Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:12:10.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pacific unions: a reappraisal of the theory that ‘democracies do not go to war with each other’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Raymond Cohen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Considerable support has emerged over recent years among scholars of international relations for the theory that ‘democracies do not go to war with each other.’ Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr note that over the last two centuries ‘Democracies were very unlikely to fight each other.’ This finding is supported, R. J. Rummel argues, by both ‘Historical studies and empirical social science research’. Some authors hail it as a law—perhaps the only one we have—of international relations. References in the literature suggest that the theory has acquired the status of a received truth. It is ‘the one argument that all the analysts agree on’, concludes Robert Rothstein. ‘Scholars of contemporary international relations are nearing consensus, suggest the Embers and Russett. In the latest, most comprehensive study of the phenomenon, Russett even finds evidence for it in non-industrial societies. Believing the facts of the matter to have been established, theorists have moved on to seek the causal mechanism generating the phenomenon.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 1994 , pp. 207 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Russett, Bruce and Starr, Harvey, World Politics: The Menu For Choice, 4th edn (New York, 1989), p. 434Google Scholar.

2 Jensen, Priscilla M. (ed.), ‘Speaking About Democracy and Peace’, United States Institute of Peace Journal, 3 (1990), p. 3Google Scholar.

3 Levy, Jack S., ‘The Causes of War: A Review of Theories and Evidence’, in Tetlock, Philip E.el al. (eds.), Behavior, Society, and Nuclear War (New York, 1989), I, p. 270Google Scholar; Rittberger, Volker, ‘On The Peace Capacity of Democracies. Reflections On The Political Theory of Peace’, Law and State, 39 (1989), p. 50Google Scholar.

4 Rothstein, Robert L., ‘Democracy, Conflict, and Development in the Third World’, The Washington Quarterly, 14 (1991), p. 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Ember, Carol R., Ember, Melvin and Russett, Bruce, ‘Peace Between Participatory Polities: A Cross-Cultural Test of the “Democracies Rarely Fight Each Other” Hypothesis’, World Politics, 44 (1992), p. 573CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Russett, Bruce, Grasping The Democratic Peace (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar.

7 Deutsch, Karl W.et al, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, 1955), p. 126Google Scholar.

8 James Lee Ray, ‘"Wars" Between Democracies: Are There Exceptions (That Prove The Rule)?’, paper delivered at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, Acapulco, 23–27 March 1993.

9 Babst, D. V., ‘A Force for Peace’, Industrial Research, 14 (1972), p. 55.Google Scholar

10 Small, Melvin and Singer, J. David, ‘The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes’, The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, 1 (1976), pp. 50–69Google Scholar.

11 Rummel, R. J., ‘Libertarian Propositions on Violence Within and Between Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29 (1985), p. 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 , Levy, ‘The Causes of War: A Review of Theories and Evidence’, p. 270Google Scholar.

13 Doyle, Michael W., ‘Liberalism And World Polities’, American Political Science Review, 80 (1986), pp. 1151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Maoz, Zeev and Abdolali, Nasrin, ‘Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33 (1989), pp. 20–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 24.

15 Maoz, Zeev and Russett, Bruce, ‘Alliances, Contiguity, Wealth, and Political Stability: Is the Lack of Conflict Among Democracies a Statistical Artifact?’ International Interactions, 17 (1992), pp. 245–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Maoz, and Russett, , ‘Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986’, American Political Science Review, 87 (1993), pp. 624–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy: Participation and opposition (New Haven, 1971), p. 3Google Scholar.

17 Lijphart, Arend, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries (New Haven, 1984), pp. 37–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Huntington, Samuel P., ‘Will More Countries Become Democratic?’ Political Science Quarterly, 99 (1984), pp. 207–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Khalaf, Samir, Lebanon's Predicament (New York, 1987), pp. 73–101Google Scholar.

20 Russett, , Grasping the Democratic Peace, p. 15Google Scholar.

21 , Ray, ‘“Wars” Between Democracies’, p. 1Google Scholar.

22 , Ray, ‘“Wars” Between Democracies’, p. 11Google Scholar.

23 Ray fails to observe an inconsistency in his case. On the one hand he refuses the 1899 Orange Free State the status of democracy on the grounds that it denied blacks and women the vote. On the other hand he does wish to grant the United States this qualification throughout the nineteenth century, although the 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted blacks the vote only in 1870, while women were excluded until 1920.

24 However, France's development of nuclear weapons, together with German constitutional restrictions on their possession, irreversibly changed the nature of the relationship.

25 Pastor, Robert A. and Castaneda, Jorge G., Limits to Friendship: The United States and Mexico (New York, 1988), pp. 56–60Google Scholar.

26 Treverton, Gregory, ‘Interstate conflict in Latin America’, in Middlebrook, Kevin and Rico, Carlos (eds.), The United States and Latin America in the 1980s (Pittsburgh, 1986), p. 567Google Scholar.

27 Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, Brecher, Michael and Moser, Sheila, Crises in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1988), II, pp. 172–3Google Scholar.

28 Russett, , Grasping the Democratic Peace, pp. 30–8Google Scholar.

29 Treverton, , ‘Interstate Conflict in Latin America’, p. 567Google Scholar.

30 Little, Walter, ‘International Conflict in Latin America’, International Affairs, 63 (1987), pp. 594–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Van Evera, Stephen, ‘Why Europe Matters, Why the Third World Doesn't: American Grand Strategy After the Cold War.’ Journal of Strategic Studies, 13 (1990), pp. 25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Deutsch et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, pp. 154–6.

32 Russett, , Grasping the Democratic Peace, p. 10Google Scholar.

33 Holsti, Kalevi J., Peace and War: Armed Conflict and International Order 1648–1989 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 272CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Holsti, , Peace and War, p. 273Google Scholar.

35 Maoz and Russett, ‘Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986’, p. 628.

36 Colby, William and Forbath, Peter, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA (New York, 1978), p. 109Google Scholar.

37 Ford, Gerald R., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Washingto n DC, 1975), p. 156Google Scholar.

38 Merom, Gil, ‘Democracy, Dependency, and Destabilization: The Shaking of Allende's Regime’, Political Science Quarterly, 105 (1990), p. 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Merom, , ‘Democracy, Dependency, and Destabilization’, p. 91Google Scholar.

40 Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace, pp. 120–4.

41 Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace, p. 121.

42 Grenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy (London, 1970), pp. 227Google Scholar, 229.

43 Andrew, Christopher, Theophile Declasse and the Making of the Entente Cordiale (London, 1968), pp. 91–118Google Scholar; Bates, Darrell, The Fashoda Incident of 1898 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 151–9Google Scholar.

44 Russett accepts that war was avoided in the Fashoda crisis for reasons other than the existence of a normative constraint (Grasping the Democratic Peace, p. 8).

45 Woodward, Sir Llewellyn, British Foreign Policy in the Second World War (London, 1975), pp. 329–38.Google Scholar

46 Gilbert, Martin, Winston S. Churchill. Vol. 8. ‘Never Despair’ (Boston, 1988), p. 31Google Scholar.

47 Since 1920 the Jewish community in Palestine had established and consolidated impeccably democratic institutions. These were therefore already in place at the foundation of the state in May 1948.

48 , Jon and Kimche, David, Both Sides Of The Hill: Britain And The Palestine War (London, 1960), pp. 93, 114–6, 117–8, 196–7, 230, 261.Google Scholar

49 Bullock, Alan, Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary 1945–1951 (London, 1983), pp. 649–50Google Scholar.

50 Britain continued to have contingency plans for war against Israel until at least 1956.

51 Max Weber denied that social phenomena could be deduced from general ‘laws’ and ‘factors’ at all. The ‘causal explanation’ of even an individual fact was impossible to all intents and purposes, since a description of it could never be exhaustive and ‘the number and type of causes which have influenced any given event are always infinite’. The analysis of ‘concrete reality’ involves evaluating the significance of ‘configurations’ of ‘factors’ forming cultural phenomena which we deem to be historically significant (Weber, Max, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (New York, 1949), pp. 75–8Google Scholar).

52 Brawley, Mark, ‘Regime Types, Markets, and War: The Importance of Pervasive Rents in Foreign Policy’, Comparative Political Studies, 26 (1993), p. 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Mearsheimer, John J., ‘Back to the Future’, International Security, 15 (1990), p. 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Culture is sadly neglected in the democracy-peace literature, even though it strongly influences the chosen mode of conflict resolution. Mediation is ubiquitous in the Arab world and arbitration hardly ever resorted to. Among the Western democracies direct negotiation and arbitration are usually preferred. Curiously, although domesti c violence is common in the Ara b world, wars between Arab states are rare, exceptions being the Yemen civil war, in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia fought by proxy, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Most Middle Eastern wars are between Arabs and non-Arabs–Israel and Iran.

55 Mearsheimer, , ‘Back to the Future’, p. 50Google Scholar.

56 Rothstein, , ‘Democracy, Conflict, and Development’, p. 43Google Scholar.

57 For example, by Likud opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu in Ha'aretz, June 23, 1993. General Ariel Sharon also makes use of this argument. Conversely, Israeli Foreign Minister Peres has argued that Israel should 'encourage' democratization among its neighbours in order to strengthen any peace settlement.