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