From Democratic Peace to Democratic War?

نویسندگان

  • ANNA GEIS
  • LOTHAR BROCK
چکیده

The “democratic peace” is not only a fancy idea of academia, most prominently advanced by the philosopher of Enlightenment Immanuel Kant in his famous essay on “Perpetual Peace” (1795), but two hundred years later, is established as a liberal research program in the U.S. International Relations discipline. The famous statement “democracies do not fight each other” seems so far to represent a real phenomenon, at least if we consider consolidated democracies. The very controversial ideational debate between Realist critics and Liberal proponents of the democratic peace argument reigning during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and questioning whether the phenomenon might be a mere statistical artifact has been settled now. In the meantime, even critics acknowledge the empirical finding that consolidated democracies do not fight each other as quite robust. This has culminated into the striking and tremendous success that the idea of the democratic peace has gained in practical politics. Since the end of the Cold War, the linking of democracy and peace has become part and parcel of official political ideology, informing the foreign policy of Western democracies. Promoting democracy has turned to be the foremost strategy to secure peace and prosperity as, for example, the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2006 makes abundantly clear. As long as democracy is promoted by peaceful means of cooperation and voluntary assistance, one might not object to such a foreign policy strategy. If regime change is to be achieved by force as in the Iraq war 2003, however, the “flip side” of the democratic peace, namely a “democratic war” becomes obvious. Unfortunately, the notion of a democratic peace lends itself to being employed as an ideological underpinning for liberal-expansionist policies. Under the guise of promoting a seemingly “universalist” idea of democracy and freedom, some of the powerful Western democracies arrogate to themselves the right to pursue a “liberal mission.” Not only do such wars by democracies pose a challenge in practical political terms; they also unsettle democratic peace theory (DP). This article briefly outlines how this theoretical challenge might lead to a shift Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 19:157–163 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online DOI: 10.1080/10402650701353570

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship*

Several studies have suggested the possibility of reverse causation in the ‘democratic peace’ relationship: that the well-known extreme rarity of wars between democratic nations may be partially or wholly explained by a negative impact of war on democracy. Three kinds of war-on-regime effects are discussed. Anterior effects are regime changes that occur in preparation for wars; concurrent effec...

متن کامل

Thucydides and Democratic Peace

Thucydides is an important author for any discussion of the possibilities for an ancient Greek democratic peace. Though democratic peace did not, in fact, seem to function in classical Greece, a number of passages in Thucydides show that an affinity did exist among democratic factions and city-states in the context of hostile competition between democratic and oligarchic regimes. Thucydides rem...

متن کامل

Tulisan ini menolak determinisme dari kaum realis. Politik dalam negeri atau sifat dasar rezim mempengaruhi politik luar negeri, diikuti kemungkinan

This paper rejects the determinism of the realist position. Domestic politics or the nature of the regime does influence the foreign behavior of the states, and in turn, the probability of war, peace, and international security. In supporting the liberal argument, it will be argued that the spread of democracy will contribute to the promotion of international security. The argument is based on ...

متن کامل

Might Makes Right or Right Makes Might? Two Systemic Democratic Peace Tales

In a path-breaking article, Wade Huntley (1996) reinterpreted Immanuel Kant’s pacific union as a systemic phenomenon. Huntley’s argument spawned a new wave of inquiry into the evolutionary expansion of the democratic peace, with several empirical studies finding a positive relationship between global democracy and systemic peace (e.g. Crescenzi and Enterline 1999; Gleditsch and Hegre 1997; Kade...

متن کامل

Might Makes Right or Right Makes Might

In a path-breaking article, Wade Huntley (1996) reinterpreted Immanuel Kant’s pacific union as a systemic phenomenon. Huntley’s argument spawned a new wave of inquiry into the evolutionary expansion of the democratic peace, with several empirical studies finding a positive relationship between global democracy and systemic peace (e.g. Crescenzi and Enterline 1999; Gleditsch and Hegre 1997; Kade...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2007