Why do democracies win wars? This is a critical question in the study of international relations, as a traditional view--expressed most famously by Alexis de Tocqueville--has been that democracies are inferior in crafting foreign policy and fighting wars. In Democracies at War, the first major study of its kind, Dan Reiter and Allan Stam come to a very different conclusion. Democracies tend to win the wars they fight--specifically, about eighty percent of the time.
Kane, J.; Patapan, H.: Foreword: democracies at war. - S. 285-291 Kane, J.: Democracy and world peace : the Kantian dilemma of United States foreign policy. - S. 292-312 Patapan, H.: Democratic international relations : Montesquieu and the theoretical foundations of democratic peace theory. - S. 313-329 Owens, J.F.: The resilience of democratic institutions in Britain, Australia and the United States under conditions of total war. - S. 330-348 Rousseau, D.L.; Thrall, A.T.; Schulzke, M.; Sin, S.S.: Democratic leader and war : simultaneously managing external conflicts and domestic politics. - S. 349-364 Merom, G.: The age o asicial war : democratic intervention and counterinsurgency in the twenty-first century. - S. 365-380 Lockyer, A.: How democracies exit small wars : the role of opposition parties in war termination. - S. 381-396
Though many of the longest and most devastating internal armed conflicts have been fought within the boundaries of democratic states, these countries employ some of the highest numbers of human rights prosecutions. What conditions prompt this outcome and what explains the variable patterns of prosecutions in democracies at war? Prosecutions may be enabled by existing democratic norms and institutions, but given their role in a violent conflict, democratic governments may go to great lengths to avoid judicial accountability. Through qualitative and quantitative research of four cases, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Spain and Colombia, this book argues that emergency and anti-terrorism laws issued during the conflict created barriers to the investigation and prosecution of state human rights violations. The extent to which state actors were held accountable was shaped by citizens, NGOs and political actors who challenged or upheld impunity provisions within emergency legislation.