Suchergebnisse

The work of Immanuel Kant has been foundational in modern democratic peace theory. His essay Toward Perpetual Peace gives three prescriptions for attaining peace between democracies: republican institutions, a pacific union between states, and an ethos of universal hospitality. Contemporary democratic peace theory, however, has warped the Kantian framework from which it draws inspiration: the third prescription has been gradually substituted for commerce and trade. I argue that this change in emphasis produces tensions between Perpetual Peace and the body of democratic peace theory literature it spawned. Moreover, I contend that a look back at Kant's essay sheds light on why this transformation occurred. Finally, I use this new look back at Perpetual Peace to reformulate the relationship between peace, democracy, and commerce so as to offer a new perspective on the democratic peace theory/capitalist peace theory debate.

This study tries to explain the reasons why Peru and Ecuador went to war with each other in 1995, even though both are democracies. The research was conducted concerning Immanuel Kant's Democratic Peace Theory by examining norms and institutions as essential factors in developing his theory. This study uses qualitative research with literature review and interview methods. The study will focus on the conditions of norms and institutions in Peru and Ecuador in 1995, the year the two countries decided to go to war with each other. Based on the research results, it is known that democratic norms and institutions owned by Ecuador and Peru have not been able to create peace as has been assumed by Immanuel Kant in the Democratic Peace Theory. Although Ecuador has democratic institutions that can reduce the authority of its leaders in decision-making, the domestic democratic norms established in the 1830 Constitutional Law cannot make the Ecuadorian people's support refer to peace in overcoming the Cenepa border conflict. On the contrary, in Peru, democratic norms that prefer to negotiate and make peace are not followed by the effectiveness of the role of democratic institutions that cannot limit President Fujimori's authority, who chooses to carry out attacks in border areas which then triggers a war.

The work of Immanuel Kant has been foundational in modern democratic peace theory. His essay Toward Perpetual Peace gives three prescriptions for attaining peace between democracies: republican institutions, a pacific union between states, and an ethos of universal hospitality. Contemporary democratic peace theory, however, has warped the Kantian framework from which it draws inspiration: the third prescription has been gradually substituted for commerce and trade. I argue that this change in emphasis produces tensions between Perpetual Peace and the body of democratic peace theory literature it spawned. Moreover, I contend that a look back at Kant's essay sheds light on why this transformation occurred. Finally, I use this new look back at Perpetual Peace to reformulate the relationship between peace, democracy, and commerce so as to offer a new perspective on the democratic peace theory/capitalist peace theory debate.

Abstract: In this paper I present a summary and analysis of the existing literature surrounding the democratic peace theory. I argue that due to methodological gaps in the conceptualization of the theory, empirical evidence has so far yielded non definitive results. This is due to two crucial factors; the first is that proponents tend to mistakenly present democracy as a dichotomous variable, and the second is that other independent variables are often empirically inseparable from democracy. I hypothesize that by re-conceptualizing democracy as a measurable rather than dichotomous variable, we will be better equipped to determine whether or not the observed relationship between democracy and a reduction in militarized interstate disputes is a causal relationship or a mere correlation.Résumé: Dans cet article, je présente un résumé ainsi qu'une analyse de la littérature existante au sujet de la théorie de la paix démocratique. En raison de lacunes méthodologiques dans la conceptualisation de la théorie, les études empiriques ont jusqu'ici donné des résultats non définitifs. Je soutiens que cela est dû à deux facteurs: d'une part, ses promoteurs font fausse piste en présentant la démocratie comme une variable dichotomique et, d'autre part, ils oublient l'importance de variables indépendantes tiers qui sont souvent empiriquement inséparables de la notion de démocratie. Je pose l'hypothèse que, par la re-conceptualisation de la démocratie comme une variable mesurable plutôt que dichotomique, nous serons ainsi mieux équipés à déterminer si la relation observée entre la notion de démocratie et la réduction des conflits interétatiques militarisés constitue une relation de cause à effet ou une simple corrélation.

This article argues that the democratic peace theorists have overlooked the defining development that underlies that peace of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: the industrial-technological revolution. Not only did that revolution make democracy on a country scale possible; it also madeallthe countries that experienced the revolution—democratic and nondemocratic—far less belligerent in comparison with preindustrial times. The democratic peace did not exist among premodern democratic and republican city-states, not because they were not democratic or liberal enough but because they were premodern. Other factors that have emanated from the modern transformation and may generate greater aversion to war apply mostly to liberal democratic countries while being only variably connected to their regime. Such factors include the staggering rise in the standard of living; the decrease in hardship, pain, and death; the dominance of metropolitan life and the service economy; the spread of the consumer and entertainment society; sexual promiscuity; women's franchise; and the shrinking ratio of young males in the population.

This article argues that the democratic peace theorists have overlooked the defining development that underlies that peace of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: the industrial-technological revolution. Not only did that revolution make democracy on a country scale possible; it also made all the countries that experienced the revolution - democratic and nondemocratic - far less belligerent in comparison with preindustrial times. The democratic peace did not exist among premodern democratic and republican city-states, not because they were not democratic or liberal enough but because they were premodern. Other factors that have emanated from the modern transformation and may generate greater aversion to war apply mostly to liberal democratic countries while being only variably connected to their regime. Such factors include the staggering rise in the standard of living; the decrease in hardship, pain, and death; the dominance of metropolitan life and the service economy; the spread of the consumer and entertainment society; sexual promiscuity; women's franchise; and the shrinking ratio of young males in the population. (World Politics / SWP)

Democratic Peace Theory has been one of the most hotly debated topics ever since the 1980s. From Kant to the present day, the meaning of Democratic Peace Theory has changed, while the theory nowadays claims in principle that democratic states wage war against each other less often owing to their institutions' and citizens' abilities to urge their governments to establish a peaceful foreign policy. At this point, the critical theory offers an alternative explanation for the behaviors of democratic countries. This study was designed as a theoretical discussion utilising the analysis of primary and secondary sources in the field, both in printed and electronic materials. Employing the viewpoint of the critical theory, this paper argues that Democratic Peace is the disguise of hegemonic relations and the product of the historical block. This study revealed that democracies are not pacifist actors in the international realm. As articulated by the critical approach, the study also puts forth that the concept of Democratic eace facilitates the expansionist ambitions of hegemonic powers in the international system by utilizing various humanitarian interventions and serves as a means to maintain imperialist peace. Empirical evidence from the military intervention in Libya further reinforces this argument. Thus, this study asserts the idea to be cautious against the propositions of the Democratic Peace Theory because any activities done in the name of spreading democracy may involve a hidden agenda and disrupt the internal stability of non-democratic countries.

Originating from the work of Immanuel Kant, Democratic Peace Theory proposes that democracies rarely, if ever, fight war against other democracies. While inquiries to the existence of such phenomena through sophisticated statistical approach remain important, it is equally important to further develop the understanding in the causal explanations behind it. There are two dominant strands of explanations for Democratic Peace, one locates the causes on the structure of democratic government, and the other locates them on the prevailing norms/cultures within a democratic society. The structural explanations claim that it is the institutions within democratic governments, such as the presence of regular election, checks and balances (from parliament), and transparency that hinder their leaders to initiate wars against other democracies. The norm/cultural explanations argue that democracies develop liberal ideology, norms of bounded competition, and reciprocity, which guide them in conducting peaceful foreign relations with other democracies. Despite the compelling logics brought by these two types of explanations, there remains a gap between their theoretical assumptions and practical realities of inter-state relations. Furthermore, some of these explanations need to be further specified in order to allow for more operational investigations to them.

This study tries to explain the reasons why Peru and Ecuador went to war with each other in 1995, even though both are democracies. The research was conducted concerning Immanuel Kant's Democratic Peace Theory by examining norms and institutions as essential factors in developing his theory. This study uses qualitative research with literature review and interview methods. The study will focus on the conditions of norms and institutions in Peru and Ecuador in 1995, the year the two countries decided to go to war with each other. Based on the research results, it is known that democratic norms and institutions owned by Ecuador and Peru have not been able to create peace as has been assumed by Immanuel Kant in the Democratic Peace Theory. Although Ecuador has democratic institutions that can reduce the authority of its leaders in decision-making, the domestic democratic norms established in the 1830 Constitutional Law cannot make the Ecuadorian people's support refer to peace in overcoming the Cenepa border conflict. On the contrary, in Peru, democratic norms that prefer to negotiate and make peace are not followed by the effectiveness of the role of democratic institutions that cannot limit President Fujimori's authority, who chooses to carry out attacks in border areas which then triggers a war.