Comparative Kantian Peace Theory Economic Interdependence and International Conflict at A Group Level of Analysis

Liberal scholars in the international relations discipline argue that peace among nations would be the consequence of three complementary influences. First, republican constitutions eliminate autocratic caprice in waging war. Second, “an understanding of the legitimate rights of all citizens and of all republics comes into play” with the spread of democracy. This creates a moral foundation for the liberal peace, upon which eventually an edifice of international law can be built. Lastly, economic interdependence reinforces constitutional constraints and liberal norms by creating transnational ties that encourage accommodation rather than conflict. Thus material incentives add their force to law and morality. This paper is an analysis of how change in the level of economic interdependence in a subsystem influences international conflicts within it. The research comparatively analyzes empirical data from two subsystems, OECD and ASEAN. This research is distinctive in that (1) it simultaneously examines the Kantian peace theory’s three “legs”, democracy, inter-governmental organizations and free trade, (2) it provides an aggregated, group-level analysis of economic interdependence, and (3) it differentiates international conflicts between lower intensity conflict and militarized interstate disputes. Results from the statistical analysis indicate that in the OECD, an increase in economic interdependence significantly reduces the incidence of lower intensity conflict, while an increase of economic interdependence in ASEAN increases the occurrence of intra-ASEAN militarized disputes. The results suggest that Kantian peace theory is context contingent and there is a "causal complexity" in the economic interdependence-international conflict relationship. In addition, this research found that a rivalry context was dominant in both OECD and ASEAN, and that a large proportion of militarized disputes were fought over territory issues. Hence, rivalry theory and territory perspective are more applicable than Kantian peace theory to the explanation of militarized international conflicts.