May 21, 2013
General Propositions
Stems generally from suggestions in liberal and democratic
theory that democracies may be more peaceful and
cooperative in international relations
 Tend not to be empires
 Ordinary citizens tend not to see the state as their personal
property, and therefore do not have the urge to expand it
for purposes of enhancing personal or family power
 More accountability and checks may lead to more rational
decisions, which in turn will prevent states from
mistakenly entering wars
 Commercial nature provides material incentives to keep
peace and creates ties among nations
 Tend to place more faith in permanent institutions that can
be used to resolve differences peacefully
Particular Propositions
 Kant’s discussion in “Perpetual Peace” of the prospects for a more
peaceful world based on the operations of liberal republics
 Later empirical work that suggest that democracies tend not to
go to war with other democracies
 As such, the development of the theory has sometimes split into
two several lines research:
 Research into relations among and between democracies, in which
the peaceful nature of democracies tends to be tested through
pairwise discussions of relations between democraties
 Research on relations between democracies and non-democracies,
in which the evidence suggests that democracies are “peaceful”
when dealing with other types of regimes
 Research into the general nature of relations and actions having to
do with democracies.
Important Distinctions
 The literature sometimes does not attend carefully to
the differences among “democracies,” “liberal regimes”
and “liberal democracies,” which can lead to some
confusion regarding the use of terms and concepts, the
coding of data and analysis of data.
 “Democracy” refers to regime type: who controls
power? Classically put in terms of one, few, or many.
 “Liberal” refers to the application of norms derived
from a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the
importance of the relationship between the state and
individual citizens/groups of citizens.
Distinctions
 A democracy need not be liberal, and a liberal regime need
not be democratic:
 Great Britain in 18th century more liberal than democratic
 Post 1789 French republic more democratic than liberal
 Thus, a authoritarian regime may respect individual rights
and allow commercial activities all the while reserving
power to a few
 A democracy may spread power among all citizens, but
allow the community as a whole or majorities of citizens to
impose values, lifeplans and norms on individuals and in
so doing remove their ability to be autonomous in their
private lives
Distinctions
 Democracies need not have systems of accountability
any more extensive than a direct connection between
the use of power and citizens. The concepts of checks
and balances, the division of power, individual rights
and constitutions do not come democratic theory, but
from such outside traditions as liberalism and civic
republicanism.
Distinctions
 “Democracy” is often not a binary concept, but a
relative one, depending upon how many and which
types of citizens are enfranchised. Compared with the
Roman Empire, the early American Republic was
democratic. But because it left many matters
concerning the franchise to individual states, it tended
to restrict the franchise to propertyowners, imposed
rather high age restrictions, and tended to bar women
and racial minorities from the franchise, it was not
very democratic and less democratic than it is now.
Distinctions
 The nature of liberal regimes is also relative in much the same
way as democracy, bit is probably even more importantly
dimensional. A regime may be liberal in one set of relationships
between the government and individuals/groups and illiberal in
others.
 Singapore: generally liberal in economic matters, not very liberal
in terms of non-economic rights
 Scandinavian states: tend to be more liberal in non-economic
rights while regulating economic matters more closely
 US more liberal in terms of market-related activities than Europe
in general, and Europe more liberal in such matters as the death
penalty, welfare support and other similar types of positive
economic rights.
Doyle:Kant, Liberal Legacies, and
Foreign Affairs
A discussion of Kant’s discussion of Perpetual Peace and its
applications to current understandings of international
relations by concentrating on the possible contributions of
liberalism to peaceful interactions.
Notes that while such tendencies are present and powerful,
they are mostly focused on relations with other liberal
regimes. When it comes to the operations of liberal
principles in the relations between liberal and non-liberal
regimes, the matter becomes more complicated, with
elements of liberalism tending to make war rather more
likely (in part because liberalism is pluralistic when it
comes to thinking of individuals and groups, not when
thinking about the nature of national regimes)
Doyle
Argues that in its various forms, the modern liberal
tradition:
 Embraces the concept of democracy in the form of
asserting the essential presence of a lawmaking body
accountable to all citizens
 Embraces property rights
 Tends to understand economics in terms of market
activities
Liberal International Relations
 Built upon a Westphalian privileging of state
autonomy and mutual respect that is built upon a
respect for individual autonomy to be expressed in the
character of a nation’s regime (still true? International
human rights? Duty to intervene?)
 Has generally led to the absence of military conflict
between or among liberal regimes.
 Moreover, this is manifested in the defection of liberal
democracies from alliances containing non-liberal
regimes when such alliances become engaged in wars
with liberal regimes.
Alternative Explanations
These results cannot be explained by realism or rational
theories:
Realist and other theories point to
“ Specific wars therefore arise from fear as a state seeking
to avoid a surprise attack decides to attack first; from
competitive emulation as states lacking an imposed
international hierarchy of prestige struggle to establish
their place; and from straightforward conflicts of
interest that escalate into war because there is no
global sovereign to prevent states from adopting that
ultimate form of conflict resolution.”
Explanations
 Prudence: liberal peace has just been the product of states
acting prudently, not the nature of the regimes;
 Response: preventative wars based on prudence– why none of
those
 Why have no other type of state acted so prudently?
 Similarities and overlapping interests
 Other similar types of states go to war; what is the basis for
the overlapping interests given that not all liberal
democracies are near one another or have the same type of
economy?
 Peace through bipolar equilibrium
 Such peace is typified by the absence of major wars, but not
minor wars. Why no minor wars?
Kantian Answers
Three part answer, all parts of which are important:
 Republican government: pressures of both interal and
external conflict and insecurity lead to accountable
institutions and norms that recognize citizens as free
and equal autonomous beings. Citizens in turn will
restrain governments from going to war, not wanting
to shoulder the practical costs of doing so, by using
those rights and institutions
Kantian Answers
 International Law
Diverse countries that grow up in particular contexts are
respected by the extension of equal respect to their
citizens. These republics in turn develop a culture of
respect and non-interference, as well as exercising
transparency and respecting free speech that holds
regimes and international relations up for critical
scrutiny
Kantian Explanation
 Cosmopolitan Law
Emerges as a way of allowing and regulating
international commerce through the division of labor
and free trade. Those economic activities both bring
benefits to countries that leave then better off than if
they had not occurred, create ties and general material
incentives to maintain peace and avoid war. Also
disperses important decisionmaking such that
problems are not necessarily directed at governments,
but understood to be the result of individual actions
O’Neal and Russett: Causes of
Peace
 An importantly methodological piece that attempts to
push forward the lines of analysis that Russett and
those associated with the Journal of Conflict
Resolution have pursued since the 1970s
 Has some positivistic elements
 Statistical analysis
 States treated as unitary actors
 But departs from a realist understanding of analysis
 Generates policy prescriptions
 Importance of regime type
O’Neal and Russett
 Comprehensive database involving regime types and
conflicts going back to 19th century
 Attempts to capture dynamics of reciprocity and the effects
of various characteristics associated with democratic peace
(democracy, trade, interdependence, international
organization) both separately and together
 Attempts to capture the full effect of variables by doing a
time lag analysis
 Founded on a theory that while norms associated with
liberal democracy important, most important driver is
rational material interests.
O’Neal and Russett
 Explores all types of dyads
 Important variables
 Level of democracy
 Degrees of interdependence
 Involvement in international organizations
 Involvement in alliances
 Relative power
 Distance between nations
 Also militarized and fatal and non-militarized
disputes
Important findings
 All factors associated with Kantian peace– democracy,
trade, interdependence and involvement in international
organizations– have the effect of decreasing the likelihood
of conflict between states when considered independently
 “In actuality, it is not the independent benefits of the three
Kantian influences that are of primary importance because
the three generally go together. As shown in our analysis of
bilateral trade, democracies are more interdependent, and
interdependence is facilitated by the creation of IGOs to
manage states’ mutually beneficial relations. Other
evidence shows that democracies join the same
international organizations. Trade and involvement in
international organizations may also make it difficult for
authoritarian governments to survive. Consequently, it is
useful to assess the effect of increasing all the Kantian
elements simultaneously. Then, the incidence of fatal
disputes drops by 95 percent.”
Important Findings
“The pacific benefits of democracy, economic interdependence,
and international organizations are all the more apparent if they
are compared to the effects of alliances and a preponderance of
power—the elements stressed in realist theories of international
politics. Surprisingly, alliances do not reduce the likelihood of
interstate disputes, even fatal ones, when the influences of the
Kantian influences and the history of dyadic conflict are held
constant. This strongly suggests that the expansion of NATO is
not the most efficacious means of securing the peace in central
Europe. Of greater benefit would be the consolidation of
democracy, growing interdependence, and a stronger web of
international organizations. These objectives are better achieved
by the European Union and its associated institutions than by
NATO.”
Important Findings
“The effect of a preponderance of power, the other factor
emphasized by realists, can be substantial: an increase
in the capability ratio reduces fatal disputes by 73
percent. But this is only attained by raising the ratio of
militarily significant capabilities from 1.3:1 to 50.7:1.
Because the measure of national capabilities includes
population and industry, it is clearly impossible for
states to achieve this effect on their own.”