

dependent variable should be connected by a causal logic

explaining their association. The democratic peace theory

asserts a link between peace and democracy. Before analysing

the theoretical causal logic or why democracies do not fight

one another, it is required to consider each of the variables’

meaning. Indeed, “democracy” and “peace” are extensively used

to explain, argue or debate the Democratic Peace Theory.

Defining them properly is essential in order to make a

critical analysis of the theory.

Democracy . Using Abraham Lincoln’s definition of a

democracy, “a government of the people, by the people, for the

people”10, would be agreeable but it is not sufficient for our

analysis. The word “democracy” most basic meaning is “rule of

the people”. A modern democracy’s definition is a form of10 Grugel, Jean. Democratization: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

6

government that has “a constitution that guarantees basic

personal and political rights, fair and free elections, and

independent courts of law.”11 Dahl believes five criteria are

essential requirements an association would have to meet in

order to be considered democratic: (1) Effective

Participation, (2) Voting Equality, (3) Enlightenment

Understanding, (4) Control of the Agenda and (5) Inclusion of

all Adults.12

A liberal democracy is a democracy that “instantiates

liberal ideas, one where liberalism is the dominant ideology

and citizens have leverage over war decisions”.13 A state can

be democratic but have no limitation to government powers or

to its way of acting. If there is no rule of law or no law in

the constitution designed for political rights of individuals

such as human rights, a democratic state is considered

illiberal. 14

11 Maoz, Zeev. "The Controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard Actionor Cracks in the Wall?" International Security 22.1 (1997): 162-98. Web.12 Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 56-58. Print.13 Rasler, Karen A., and William R. Thompson. Puzzles of the Democratic Peace Theory, Geopolitics, and the Transformation of World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.14 Doyle, Michael W. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2."Philosophy & Public Affairs 12.4 (1983): 324-25. JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

7

Peace. The word “peace” can be hard to define. In the

democratic peace theory context, it means there are no wars

between democracies. “War” has for definition “violence

organized by political units against one another across their

boundaries”15. In his work, Spencer Weart set the level of

violence “to include any conflict involving at least two

hundred deaths in organized combat.”16

Section 2. Are democratic states more peaceful and why?

The following section of this essay will address the

question whether and why democratic states are more peaceful

than others. A large number of studies have brought empirical

evidences demonstrating that democracies almost never fight

against each other. Especially after the Second World War,

democratic states conflicts seem to be solved through peaceful

arrangements. 17 Even though there are some exceptions of a few

15 Rasler, Karen A., and William R. Thompson. Puzzles of the Democratic Peace Theory,Geopolitics, and the Transformation of World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.16 Weart, Spencer R. Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 34. Print.17 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 88.

8

debatable cases, the evidence of democratic peace is quite

strong.18

Turning now to the factors that take account of the

why democratic states are peaceful toward one another, this

section will explore the main explanations given for

Democratic Peace.

Section 3. Causal logic explanations

Zeez Maoz brought alternatives hypotheses contributing

to the explanation of the liberal thesis. They are today known

as the normative and the institutional (also called

structural) explanations.19

Normative Explanation. The normative explanation mainly

explains the peace between democratic states by the similar

norms, beliefs and traditions that liberal democratic states

share. In that sense, if conflict arises, democratic states

will have a better cooperation with a state sharing similar

liberal values than an authoritarian state repressing liberal

ideals. Because they “externalize their domestic political

18 Russett, Bruce, Christopher Layne, David E. Spiro, and Michael W. Doyle."The Democratic Peace." International Security 19.4 (1995): 183. The MIT Press. Web.19 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace." International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.

9

norms of tolerance and compromise in their foreign

relations”20, it is unlikely they reach war when having a

conflict with another liberal democratic states. This explains

also why when there is a crisis with non-democratic state,

democracies can be pushed to war. What about illiberal

democracies that have do not have those same norms?

Structural or Institutional Explanations. The institutional

explanation explains democratic peace by the institutions

constraints within democracies. An elected president will not

go to an unpopular war if it costs him the population’s votes

at the next elections. In that sense, liberal or not, a

democratic leader has structural ties preventing him to go to

war notably because he is unable to rally the public to fight.

The leader has less power, which slows down the likelihood of

war. Also, democracies are more transparent and communicative

than authoritative regimes, which results in a better

cooperation.

Conclusion: Structural and Normative logics. The normative and the

structural explanations are subject of most critics of the

20 Chan, Steve. "In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise." Mershon International Studies Review 41.1 (1997): 59-91. JSTOR. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/222803?ref=no-x-route:6a177a0efa4e4360ac11837a0abfe67f>.

10

democratic peace theory. Indeed, the two alternative

explanations proposed by Zeez Maoz are insufficient to answer

the “why” of democratic peace alone. Christopher Layne claims

that “if neither democratic structures nor norms alone can

explain the democratic peace, then there’s no democratic

peace”21. The answer to this criticism was that they could be

complementary: liberal ideas proscribe wars among democracies;

democratic institutions ensure that this proscription is

followed.22 In that sense, liberal ideology and democratic

institutions constraints work together toward democratic

peace. Liberalists do not accept these criticisms as more than

eventual weaknesses to the theory.23

Alternative Explanations. Miriam Fendius Elman uses in her

book, “Path of Peace”, a series of case studies with various

geopolitical locations to evaluate the democratic peace

theory. She emphasizes that the theory implies that “political

21 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.22 Caillé, Alain. Paix Et Démocratie. Paris: UNESCO, 2004. Print.23 Chan, Steve. "In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise." Mershon International Studies Review 41.1 (1997): 59-91. JSTOR. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/222803?ref=no-x-route:6a177a0efa4e4360ac11837a0abfe67f>.

11

ideologies and regime type determine states’ threat

perceptions and influence their propensity to wage war”24.

Yet, she points out the case studies revealed

“domestic political structure frequently is not the mostimportant domestic-level variable to influence war and peace decisions; thatliberal norms and democratic institutions may not always prevent wars amongdemocracies; that the democratic process does not always generate benignforeign policies; that geopolitical factors and strategic calculations canoften explain peace among democracies and wars among nondemocratic states andmixed regimes; and that the internal characteristics of nondemocratic states donot invariably increase the likelihood of war”25.

Therefore, she discredits the democratic peace theory

because case studies have other factors than regime-type

playing an important role and uses it as evidence against the

liberal thesis.26 Yet, the democratic peace analyses include

these other factors in their studies. In his review of Elman’s

book, James Lee Ray explains “most analyses of the democratic

peace proposition include such geopolitical and capability-

related factors” and consequently those studies find “regime

type and these other factors have important impacts (…)”27.

24 Elman, Miriam Fendius. Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? Cambridge, MA:MIT, 1997. 473. Print.25 Elman, Miriam Fendius. Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? Cambridge, MA:MIT, 1997. vii-viii. Print. 26 Ray, James Lee. "The Answer, or an Answer? Evaluating the DemocraticPeace Proposition." Rev. of Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? MershonInternational Studies Review 42.No.2 (Nov, 1998): 369-71. JSTOR. Web.27 Ray, James Lee. "The Answer, or an Answer? Evaluating the DemocraticPeace Proposition." Rev. of Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? MershonInternational Studies Review 42.No.2 (Nov, 1998): 369-71. JSTOR. Web.

12

The main flaw of the democratic peace theory relies in

the causal mechanism leading to democratic peace. 28 Criticised

for its lack of convincing theoretical foundations, the why

behind the democratic peace remains the principal crack of the

liberal thesis. Because we cannot be sure if the peace is

genuinely due to the regime type that states adopt, the theory

stays vulnerable to competitive realist theories. 29

PART TWO: CONTESTED CAUSAL LOGIC

The Democratic Peace is one of the few theories that

generated an extensive amount of discussions and debates

between protectors and critics. Indeed, the interest for this

topic does not seem to fade.30 On the contrary, the exciting

exchange of ideas between professors, students and scholars

keep the theory growing because of its constant re-evaluation.

Thus, it is not enough to test the liberal theory only using

various examples of past crisis or near-wars: it needs to be

compared to other theories. 31

28 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.29 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 88. 30 Doyle, Michael W. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2."Philosophy & Public Affairs 12.4 (1983): 323-53. JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.31 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 120.

13

Realism, another main political tradition, offers a

long list of arguments against the liberal thesis. The second

part of this paper will concentrate on analysing the

“criticism and response” interactive process engendered by the

Democratic Peace theory between realists and liberalism

scholars.

Section 1. Realism Challenge

While realists tend to accept the “powerful

empirical generalization” that democracies rarely fight each

other, the causal mechanisms that supposedly drive democracies

away from war with each other is largely disputed.32 Indeed,

the democratic peace theory calls into question one of their

major assumptions.

Realists and liberalists have had an eternal debate

about the importance of domestic politics and the system’s

structure on international relations theory33. On one hand, the

liberalists claim the regime-type will affect which foreign

policies will be used by states. On the other hand, the

32 Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic PeaceTheory." American Political Science Review 97.04 (2003): 585. Web.33 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.

14

realists believe the polarity of the system in other words,

power politics best explain world politics. 34

“strategic concerns and the relative distribution of militarycapabilities…should crucially – perhaps decisively” affect the outcomes ofcrises between liberal democracies, and moreover that “broader geopoliticalconsiderations pertaining to a state’s position in international politicsshould, if implicated, account significantly for the crisis’ outcomes”.35

Concerning the democratic peace theory, realists think

it is not the liberal regime type that is leading to peace but

the international system hierarchy. 36 In that sense, they

claim states will interact with each other taking into account

power politics. Liberal democratic states are not an exception

to the rule and “like all others must base their foreign

policy on the imperatives of power politics” 37. Realists believe the

existence of a hegemon will induce less powerful states to

bandwagon or have balance behaviour.38 States that view each

other as liberal-democratic will still balance against each

other.39

34 Kinsella, David Todd. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American PoliticalScience Review 99.03 (2005): 453-57. PDXScholar. Portland State University.Web.35 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.36 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 120.37 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 120.38 Russett, Bruce, Christopher Layne, David E. Spiro, and Michael W. Doyle."The Democratic Peace." International Security 19.4 (1995): 184. The MIT Press. Web.39 Waltz, « Emerging Structure, » pp. 66-67, predicts that Japan andGermany will acquire nuclear capabilities to balance against the United

15

Morgenthau, a prominent realist scholar, accuses

liberalist of not considering Weimar (today’s Germany)

constitution as a democracy during the WWI: “When power

politics requires war with a democracy, liberals will redefine

that state as a despotism; when power politics requires peace

with a non-democracy, they will redefine that state as a

democracy.40

According to Morgenthau, Weimar constitution was

threatening the balance of power of the United States, which

is the reason the latter went to war. Yet, the liberalists

claim that Weimar constitution was not a democratic state

during that period of time.

The Democratic Peace theory appears to be a fantasy for

realists since they do not recognize “any theoretically

compelling causal mechanism that could explain Democratic

Peace.”41In realist scholars’ eyes, it represents another

“hopeless” theory demonstrating the utopian liberal view.42 It

States.40 This is implied in Hans Morgenthau’s argument that Wison, Woodrow ledthe United States of America into WWI « not to make the world safe fordemocracy, » but because « Germany threatened the balance of power (…)Wilson pursued the right policy, but he pursued it for the wrong reason. »Morgenthau, National Interest, pp. 25-2641 Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic PeaceTheory." American Political Science Review 97.04 (2003): 592. Web. 42 Russett, Bruce, Christopher Layne, David E. Spiro, and Michael W. Doyle."The Democratic Peace." International Security 19.4 (1995): 177. The MIT Press. Web.

16

is true that Bruce Russet admits in his work about the

democratic peace theory that,

“understanding the sources of democratic peace canhave an effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Socialscientists sometimes create reality as well as analyse it.Insofar as norms for guide behaviour, repeating those normshelps to make them effective. Repeating the norms as descriptiveprinciples can help to make them true.”43 (Emphasis added)

This quote is used by realist critics who use it toconfirm, "liberal international relations theory is based onhope, not fact”44.

Section 2. Liberal Answer

In one of his work, Zeev Maoz answers critics of the

democratic peace theory. He concedes that realists’ criticisms

raise “important issues concerning the democratic peace

proposition” but he also affirms “none of the arguments

damages either the empirical validity of the proposition or

the various explanations of the relative absence of conflict

among democracies”.45 The democratic peace theory shows

credibility and it is a difficult fact to deny: democracies do

not fight one another. However, is empirical evidence enough

43 Shenfield, Stephen, and Bruce Russett. "Grasping the Democratic Peace:Principles for a Post-Cold War World." International Affairs (Royal Institute ofInternational Affairs 1944-) 70.2 (1994): 306. Web.44 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 49. Web.45 Maoz, Zeev. "The Controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard Actionor Cracks in the Wall?" International Security 22.1 (1997): 164. Web.

17

to validate the theory? The realist’s critics affirm the

liberal research program is inevitably degenerating.46

Nevertheless, their analysis may suggest that a revision is in

order notably concerning actor’s perceptions that are

“systematically biased under certain condition” 47.

The previous sections explored the main disagreements

realists and liberalists have about the democratic peace

theory. While realists accept the fact that there is peace

among democracies, they reject the idea that it may be caused

by the democratic nature of those states. Therefore they

consider the correlation between democracy and peace as

“spurious, better understood as a function of power, threat,

and national interest.” 48

Most of the arguments of both sides are clearly

convincing since they present important elements of

persuasion. Because of their distinctive perspectives—liberal

versus realism—they logically have different interpretations

46 Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic PeaceTheory." American Political Science Review 97.04 (2003): 596. Web.47 Kinsella, David Todd. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American PoliticalScience Review 99.03 (2005): 453-57. PDXScholar. Portland State University.Web.48 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.

18

about what causes Democratic Peace. Yet, several liberal

scholars suggest in their work an interesting combination of

both realism and liberalism in the democratic peace theory as

“both camps, liberal and realism traditions, are describing

real forces in international politics, namely, the power

politics and liberal ideas.”49 In that sense, the liberals are

reproaching the realists to completely deny the existence of

democracy whereas liberals believe “power politics does have a

role in liberal foreign policy.50

Yet, the democratic peace theory is not only source of

theoretical debates between scholars. Promoting democracy

abroad became in the eyes of Western countries and

International Institutions the solution to achieve global

peace.

PART THREE: DEMOCRATIC WARS FOR DEMOCRATIC PEACE

As the two previous parts demonstrate, Democratic

Peace generates theoretical issues but it also has a real-

world importance. As a matter of facts, American policy makers

who “see a crucial link between the United States’ security

49 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 122.50 Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." InternationalSecurity 19.2 (1994): 122.

19

and the spread of democracy” 51 have embraced the democratic

peace theory. The United States has for main aim to

democratize countries by all means in the name of liberal ideals

to expand the zone of peace.52

Section 1. Democratization

It is a fact: interstates wars have been decreasing

since the end of the WWII. Conversely, intrastate conflicts

have been multiplying especially in the developing world.53 The

logical follow-up argument to the democratic peace theory is

that if democracies do not fight each other, then democracy

should be promoted worldwide. Democratization appeared to be a

way to help those new independent states to overcome

uncontrollable wars.54 Furthermore, by defining “liberal

democratic states” as the more peaceful regime-type, the

theory implies that non-liberal democratic states represent a

risk of war and therefore a danger to global peace. In the

51 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.52 Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic PeaceTheory." American Political Science Review 97.04 (2003): 596. Web.53 Kinsella, David Todd. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): 453-57. PDXScholar. Portland State University. Web.54 Doyle, Michael W. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2."Philosophy & Public Affairs 12.4 (1983): 323-53. JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

20

case of the United States, democratization of those

“dangerous” states is synonym protecting its security.55

Section 2. Democratization by the United States or Modern Crusade

Following the Cold War era, the export and the

promotion of democracy abroad became the heart of the United

States foreign policy. “From Haiti to Russia”, the United

States have assimilated the democratization of the world to

their interest and their security. Since the American security

became linked to the nature of others’ states political

systems, “democratic peace theory’s logic inevitably pushes

the United States to adopt an interventionist strategic

posture”.56 Chile, Guyana, Brazil, Guatemala, Niguacara,

Indonesia and Iran have all been the target of the United

States’ interventionist measures. Yet, a most recent example

of United States democratization has East Central Europe for

target. As a matter of fact, they believe democratic states in

these countries “will guarantee regional peace in the post-

Cold War era”.57 Let’s not forget about the Iraq War where the

55 Gat, Azar. "The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact of Modernity." World Politics 58.01 (2005): 73-100. Web.56 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the DemocraticPeace."International Security 19.2 (1994): 46. Web.57 Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace." International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.

21

United States had for project to recreate the world at their

image.58

Two prominent protectors of the democratic peace

theory, John Oneal and Bruce Russet, insist on the

“opportunity to build peace based not only on military force but also

on Kantian principles”59. Yet, the expansion of the zone of

peace by the United States has had some main failures. The

implementation of democracy became synonym of democratic wars

“because it is closely associated with the assertion of

hitherto suppressed ethnic identities and nationalist

aspirations.”60 It goes against the liberal values to allow war

in exchange for peace since “violence and coercion are

counter-productive for freedom”.61 Also, the democratization of

states using violence or not want to apply to all non-

democratic states an ideal liberalist regime type which can easily

remind us of past colonialism.62 Christopher Layne refers to58 Maoz, Zeev. "The Controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard Actionor Cracks in the Wall?" International Security 22.1 (1997): 162-98. Web.59 Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. "The Kantian Peace: The PacificBenefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations,1885–1992."World Politics 52.01 (1999): 1-37. Web.60 Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. "Democratization and the Danger of War."International Security 20.1 (1995): 5. Web.61 Best, Geoffrey, Robert I. Rotberg, and Theodore K. Rabb. "The Origin andPrevention of Major Wars." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 66.3 (1990): 88. Web.62 Levy, Jack S. "Domestic Politics and War." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18.4 (1988): 653. Web.

22

the dangers of liberalism imperialism by affirming that the

“democratic peace theory is not a compelling explanation of

international political outcomes (…) but a dangerous

retrogression to the kind of “normative international relations

theory”.63

Section 3. “Fast-Track” path to Peace

Democratization interventions are aiming for “fast-

track” path to peace. Since late 18th century, liberal and

democratic countries have had their standards rising

unceasingly.64 From the abolition of slavery, the inclusion of

all females and males, the increasing number of freedoms to

today’s gay rights movement; the liberal democracies of

yesterday would undoubtedly be today’s most illiberal ones.

The developed West has had centuries of democratic evolution.65

Expecting the new democracies to “catch-up” centuries of state

building seems quite unrealistic.

63 5 p17764 Grugel, Jean. Democratization: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.65 Gat, Azar. "The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact ofModernity."World Politics 58.01 (2005): 76. Web.

23

The last sections demonstrated that democratization

has failed in many instances. Although democracy indeed

decreases the likelihood of war, the initial processes of

democratisation, the democratic transition, have the opposite

effect. United States interventionist methods both have had

some damaging effects on the states “target” of their

intrusion. Forcing countries to have liberal democratic

values, beliefs and institutions can easily be a reminder of

how Western states used colonisation to establish their

standards worldwide.

Conclusion

The Democratic Peace theory offers an answer to the

main issue of International Relations: « what causes

war/peace ».

As this essay demonstrated, the Democratic Peace

theory is particularly relevant for a number of reasons.

First, the theory is “the closest thing we have to an

empirical law in the study of international relations”.66

Although its causal logic is still subject of debates and

66 Best, Geoffrey, Robert I. Rotberg, and Theodore K. Rabb. "The Origin andPrevention of Major Wars." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs1944-) 66.3 (1990): 88.

24

discussion, it appears to have a real theoretical credibility.

Secondly, it stands up as an apparent anomaly to realism.

Liberal scholars demonstrated, with verified empirical

evidences, that wars between democracies were extremely rare

which implies that domestic forms of governance have an effect

on world politics. Yet, the final part of this paper explored

the dangerous policy implications the theory engendered.

Democratization became an axiom of United States foreign

policy that in many cases was conduct using violence and lead

to poor results. Due to the considerations present throughout

this essay and the qualitative evidence present, it suggests

that Democratic Peace “is a genuine phenomenon that needs a

better explanation and promotion.”67

Bibliography

1. Best, Geoffrey, Robert I. Rotberg, and Theodore K. Rabb. "The Origin and

Prevention of Major Wars." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs

1944-) 66.3 (1990): 88. Web.

2. Caillé, Alain. Paix Et Démocratie. Paris: UNESCO, 2004. Print.

3. Chan, Steve. "In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise."

Mershon International Studies Review 41.1 (1997): 59-91. JSTOR. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/222803?ref=no-x-

67 Kinsella, David Todd. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): 453-57. PDXScholar. Portland State University. Web.

25

route:6a177a0efa4e4360ac11837a0abfe67f>.

4. Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. 56-58. Print.

5. Doyle, Michael W. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2."

Philosophy & Public Affairs 12.4 (1983): 323-53. JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

6. Elman, Miriam Fendius. Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? Cambridge, MA:

MIT, 1997. Print.

7. Gat, Azar. "The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact of

Modernity." World Politics 58.01 (2005): 73-100. Web.

8. Grugel, Jean. Democratization: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. N.p.: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2013. Print.

9. Hasenclever, Andreas, and Brigitte Weiffen. "International Institutions

Are the Key: A New Perspective on the Democratic Peace." Review of International

Studies 32.04 (2006): 563-85. Web.

10. Kinsella, David Todd. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American

Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): 453-57. PDXScholar. Portland State

University. Web.

11. Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace."

International Security 19.2 (1994): 5-49. Web.

12. Levy, Jack S. "Domestic Politics and War." Journal of Interdisciplinary History

18.4 (1988): 653. Web.

13. Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. "Democratization and the Danger of War."International Security 20.1 (1995): 5. Web.

13. Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. "19. Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett. 1993.

“Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986.” American

Political Science Review 87 (September): 624–38. Cited 278 times." American

Political Science Review 100.04 (2006): 685. Web.

14. Maoz, Zeev. "The Controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard26

Action or Cracks in the Wall?" International Security 22.1 (1997): 162-98. Web.

15. Maoz, Zeez, and Bruce Russett. "Alliances, Contiguity, Wealth, and

Political Stability : Is the Lack of Conflict between Democracies a

Statistical Artifact ?" International Interactions 17.3 (Spring 1992): 245-67.

Print.

16. The New York Times. "Excerpts From President Clinton's Message on the

State of the Union." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Jan. 1994.

Web. 08 Nov. 2014.

17. Nye, Joseph S. "Origins of the Great Twentieth-Century Conflicts."

Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. 5th ed. New

York, NY: HarperCollins, 1993. 33-56. Print.

18. Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. "The Kantian Peace: The Pacific

Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations,

1885–1992." World Politics 52.01 (1999): 1-37. Web.

19. Owen, John M. "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." International

Security 19.2 (1994): 87-125. Project MUSE. Web.

20. Rasler, Karen A., and William R. Thompson. Puzzles of the Democratic Peace

Theory, Geopolitics, and the Transformation of World Politics. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2005. Print.

21. Ray, James Lee. "The Answer, or an Answer? Evaluating the Democratic

Peace Proposition." Rev. of Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? Mershon

International Studies Review 42.No.2 (Nov, 1998): 369-71. JSTOR. Web.

22. Rosato, Sebastian. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory."

American Political Science Review 97.04 (2003): 585-602. Web.

23. Russett, Bruce, Christopher Layne, David E. Spiro, and Michael W.

Doyle. "The Democratic Peace." International Security 19.4 (1995): 164-84. The MIT

27

Press. Web.

24. Shenfield, Stephen, and Bruce Russett. "Grasping the Democratic Peace:

Principles for a Post-Cold War World." International Affairs (Royal Institute of

International Affairs 1944-) 70.2 (1994): 306. Web.

25. Weart, Spencer R. Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. NewHaven: Yale UP, 1998. Print.

28

i Those two economic elements have been demonstrated to have a diminishing effect on the likelihood of war between countries.