DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY

1. DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY Presenters: XIANG LI & QIANWEI LI

2. BACKGROUND Immanuel Kant – German philosopher 18th century “Perpetual peace”

3. 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.

4. 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;

5. DPT ASSAULT ON REALISM • CHALLENGESABOUT PROSPECTS FOR PEACE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM • CHALLENGES REALISM’S EMPHASIS ON SYSTEMIC FACTORS (WALTZ’S 3 IMAGES AND ‘STRUCTURAL’ IR THEORY)

6. The First Image: the individual or the man • The Second Image: the state • The Third Image: the international system Waltz’s 3 images

7. *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

8. 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 Second Image

9. 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. The Third Image

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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. DPT versus realism Undermine? What does DPT achieve? Spread democracy around the world?

14. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs -- Michael Doyle • PART I WHAT IS LIBERALISM, AND WHY DON’T LIBERAL STATES FIGHT ONE ANOTHER • PART II WHY LIBERALISM FAILS IN RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES

15. MAINPOINTS • 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

16. THREE IMPORTANT SETS OF RIGHTS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL POSSESSES • freedom from arbitrary authority; • social and economic rights; • rights of democratic participation and representation.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Liberal principles can be a cause of aggression. From 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. Liberal 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. Two Main Reasons

21. Liberal interventions in failed states often fail to meet their designated objectives and actually make matters worse. Validity of DPT But simultaneously not advocate liberal interventionism, which critics of DPT often fail to note this point

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

23. Bruce Russett – Grasping the Democratic Peace Some realist criticisms of DPT Some liberal responses to these criticisms

24. a norm against fighting the end of the 19th century. a prominent feature of international politics in the second half ofthe 20th century

25. 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”.

26. It should be noted that BR’s definition electoral democracy Doyle’s is liberal democracy. liberties economic freedoms.

27. 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. BR’s definition is less demanding, and more inclusive ——– it is easier to meet BR’s definition.

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

29. BR considers several alternative explanations for DP role of international institutions Transnationalism Distance alliances against common threats wealth political stability.

30. So, how might the absence of conflict between democratic states be explained? BR suggests two answers: 1. The cultural/normative model. 2. The structural/institutional model.

31. 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 the first point is that decision-makers in democracies follow norms of peaceful conflict resolution.

32. Secondly, democracies expect that other democracies will share similar preferences. This expectation does not exist with regard to non-democracies. 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.

33. According to model two in democracies there are domestic institutional constraints checks and balances separations of power the need for public debate

34. 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.

35. Some realist criticisms of DPT It is statistically significant that democracies have not fought each other, but this could be correlation without causation. Some liberal responses to these criticisms There have been more systematic attempts to explain the causal logic of DPT.

36. 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. The evidence for DPT is not statistically significant.

37. Thank you for listening