DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

Presenters: XIANG LI & QIANWEI LI

BACKGROUND

Immanuel Kant – German philosopher

18th century

“Perpetual peace”

DEFINATION

DPT is a theory which posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies. In contrast to theories explaining war engagement, it is a “Theory Of Peace” outlining motives that dissuade state-sponsored violence.

Several Factors which motivate peace between liberal states

Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;

Publicly accountable statesmen are more inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving international tensions;

Democracies are less inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;

Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources;

CHALLENGES ABOUT PROSPECTS FOR PEACE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

CHALLENGES REALISM’S EMPHASIS ON SYSTEMIC FACTORS (WALTZ’S 3 IMAGES AND ‘STRUCTURAL’ IR THEORY)

DPT ASSAULT ON REALISM

The First Image: the individual or the manThe Second Image: the stateThe Third Image: the international system

Waltz’s 3 images

*War is a product of human nature.

Realist view - humans are inherently conflictualLiberalist view - humans learn and evolve, and can cooperate for the sake of security.

Level of Analysis: Individual

How We Study: Psychology, Idiosyncratic Approach (looking at specific characteristics of individuals), focus on decision-makers.

Theories: ethological, frustration-aggression, socialization, leadership.

The First Image

The Second Image

War is caused by state behavior.

Realist view: states act in their own security self interest.Liberalist view: with institutions and global law, states can learn to cooperate for global security.

Level of Analysis: The State

How we study: Does state size, type, or location influence foreign policy behavior? Will more democracy equal fewer wars?

Theories: statist, state economic, externalization, democratic peace.

The Third Image

War is caused by the anarchic nature of the international system.

Solution: global government Realist view: lack of central government

means states focus on their own security Liberalist view: build international

institutions to create global governance. Level of Analysis: System Level How we study: measure distribution of

power in the international system (polarity, equilibrium)

Theories: polarity/distribution of power, anarchical nature of international system, economic, environmental/resource explanations.

Realist pessimism

War is not constant and endemic, but it is always possible in the absence of a common sovereign.

Christopher Layne

– a prominent critic of DPT

- “fear and distrust is the normal state of affairs”

- “security and survival are always at risk”- “democratic states respond no differently to

democratic rivals than to non-democratic ones”.

PERMANENT PEACE ACTUALLY EXIST

Systemic theory

Realists believe that systemic factors, especially anarchy and variations in the distribution of power, cause states to compete. International politics can therefore be explained without differentiating states by regime type – realism assumes that the internal characteristics of states are irrelevant to achieving peace in the international system.

DPT versus realism

Undermine?

What does DPT achieve?

Spread democracy around the world?

-- Michael Doyle

Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs

PART I WHAT IS LIBERALISM, AND WHY DON’T LIBERAL STATES FIGHT ONE ANOTHER

PART II WHY LIBERALISM FAILS IN RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES

MAIN POINTS

states that adhere to liberal principles enjoy a separate peace amongst themselves

states that adhere to liberal principles are likely to wage war against non-liberal states

LIBERAL PRINCIPLE

THREE IMPORTANT SETS OF RIGHTS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL POSSESSES

freedom from arbitrary authority;social and economic rights;rights of democratic participation

and representation.

BASED ON

juridical equality and freedom of religion and the press;

rule by responsible legislatures;private property;a market economy driven by supply

and demand.

MAJOR ARGUEMENTS

liberal states should not intervene in the domestic affairs of other liberal states.

War is not impossible, but it is unlikely. When liberal states have economic conflicts, they

resolve them peacefully. In major wars, liberal states have tended to fight on the same

side. transcended the realist security dilemma/ stronger liberal

states have not fought weaker ones. States sharing other ideologies or structures have fought each

other.

MAJOR ARGUEMENTS

Doyle refers to the liberal peace rather than the democratic peace. The tendency of liberal states not to fight each other but to wage war against non-liberal states can be explained by reference to the features of republican regimes.

Also, commerce boosts international interdependence, and removes much economic activity and some important decisions from the ambit of state control and state interest.

Two Main Reasons

Liberal principles can be a cause of aggression.

①From the perspective of liberal states, non-liberal states have no right to be free from foreign intervention, because they do not guarantee domestic justice for their citizens.

②Liberal states are likely to view non-liberal states as potential aggressors, because of this lack of transparency and unwillingness to uphold liberal principles at home.

Validity of DPTBut simultaneously not advocate liberal

interventionism, which critics of DPT often fail to note this point

Liberal interventions in failed states often fail to meet their designated objectives and actually make matters worse.

Conclusion

The rate of expansion of liberal regimes since 1800 continue, we might reasonably expect world peace early in the next century.

Bruce Russett – Grasping the Democratic Peace

Some realist criticisms of DPT

Some liberal responses to these criticisms

a norm against fighting the end of the 19th century.

a prominent feature of international politics in the second half ofthe 20th century

HE IDENTIFIES

1,000 battle deaths as the threshold for identifying a conflict as a war

a democracy as a state “with a voting franchise for a substantial fraction of citizensa government brought to power in contested elections, and an executive either popularly elected, or responsible to an elected legislature”.

liberties

economic freedoms.

It should be noted that

BR’s definition electoral democracy

Doyle’s is liberal democracy.

BR’s definition is less demanding, and more inclusive

——– it is easier to meet BR’s definition.

What this means is that

BR considers some of the alleged wars between democracies, arguing that in every case, either one of the participants could not be classified as a democracy, or, the number of battle deaths fell below the 1,000 threshold.

nearly all of the alleged wars took place in the 19th century, or early in the 20th century.

It is worth noting that

What time dose DPT became a theory?

In dyads of longstanding rivals, conflicts have only taken place when one of the two or more was non-democratic.

role of international institutions

Transnationalism

Distance

alliances against common threats

wealth

political stability.

BR considers

several alternative explanations for DP

1. The cultural/normative model.

2. The structural/institutional model.

So, how might the absence of conflict between democratic states be explained?BR suggests two answers:

the first point is that

decision-makers in democracies follow norms of peaceful conflict resolution.

According to model one

because these reflect domestic experiences and values. Democracies are biased against resolving domestic disputes violently, and carry this value over into their approach to international conflict

This expectation does not exist with regard to non-democracies. The norm of peaceful conflict resolution therefore can explain democratic peace, but does not prevent conflict with non-democracies.

Secondly, democracies expect that

other democracies will share similar preferences. This expectation does not exist with regard to non-democracies.

checks and balances

separations of power

the need for public debate

According to model two

in democracies there are domestic institutional constraints

BR recognizes potential difficulties in separating the two models

but ultimately believes that it is possible to devise tests that can determine which model is causing DP.

It is also necessary to point that the idea of mutual perception/recognition is doing a lot of work in both models.

Some liberal responses to these criticisms

There have been more systematic attempts to explain the causal logic of DPT.

Some realist criticisms of DPTIt is statistically significant that democracies have not fought each other, but this could be correlation without causation.

The evidence for DPT is not statistically significant.

Some realist criticisms of DPT

Some liberal responses to these criticisms

Proponents of DPT have conducted additional quantitative studies to re-emphasize its statistical significance. These studies have controlled for other possible explanations such as geography and alliance discipline.

Thank you for listening