In the early 80s political scientists discovered that they overlooked something.
Earlier there was an agreement that democracies act as war prone in their foreign policy as non-democracies. The US was fighting in Vietnam; Great Britain in the Falklands and France was fighting in India and Africa, only to name three examples.
It was generally assumed that domestic politics had no influence on the foreign policy of a state. Michael Doyle initiated a dramatic change in this point of view in 1983.1 He suggested that there was a huge and important difference
between democracies and non-democracies: democracies do not – or very
seldom – fight each other. Since this time uncountable numbers of essays were published, which tried to find an answer for this correlation called the DPP – the Democratic Peace Proposition. Most of them take a liberal approach, and today the liberal approach for explaining the DPP is the leading one. Although there are a lot of scientists working in this field, there are still questions, which cannot be answered with a liberal approach. In the first part of my thesis I will introduce the main arguments and aspects of the liberal explanation of the DPP and show in a separate part where this approach failed. Based on these findings I will introduce the (neo)-realistic approach as an alternative explanation for the DPP – particularly the explanation that is represented by Erol Henderson. As well as in the first section I will show at the end the problems and contradictions of this theory. In the last part of my thesis I will bring these two approaches together and try to give an answer to question, if today a (neo) realistic approach – faced by a superior number of liberal explanations – can help to explain the DPP or show aspects of the DPP which can not be analysed by a liberal point of view. I will also give a short overview of research fields which consider if perhaps both theories, the liberal and the realistic one, failed in a context of globaliziation.
[...]
1 Hasenclever, Andreas, 2003, Liberale Ansätze zum „demokratischen Frieden“. In: Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler, Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Oppladen, p. 199.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. A liberal approach of the DPP
II. I The main liberal explanations for the DPP
II. II Criticism of a liberal DPP interpretation
III. An Alternative explanations for the DPP
III. I The end of an illusion? Henderson's explanation of the DPP
III. II Critic of Hendersons explanation
IV. The Democratic Peace meets the International Institutions
V. The future of the DPP?
VI. Need for more complex theorie
Objectives and Core Themes
This thesis examines the sufficiency of the liberal approach in explaining the Democratic Peace Proposition (DPP) in the modern era. It argues that neither traditional liberal nor purely realistic theories adequately account for current global dynamics, necessitating a more complex theoretical synthesis.
- The limitations of the liberal explanation for the DPP.
- Erol Henderson’s (neo)-realistic and institutional alternative.
- The impact of globalization and international institutions on state behavior.
- The necessity of combining multiple "images" and levels of analysis.
- The potential shift from interstate wars to internal conflicts.
Excerpt from the Book
II. I The main liberal explanations for the DPP
The main assumption, which is used for liberal explanations of the DPP, is that the use of violence in foreign policy is connected with domestic power and interests. Liberals argue that governments act in social contexts. So foreign affairs are strongly linked to the political system. A democratic system – that’s the crucial point for the liberals – leads to more peaceful behaviour in foreign affairs and makes these states so called doves in the international system. To explain how it happens that a democratic system has such an influence on the behaviour of a states Kant and his essay Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf is often used:
“Wenn (…) die Beistimmung der Staatsbürger dazu erfordert wird, um zu beschließen, ob Krieg sein soll oder nicht, so ist nichts natürlicher, als dass, da sie alle Drangsale des Krieges über sich selbst beschließen müssten (als da sind: selbst zu fechten; die Kosten des Krieges aus ihrer eigenen Habe herzugeben; die Verwüstung, die er hinter sich lässt, kümmerlich zu verbessern; zum Übermaß des Übels endlich noch eine den Frieden selbst verbittende, nie (wegen naher, immer neuer Kriege) zu tilgende Schuldenlast selbst zu übernehmen), sie sich sehr bedenken werden, ein so schlimmes Spiel anzufangen“.
In short: Liberals argue that for citizens wars are a nightmare. The consequence: democratic elected governments will need good reasons to go to war. Otherwise they risk loosing the confidence of their citizens and the chance to keep in power after the next elections are low. The way around this is a non-democratic system not too much dependent on the question of if its citizens like what they do or not. Usually in non-democratic systems elites decide about the preference of the state. These elites have naturally a different attitude towards wars. The reason is that they have the possibility of profiting from war („die Gewinne zu privatisieren”) but shift the costs on society (“die Kosten zu sozialisieren”).
Chapter Summaries
I. Introduction: Outlines the origins of the Democratic Peace Proposition (DPP) and introduces the research question regarding the sufficiency of the current liberal paradigm.
II. A liberal approach of the DPP: Explains the foundational liberal arguments regarding domestic structures and political culture while noting their theoretical limitations.
III. An Alternative explanations for the DPP: Presents Erol Henderson's realistic and institutional perspective, emphasizing the role of bipolarity and security regimes.
IV. The Democratic Peace meets the International Institutions: Discusses how institutions act as intervening variables that regulate relationships between democratic states.
V. The future of the DPP?: Explores how globalization and the changing nature of states threaten traditional democratic peace structures.
VI. Need for more complex theorie: Advocates for a multi-layered theoretical framework to better understand contemporary international relations.
Keywords
Democratic Peace Proposition, DPP, Liberalism, Realism, International Institutions, Globalization, Kantian Tripod, Foreign Policy, Bipolarity, Security Regimes, Democratization, Inter-democratic Institutions, Domestic Politics, Interstate War, Political Culture.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper evaluates whether the liberal approach remains a sufficient explanation for the Democratic Peace Proposition (DPP) in a globalized world.
What are the primary theoretical fields discussed?
The study primarily contrasts liberal interpretations of democratic peace with (neo)-realistic and institutionalist perspectives.
What is the central research question?
The author asks if a purely liberal approach can still explain the stability of the DPP, or if a more complex, multi-theory framework is required.
Which methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a comparative theoretical analysis, contrasting liberal, realistic, and institutionalist models to identify strengths and weaknesses in each.
What is the central argument regarding globalization?
The author argues that globalization and the rise of non-state actors necessitate a move beyond state-centric theories to understand modern international stability.
How is the term "Democratic Peace Proposition" defined?
It is defined as the empirical observation that democracies rarely, if ever, engage in direct armed conflict with one another.
Why does the author critique the liberal reliance on domestic structures?
The author argues that international systemic factors, such as alliances and institutions, often play a larger role in maintaining peace than domestic democratic norms alone.
What does the author conclude about the future of democratic peace?
The author concludes that democratic peace cannot be sustained by formal procedures alone and warns that without robust international institutions and shared identities, it remains vulnerable to modern global pressures.
- Quote paper
- Jörg Walter (Author), 2004, A liberal approach - the only explanation for the Democratic Peace Proposition? (ein liberaler Zugang - die einzige Erklärung für den "demokratischen Frieden"?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/41733
