In this paper, I will illustrate how wars conducted by democracies are justified. I chose this topic because democracy, at least in the Western world, has been seen as a preferential and desirable constitution because of its association with peace and cooperation. The Democratic Peace Theory certainly bolsters this viewpoint, but still, we notice as we look at empirical data that democracies are not peaceful at all. This is a noteworthy gap in this theory. Through answering my central question, I want to explain this gap and also how democracies cleverly elude the constraints imposed on them to go to war, which one would not expect of them. Additionally, through outlining the justifications, I want to help understand why democracies are belligerent.
I will first refer to the problem of definition, for democracy and war are not clear-cut terms in political science and outline how I understand democracy and war in this paper. In the second section, I will provide the theoretical ground, the Democratic Peace Theory which I will refute through empirical evidence, after which five arguments of justification will follow: First, humanitarian intervention and the role of the media, second, moral duties, third, the construction of images of the ‘other’ and fourth, wars within democratizing states. Lastly, in the conclusion, I will summarize the arguments, briefly refer to their discrepancies and provide suggestions for further research.
In each of the arguments, I will present what it is, how the justification comes about and add an example to illustrate it. In the first three arguments, I will also show how approaches used to explain the peacefulness of democracies are being reversed. As well, I will provide some definitions of a few major terms used in the arguments to establish clarity. Because justifications should not always be considered true, I will provide critical points for each argument incorporated in the respective section. Those are also summarized in the conclusion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The problem of definition
3. The Democratic Peace Theory
4. Empirical Evidence for the belligerence of democracies
5. Justificatory arguments for democratic wars
5.1 Humanitarian intervention and the role of the media
5.2 Moral duties
5.3 The construction of images of the ‘Other’
5.4 Wars of democratizing states
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the paradox that, despite the theoretical assumption of the "Democratic Peace Theory" that democracies are inherently peaceful, they frequently engage in military conflicts. The central research question seeks to uncover the specific mechanisms and justifications—such as humanitarian intervention, moral duties, the construction of enemy images, and the dynamics of democratizing states—that democracies employ to legitimize their belligerent actions.
- The theoretical limitations of the Democratic Peace Theory.
- The role of media and public opinion in legitimizing military interventions.
- The construction of the 'Other' and the use of enemy images in justifying warfare.
- The influence of nationalism and weak institutions in democratizing states on conflict.
- The discrepancy between proclaimed values like human rights and actual geopolitical motives.
Excerpt from the Book
5.3 The construction of images of the ‘Other’
Democracies justify interventions because they need to fight the “evil” that is committing atrocities against individuals. This enemy image and in general constructions of the ‘Other’, shall be explained as argument for democratic wars here. In connection with enemy images, I will also discuss the principle of self-defence as another justification.
The term ‘Other’ is employed once figurative boundaries are drawn between groups of people who perceive each other as different from another because they have different identities (Geis, 2006). The ‘Others’ then would, to illustrate this concept, those of group Y who are not belonging to group X. If there was not a group X or any other group that is different to group Y, there would be no use to construct a group Y. Therefore, a constant construction and perception of the ‘Other’ is essential of constructing one’s identity.
This principle applies very well to democracies and to the constructivist approach explaining the democratic peace. Democracies, due to their common values and culture, form a community and create thus a common identity (Knüpling, 2000). They would thus never expect of the others any violent actions; rather they would expect them to resolve conflicts peacefully and to adhere to the norms to which they and the rest of the democratic state community have committed. Simultaneously, those not sharing their ideas are constructed as different and enemies. These constructions have served a legitimate basis for democracies to conduct wars and violent actions, as described below (Schimmelpfennig, 2010; translated by me).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research gap regarding the belligerence of democracies and presents the core objectives of the paper.
2. The problem of definition: Establishes clear definitions of "war" and "democracy" to provide a analytical framework for the paper.
3. The Democratic Peace Theory: Introduces the theoretical assumption that democracies are peaceful and challenges its validity.
4. Empirical Evidence for the belligerence of democracies: Provides historical and contemporary examples of democratic states engaging in wars to refute the Democratic Peace Theory.
5. Justificatory arguments for democratic wars: Analyzes the four main strategies—humanitarianism, moral duty, enemy construction, and transitional instability—used to justify war.
5.1 Humanitarian intervention and the role of the media: Explores how human rights discourse and media influence public consent for military action.
5.2 Moral duties: Examines how the perceived responsibility to combat evil and punish aggressors is utilized as a moral justification.
5.3 The construction of images of the ‘Other’: Investigates how democratic communities define themselves by creating negative images of outsiders to justify force.
5.4 Wars of democratizing states: Discusses how weak institutions and nationalist movements drive conflict in states transitioning toward democracy.
6. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that the identified justifications serve as excuses for underlying geopolitical interests.
Keywords
Democratic Peace Theory, War, Humanitarian Intervention, Human Rights, Media, Public Opinion, Enemy Images, The Other, Democratizing States, Nationalism, Justification, Geopolitics, Foreign Policy, Military Intervention, Belligerence
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the apparent contradiction between the "Democratic Peace Theory"—which posits that democracies are peaceful—and the historical reality that democratic nations frequently engage in military interventions and wars.
What are the primary themes discussed in this work?
The work explores how democratic states navigate legal and moral constraints to justify warfare, focusing on humanitarian aid, media-driven public support, the psychological construction of enemies, and the unique challenges faced by states transitioning to democracy.
What is the main goal or research question?
The primary goal is to answer the question, "How are Democratic Wars Justified?" and to explain the gap in current political theory regarding the aggressive tendencies of democratic regimes.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, integrating existing academic literature and empirical data to deconstruct political discourse and identify patterns in the justifications used by democratic governments.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The body section details four distinct justificatory mechanisms: the use of humanitarian intervention, the appeal to moral duties, the creation of "Otherness," and the specific volatility of democratizing states due to nationalism.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Democratic Peace Theory, Humanitarian Intervention, Enemy Images, Democratization, Nationalism, and Political Justification.
How does the author define a "democratizing state" in this context?
A democratizing state is defined as one that is in the process of transitioning from an autocratic system toward anocracies or consolidated democracy, often characterized by weak institutions and internal political volatility.
What role does the media play in justifying wars according to the author?
The media acts as a "mouthpiece" for the government, shaping public opinion by emphasizing moral urgency, polarizing "good" vs. "evil," and presenting military action as both necessary and low-risk.
Does the author suggest that humanitarianism is the true reason for modern wars?
No, the author argues that humanitarian claims are often "spurious" and serve as a facade for rational, egoistic self-interests and a desire to project global power.
- Citar trabajo
- Emre Yildiz (Autor), 2012, How Are Democratic Wars Justified?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/232023
