Democratic Peace Theory

As Cierco(Source A) said to his son, “physical force… is characteristic of man.” Peace may last for some time, but differing views on complicated issues means fighting for what you believe is right. For example, the Cold War clearly supports this message because the US strongly believed in democratic values and they were fighting against the Soviet Union who desired to spread communism. The Cold War strengthened US politically because they maintained their democratic values and contained communism by helping out countries that were devastated after World War II. The US was strictly against communism because it harmed their democratic views and because this could not be solved through discussion, the Cold War was bound to happen. The US and USSR wanted to gain more allies through the spread of their own ideologies but, the Soviet Union clearly had a negative intent of spreading their power on the world. The US policy of containment weakened the Soviet Union because they were not able to spread communism and therefore led to the fall of their empire. This shows that war can either strengthen countries or weaken countries who abuse their use of power. Action must be taken against countries who have a negative purpose of spreading their power and if not resolved through discussion, this means going to

John Knowles’ “A Separate Peace” takes place at a boarding school during World War II. Best friends Gene and Finny have been inseparable during their time at the Devon School. This is until reality hits Gene, and he slowly starts to realize that he is inferior to his best friend. Through the unbalanced friendship between two teenagers in “A Separate Peace,” Knowles illustrates that a loss of identity may be present in a relationship if there is an unequal amount of power.

#1 conflict “I felt betrayed.I felt more alone than ever. By the end of the fourth day at military school, I had run away four times” (Moore 90).

A typical case of study is the Cold War. From my understanding, the Cold War describes the relationship between America and the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1980. During this period, neither sides ever fought each other directly, but indirectly they influenced other countries through their ideologies (i.e. America’s democracy and Russia’s communism) to war. For example, America supplied weapons to South Vietnam (anti-communist) to war with North Vietnam (pro-communist), who were also supported and supplied weapons by China/Russia. Also with Afghanistan, Americans helped them after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 by supplying them with weapons to war, without physically involving themselves. This portrays that, in the absence of a supreme power to regulate law in International relations, the system will not be able to provide any public good, in this case, PEACE among states. However, to some extent they do. To achieve this peace, both realists and liberals have outlined various factors that facilitate this provision among States. For liberals, peace among states can be achieved through economic cooperation, democratic peace

In each of the three books, the main character goes on a strenuous mental journey. Whether its Gene and his road to self-acceptance, Ishmael and his strive for humanity, or Henry and his endeavor for courage, they each struggle to reach their final destination of happiness and self-worth. This is evident in the line cited from A Separate Peace, “I had no qualms at all; in fact I could feel now gathering, glowing sense of sureness in the face of it.” This line shows Gene finally at peace with his personal nature. This is evident again in the line, “I have been rehabilitated now, so don’t be afraid of me. I am not a soldier anymore; I am a child.” This is line is spoken by Ishmael Bah, author of A Long Way Gone, and shows Ishmael conveying

The example of a free Iraq would accordingly inspire other peoples of the region to the belief that democracy was not just a Western invention but a universal human right. This is a profoundly liberal argument adopted by the Bush administration. In the words of Ikenberry (2004), if the values of democracy and the rule of law are established in troubled countries around the world, security threats would cease bringing in lasting peace liberals view highly of.

Democracy is the solitary example of a genuine political system in most of the world. According to the text, “Today, sixty-two percent of the countries in the world are democracies.” For example, if the United States did not have the power to spread democracy, it could not influence the International Community to the benefit of national interests. The national interest of the United States not to spend limited resources on warfare when it can be used in a more productive manor. The growth of democracy puts the United States in smaller amounts of positions causing them to make the decision to go to war. A democracy generally does not go to combat with another democracy. The United States is a greatly functioned democracy. Along with Democracy,

The intent of this review is to evaluate the concept of "Just Post Bellum" that the article 's author, Gary J. Bass, developed through an empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most stable region and safe, and leaving affected populations less subject to violence and oppression." However, Gary J. Bass also provides constructive criticism and compiles theoretical concepts of importance of various classical and contemporary authors from the realistic-idealistic point of view of several events that promote an understanding of clear concepts of Just War and their relevance in the context of a globalized world. The author refutes the conventional perception that "Political leaders often invoke postwar evolution as bringing democracy or stability as part of justifying or condemning a war," (P. 384), when in reality other standards of postwar evolution exist.

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

Another major influence on the ability to institutionalize peace is the role of powerful national individuals. Many people will follow an influential figure and do whatever they say if they believe in what they are being told. This can be both good and bad depending on the situation. If the leader has radical views and wants change, they will often resort to violence to get what is desired. That is the worst case scenario because if peace is trying to be obtained, then fighting will only make the situation worse. This is why major global powers such as the United States have overthrown important political leaders in other countries to help restore order to the country. Larger, more powerful countries will often make decisions to intervene if they feel it is in the best interest of the world or neighboring countries. If such great power is put into the wrong hands, the consequences can be devastating.

Democratic Peace Theory cannot work as a solution for unsuccessful talks when it comes to foreign policy because when deciding if democracies should go to war with one another, having the citizens decide is bad because the average person does not think rationally, they think emotionally which leads to more problems. Take the Cold War of the United States against the USSR as an example of how emotions almost destroyed two nations. People were spying on their own family members out of fear of being branded a communist and the fear of nuclear annihilation was ever present danger that children were doing drills in case of nuclear fallout. Had it not been for Gorbachev assuming power in Russia and letting his people see what freedom was about through his policies, we would not be here today. Mr. Layne, author of “Kant or Can’t,” furthers the point by stating that Democracies behave differently against non-democracies (Layne 4). Democratic Peace Theory cannot be a solution to resolve foreign

“As globalisation has helped to spread the culture of violence, it has also helped to spread the need for global peace”. The urge for peace increased so much that the strategy of winning a war at all cost switched to the strategy where preventing a war became more important. Because peace is such an essential factor in global society, adjectives are used to make the definition more detailed. Positive and negative peace were a result from these adjustments. (Umoh & Udoh, 2011)

War is an inevitable feature of international politics. Assess with reference to liberalism or realism

A liberalist would argue that one of the options the world has to reduce the frequency of collapsing states is to promote democracy and for states who do not have a democracy to transition into this system. A realist reason for democracies to prevent war from happening is that states are threatened of a “third party” getting involved in the conflict (Waltz). “Conformity of countries to a prescribed political form may eliminate some of the causes of war; it cannot eliminate all of them. The democratic peace thesis will hold only if all of the causes of war lie inside of states” (Waltz). Moreover, the qualities of democracy within a state would be to conserve peace within the state and abroad, and if would leave every country feeling secure in this system (Waltz). “The guarantee of the state’s proper external behavior would derive from its

Democratic Peace Theory The concept of the Democratic Peace Theory is based on the idea that whether states are likely to go to war or choose peace depends on the type of political system they have.