Democratic Peace Theory Flashcards
Doyle, Risse-Kappen, Kahl readings
Doyle’s article ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, examines the relationship between liberalism and international relations focusing on three distinct theoretical traditions. What are these traditions?
Liberal pacifism
Liberal imperialism
Liberal internationalism
What is the main argument of Doyle’s article?
It argues that liberalism influences foreign affairs in conflicting ways, sometimes promoting peace and sometimes causing war, depending on differing conceptions of citizens and states
What is Liberal Pacifism in Doyle’s article? How does Doyle critique it?
Liberal Pacifism, as explained by Schumpeter, argues that capitalism and democracy promote peace by reducing the likelihood of war
Democratic citizens oppose war because they do not want to bear the cost of war.
Doyle critiques Schumpeter for focusing too much on economic factors (materialistic monism) and ignoring other non-economic goals, while also oversimplifying the relationship between domestic and global politics.
What is Liberal Imperialism, according to Doyle?
Liberal Imperialism, linked to Machiavelli, argues that republics are not pacifistic but are the best type of state for imperial expansion
He believes expansion is necessary for political survival, as people seek glory and avoid oppression.
Doyle notes historical examples of liberal imperialism, like Rome and Athens.
What is Liberal Internationalism according to Doyle?
Liberal Internationalism, inspired by Kant, has two main ideas:
“Separate peace”: Liberal states stay peaceful with each other.
“Imprudence”: These states are often more aggressive towards non-liberal states, either to spread freedom or protect their own interests.
Kant’s three “definitive articles” for peace include a republican constitution, a pacific federation of liberal states, and cosmopolitan laws for trade and hospitality.
.
Doyle concludes that the three traditions of liberalism are rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state. How are they different?
Pacificism: Schumpeter’s citizens are rational, individualized, and pursue material interests.
Imperialism: Machiavelli’s citizens are diverse, unequal, and motivated by the desire to rule or avoid being dominated.
Internationalism: Kant’s citizens recognize the moral equality of all and treat others as ends, while his state is a republic governed by law.
Doyle concludes that these differing conceptions of citizens and states impact the possibility of achieving liberal peace and avoiding liberal imprudence.
What is the main argument of Risse Kappen’s article “Democratic peace - warlike democracies?”
Risse-Kappen argues through a constructivist approach that democracies are not inherently peaceful but behave differently toward other democracies and authoritarian regimes because of how they perceive one another. The presumption of friendship and peace among democracies is not automatic but is an evolutionary process of learning.
How does Risse-Kappen critiques liberal explanations of democratic peace?
Risse-Kappen critiques that liberalism doesn’t explain why democracies fight authoritarian regimes, why it is not always constrained by its bureaucracy in times of war, or why common norms are seen as a benchmark of trust
How does Risse-Kappen use of social constructivist help explain democratic peace?
States and the international system evolve through social interactions, shaping interests and preferences. Therefore,
Social interactions shape how we percieve democracies as peaceful and authoritarian regimes as aggressive. Perceived aggression constructs enemies, fueling security dilemmas.
Democracies communicate norms to promote peace and shared norms create an “ingroup”.
What are two factors contributing to the social construction of peace according to Risse-Kappen?
Publicity: Democratic transparency builds trust; autocratic secrecy fuels suspicion.
Transnational Relations: Democracies foster peaceful ties, while relations with autocracies is antagonistic.
What does Kahl’s article “Constructing a Separate Peace: Constructivism, Collective Liberal Identity, and Democratic Peace.” argue?
Kahl’s article argues that peaceful relations (separate peace) between liberal democracies happen because they share a common identity, shaped by interactions. shared values and norms.
How does Kahl critique institutional and ideational explanations of democratic peace theory?
Institutional Explanations:
Monadic explanations (looking at one state) don’t fully explain why democracies sometimes act aggressively, even if they are cautious because of public accountability.
Dyadic explanations (looking at two states) only explain wars based on fear, not interest, and don’t explain why democracies form alliances or have fewer conflicts.
Ideational Explanations:
Insufficient, they don’t explain where these ideas come from or how democracies come to share them. They also don’t say when democracies start seeing each other as similar.
According to Kahl, why is a constructivist approach to Democratic peace theory needed?
State identity is key in shaping its interests and foreign policy and Identities are socially constructed through interactions
Stable patterns of interactions can form institutions which can prescribe new behaviours
State interests evolve and are not fixed
According to Kahl, what is a collective liberal identity?
Collective liberal identity is founded on shared liberal values such as individualism, egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and a belief in the importance of peace.
Democracies sharing this identity tend to define their national security interests in compatible and collective ways, avoiding conflicts of interest that could lead to war. This is a key difference in their relations with illiberal states
According to Kahl, why might current democratic peace be difficult to expand?
Current democratic peace may be difficult to expand due to the specific historical circumstances that allowed it to develop in the first place.
