Term Paper

Democratic Peace Theory contends that there is a constant peace in society due to mutual profitability and understanding, but Realists typically tend towards the belief that there is a perpetual security dilemma within society and that there is a constant threat of war. Permanent peace seems improbable to Realists, as conflicts are bound to arise due to conflicting interests and opinions, and said conflicts have persisted amongst democracies in the past. Comprehensively, the idea that neither the theory itself or alternative theories can explain Democratic Peace Theories perpetuation could mean that there is no such thing as democratic peace. Theoretically, however, the proposal that said theory explanation is derived from an unaffiliated source. One could argue that said cohesiveness between democracies can be based upon an imperialistic and hegemonic United States. America 's increasing annual power presence created a sense of stability and strength that could be “democratic peace.” The war part could be either coincidence or due to fear of attacking a hegemon. The indefinency of the theory puts its legitimacy into question. If we are unsure of its origins and why it’s in existence, a question remains—is the theory admissible?

The Democratic peace thesis, whose basic concepts were studied by Kant in the 1700s, is the theory that suggests that democracies have been pacific in their relations with one other and are unlikely to go to war with another democracy. “Democracies rarely fight each other (an empirical statement) because (b) they have other means of resolving conflicts between them and therefore do not need to fight each other (a prudential statement),and (c) they perceive that democracies should not fight each other (a normative statement about principles of right behavior), which reinforces the empirical state¬ment. By this reasoning the more democracies there are in the world, the fewer potential adversaries we and other democracies will have and the wider the zone of peace.” russet

Current Issues, 35th edition, examines both the pros and cons of spreading democracy. This text explains that promoting democracy is in the U.S. national interest because democracy creates a safer, more stable world. Democratic nations cooperate with other nations and the U.S. better because they are more answerable to their citizens. The text also claims that such nations will deny terrorists from a base from which to plan and carry out attacks.

Bell engages two divergent arguments surrounding democracy, war, and peace -- the ‘democratic war thesis’ and the ‘empire peace thesis’. The two ushered in rich debates, with the former critiquing the franchise of democracy, labeling it as war-prone, meanwhile, the latter working alongside global imperialism.

While there are many variables that constitute to the increase in peace or decrease in violence throughout history; many argue that democracy has a direct correlation with global peace and some say there is not enough there for a causation. However democracy is an important factor that should be considered when evaluating the state of human relations. In a Democracy, leaders are elected to represent the will of the citizens on how the country should be ran, and are held accountable for the success or detriment they may bring to the country. Citizens of a democracy are less likely to want to engage in costly wars as they will be the ones to inevitably subsidize it by using up valuable resources and lives."Most

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

Many different explanations have been brought forth to explain why democracies do not fight one another . Among academics, the most prominent theories can be divided among three schools of thought: liberal institutionalist, realist, and liberal constructivist. Beyond academia, often-simplified interpretations of these theories have guided many Great Powers’ foreign policy decisions. This paper will first seek to outline what most academics agree to be the empirical correlations between democracies and war. This paper will then outline and examine the competing theories behind the Democratic Peace. This paper will argue that although some of the realist critiques are plausible and should not be entirely dismissed, the liberal constructivist theories offer the most accurate explanation of why the Democratic Peace exists. This paper will finish by examining the foreign policy implications of this thesis, with reference to recent and potentially future military engagements undertaken by today’s democratic Great Powers.

Initially, I found the Democratic Peace Theory to seem hypocritical and backwards, but continuing to read more throughout the chapter, the conclusion that came, was that this theory actually makes a compelling argument. However, the fact that democracy leaders will wage war in the efforts of building more democratic systems, often referred to as expanding the “zone of peace”, in hopes for attaining worldwide peace among the states, was the exact portion that seemed hypocritical. The compelling part of the argument, as previously mentioned, is based on the “Dyadic Model” of the democratic peace theory that stresses three supporting arguments: the structural argument, the normative argument,

The Democratic Peace has become one of the most compelling theories in political science. The notice supports the claim that there is an absence of war between democracies. Many individuals have tested the reason for the lack of war is due to the role of public opinion. Democratic leaders are under an obligation to citizens of a democratic nation. Dating back to the days of Immanuel Kant, the subject of war has debated amongst scholars and writers alike. Those who are against any sort of physical activity that is warlike reinforce the main argument of the human and financial burdens of war. This then supports the idea that, overall, democracies behave peacefully. Although, this so-called peaceful behavior is not strongly correlated with other

3. The democratic peace theory indicates that a war will never happen between two democracies. There is some few strength in this theory. Firstly, the democratic is obligated to the people from that country, which means that the ruler needs to get permission from the citizens on a decision about war, they cannot act on their own. Of course, people don’t like to go war. Further, there is a shared value among democratic countries. For instance, the U.S and the United Kingdom don’t compete against the other, while the U.S and North Korean are in the different story. A country without democracy based shares a little common background with the other. Finally, democracy countries are wealthier than those who are not. The evidence shows that countries

In the modern world, politics and war are connected in an important way. Political competition has led to civil wars in many countries. Moreover, political interference from developed countries has led to political instability in foreign countries. For example, in the recent past the world has witnessed political crisis some Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya. In each of these countries, war has led to loss of lives and property. Considering the political instability in these countries, we should ask ourselves: was there an aspect of external interference from developed countries? Well, credible sources indicate that the political instability in the said Arab counties was as a result of foreign policies of some developed countries. In this case, the idea was to create democratic countries in the affected countries since most of these countries were ruled by dictators (Buterbaugh, Neil, Calin &Theresa 7).

There are many theoretical perspectives used when examining the international political system. In this paper I will explain two of the most important: liberalism and realism. Though they are both strong theories, liberalism is best when it comes to explaining international politics. Liberalism better examines all of the influence that impact the decisions made within the international system and better represents the emotions and personal agendas of the state. Liberalism can be considered a combination of constructivism and realism.It takes democracy into account and examines the dynamics through all 3 levels of analysis. The downfall of liberalism is it feels like a westernized approach to international politics, so it might hurt a less

US Presidents have made it a goal during their term(s) in office to establish a good relationship with foreign countries and even try to improve upon existing connections with our allies. Some believe it is to prevent conflicts between the countries while others dispute that it is a threat assessment by the United States to pick and choose their friends and enemies. Preventing conflict between two democracies or countries that practice democracy is called Democratic Peace Theory. However, research has begun to show that Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective and needs to be brought to an end as a model for how international relations are formed or destroyed. Democratic Peace Theory needs to be abolished as a support for forming

DDR is led by third party actors in a post-conflict region. These actors take over an institutional role in the country, by strengthening the state. Hereby they have an active part in bridging power differences between former combatants and the current state. They help the state in the application of its power and agreements. They not only physically take away weapons, but they also try to bring about stable security by aiming to reintegrate former combatants. This in itself is political; balancing the concepts of justice or whether peace is a political

Balance of power is a key concept in international relations. There are many different arguments about this concept that disagree on whether or not it causes or disrupts peace in the world. Two main arguments include those made by realists and liberals. While realist theory holds that a balance between the major powers will create peace, liberals point to many examples in which this isn’t true. There have been many shifts in world power since the first world war that can serve as examples of peace compared to types of power in the international system. While no theory may be completely right, examples from the past century or so seem to prove that liberalism has the most accurate explanation of balance of power and how it relates to peace in the world through democracy, norms, and institutions. Because of this, states should not follow the advice to balance against power, but instead seek peace in different ways such as democratization to maintain democratic peace.