Search results

The ideas of the democratic (separate) peace originally exposed during the
Enlightenment period have been further explained during the 1980s, by
entitling this issue within the academic discourse and setting up its
theoretical foundations. The fruitfulness of quantitative empirical
researches of the democratic peace theory had as its consequence many papers
which were dedicated to these topics. Most of them have been taking into
consideration very wide time framework of investigation which implied the
usage of an uneven methodological data processing from different periods and
have led to bad validity of the final results. This has become very
significant when the authors were presenting diametrically different results
using the completely same methodology. The interpretation of both results and
basic theoretical foundations on which the theory is based on, also represent
significant problem without achieved consensus within the academic community.
This paper aims at empirically research the explanatory potential of the
democratic peace theory in contemporary system of the international
relations. By combining the data on conflict intensity taken from the
Heidelberg Peace Research Institute (HIIK), and the data on the democratic
level of states by Polity4 datasets, the authors tried to investigate the
main hypothesis of the theory - whether the democratic states are less war
prone in their interdependent relations? The research was conducted on 1985
registered conflicts within the 5 years term from 2010 to 2014. According to
the extensive interpretations of the results, the starting hypothesis has
been confirmed, but when it comes to the restrictive interpretation, the
claims of the theory, that democracies are less war prone, have been
rebutted.

This essay discusses the democratic peace theory from the prespective of both its proponents and opponents. The puzzle of the democratic peace theory has long been debated methodologically and empirically. Both have a strong argument to support their views, however. This essay highlights the debate by focusing on three problems of the democratic peace theory. First, the differences of the definitions of democracy, war, and peace that demonstrates the lack of robustness in the democratic peace theory. Second, democracy by force has often failed to establish peace whether international or domestic peace and therefore the promotion of democarcy around the world have been seen as a justification of democratic intervention to other sovereign states. Third, the democratic peace theory does not always apply in new emerging democratic countries. As a result, it raises a question whether the democratic peace theory or an ideology.

Democratic peace theory is probably the most powerful liberal contribution to the debate on the causes of war and peace. In this paper I examine the causal logics that underpin the theory to determine whether they offer compelling explanations for the finding of mutual democratic pacifism. I find that they do not. Democracies do not reliably externalize their domestic norms of conflict resolution and do not trust or respect one another when their interests clash. Moreover, elected leaders are not especially accountable to peace loving publics or pacific interest groups, democracies are not particularly slow to mobilize or incapable of surprise attack, and open political competition does not guarantee that a democracy will reveal private information about its level of resolve thereby avoiding conflict. Since the evidence suggests that the logics do not operate as stipulated by the theory's proponents, there are good reasons to believe that while there is certainly peace among democracies, it may not be caused by the democratic nature of those states.

In the twenty first century, the idea of democracy has transcended its original conception of domestic governance to actively influence international relations. The nature of state—democratic or nondemocratic—has come to determine hierarchy, alliances, and status in international relations. It tends to bestow a degree of moral superiority to democratic states in dealings of international relations. This moral superiority in its most aggressive form, in the past two decades, has led to wars in the name of democracy. It has been used to justify military intervention in nondemocratic states by democratic nations. The use of force to bring about desired consequences has become the norm in inter-state relations. The focus is not on the action, but on its intent. This article studies the use of force and war by Western democratic countries to establish democracies through military intervention in other parts of the world. The article analyzes the widespread impact of foreign policies of the stronger nation-states and seeks to understand if the desired results are achieved or not. Beginning with the democratic peace theory that is held in high opinion by democracies of today, the article moves toward Immanuel Kant and his idea of perpetual peace. The democratic peace theory finds its base in Kant's perpetual peace and finds an echo in Western democracies' foreign policies. The article then sees how this theory is used to justify war, through the case study of Afghanistan, and what is the intention behind the wars. The article concludes that the desired aim of "positive peace" cannot be achieved via violent means. In the process of establishing peaceful and healthy democracy, Kant's categorical imperatives are crucial.

It is believed that democracy and peace are inextricably linked, that democracy leads to and causes peace, and that peace cannot be achieved in the absence of democracy. It is an obvious but important starting-point to remember that democracy and peace are not timeless but historical social concepts. Indeed, war itself is a historical product as the negation of peace. Democracy is accepted as the only way for the peaceful world according to the Democratic Peace Theory, but to understand the democratic peace theory, it will be better to ask the question, "What is democracy"? Democratic peace theory's main argument is that democracies do not fight each other, but "what kind democracies"? In this paper some important points of democracy and the democratic peace theory will be pointed out. This paper gives a perspective of the relationship of democracy and peace, and clarifies the question of "does democracy really promote peace"?