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.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Abstract
- 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
- VII. References
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This thesis explores whether a liberal approach remains the sole explanation for the Democratic Peace Proposition (DPP). It examines the strengths and weaknesses of liberal arguments and explores alternative explanations, particularly the (neo)realistic approach put forward by Erol Henderson. The study aims to determine whether either a purely liberal or realistic perspective can sufficiently explain the DPP in the contemporary context of globalization and a growing number of international institutions.
- The Democratic Peace Proposition (DPP)
- Liberal and (neo)realistic explanations of the DPP
- The influence of globalization and international institutions on state behavior
- The need for more complex theoretical frameworks to understand the DPP
- The role of domestic politics and international system anarchy in shaping foreign policy
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
- I. Introduction: The introduction sets the stage by highlighting the emergence of the DPP and the dominance of liberal explanations. It introduces the alternative (neo)realistic perspective proposed by Erol Henderson and outlines the structure of the thesis.
- II. A liberal approach of the DPP: This chapter delves into the main arguments of liberal explanations for the DPP, emphasizing the connection between domestic power, interests, and foreign policy. It explores the role of democratic institutions, public opinion, and political culture in fostering peaceful relations between democracies.
- III. An Alternative explanations for the DPP: This section examines alternative explanations for the DPP, focusing on Henderson's (neo)realistic approach. It explores the argument that a combination of (neo)realistic and institutional factors contributes to the DPP, suggesting that neither purely liberal nor purely realistic perspectives are adequate.
- IV. The Democratic Peace meets the International Institutions: This chapter analyzes the impact of international institutions on the DPP, considering how globalization and increased international cooperation influence state behavior and the dynamics of the international system.
- V. The future of the DPP?: This chapter reflects on the future of the DPP in light of the evolving international landscape, considering the challenges and opportunities presented by globalization, international institutions, and the complex interplay of domestic and international factors.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
The core concepts and keywords of this thesis include the Democratic Peace Proposition, liberal theory, (neo)realism, international institutions, globalization, domestic politics, international system anarchy, state behavior, and foreign policy.
- 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
