An idea that pervades the contemporary realm of international political thought is the ‘liberal democratic peace’ (LDP) theory. This theory is based upon the major tenet that democratic states do not engage in warfare with one another, and for thus reason generates and sustains a harmonious political environment. The democratic peace theory certainly has its merits – provisioning strong evidence in defense to its many critiques (Kegley & Raymond 1994; Layne 1994; Rosato 2003). However, it is also not a theory without minor flaws that undermine its hypothesis (Dafoe, Oneal & Russett 2013; International Studies Association 2005; Kumar 1994). In spite of these otherwise excusable flaws, the process of democratization should be considered a plausible mechanism for the promotion of peace and security throughout the global order.
One of the main
…show more content…
179; Lynn-Jones 1998). Compelling evidence in support of this weakness is especially demonstrative in the state of Rwanda in 1993, whereby within the year an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 Rwandans were killed as a result of democracy promotions triggering nationalistic violence. In Burma in 1990, the elections sparked ruthless military oppression that was especially aimed towards supporters and members of the National League for Democracy (NLD). In Indonesia, dictatorships deploy militaries and security agencies in an attempt to undermine electoral transitions (Staniland n.d.). Conversely, there have been a slew of states that have avoided major internal and external conflict in their transition to democracy (Lynn-Jones 1998). However, the fact remains that democratic advocacy has the capacity to intensify state turbulence rather than assuage it, giving rise to violent nationalism and ethnic
The literary analysis essay for A Separate Peace entitled Chapter 7: After the Fall notes that Gene’s brawl with Cliff Quackenbush occurs for two reasons: the first reason being that Gene was fighting to defend Finny, and the second reason being that Quackenbush is the antithesis of Finny. Cliff Quackenbush calls Gene a “maimed son-of-a-bitch”, since Gene holds a position on the team that is usually reserved for physically disabled students, and Gene reacts by hitting him in the face (Knowles, 79). At first, Gene remarks that he didn’t know why he reacted this way, then he says, “it was almost as though I were maimed. Then the realization that there was someone who was flashed over me”, referring to Finny (Knowles, 79). Quackenbush is “the adult world of punitive authority personified”, his voice mature, his convictions militaristic (Chapter, 76). Quackenbush reminds Gene of the adult world and all of the things that Finny and Devon protected him from, such as war.
I identified the first major player in the novel as Phineas. The quote I feel began his role reads: “No one but Phineas could think up such a crazy idea. He of course saw nothing the slightest bit intimidating about it. He wouldn’t, or wouldn’t admit it if he did. Not Phineas.” (14) This quote sets the reader up by describing the sort of person Finny : a daredevil with wild ideas and an air of fearlessness about him.
In the novel, A Separate Peace by John Knowles, the protagonist, Gene Forrester “battled” within himself to find “a separate peace” and in this process directed his emotions at Phineas, his roommate. Forrester and Phineas formed the illusion of a great companionship, but there was a “silent rivalry” between them in Forrester’s mind. Self deceptions in Forrester led him to believe that Phineas was “out to get him” (Forrester). Subconsciously Forrester jounced the limb of the tree and forced Phineas to fall and break his leg. Phineas found out the truth of his “accident” with the help of Leper Lepellier and Brinker Hadley, who were friends that attended Devon High School. Gene Forrester’s conflict between his resentment of and loyalty toward Phineas’ personality and athletic abilities was resolved by the death of Phineas.
Brenda Shoshanna once stated, “All conflict we experience in the world, is a conflict within our own selves.” This quote recognizes how much conflict influences our everyday lives and personality. The wise words were especially true for Gene, the main character in A separate peace, who let his battles with other characters and the society of his time become his own internal battles. In John Knowles’s novel, A separate peace, all the types of conflict are shown through the main character Gene.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
In A Separate Peace, John Knowles depicts two maturing boys, each on entirely different ends of the personality spectrum. Finny and Gene are roommates at the Devon School in New England, placed together by chance. Gene Forrester characterizes himself with intelligence and thoughtfulness while also possessing sparks of competitiveness. Phineas, better known as Finny, holds undeniable charm and strong athleticism. Their utterly different traits leave them in a position where their status as roommates is the only driving force in their friendship. Although they project different world views and demonstrate different forms of leadership if any, both of them have hidden insecurities, connecting them in ways beyond their apparent characteristics.
The democratic peace theory postulates that liberal democracies are hesitant and unlikely to engage in armed conflict with other democracies. This idea dates back centuries to German philosopher Immanuel Kant and other 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. By examining the political similarities, economic system, geographical location, and other factors of generic democracies, proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that democracies have a vested interest not to war with one another. However, other forms of government are exempt from these principles unique to democracies. Autocracies, a system of government which assigns one individual absolute power and control, violate all facets of the democratic peace theory. Autocracies lack the
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. "International Linkage and Democratization." Journal of Democracy 16.3 (2005): 20-34. Print.
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
If we each had a piece of paper and a writing instrument in front of ourselves
The link between democracy and human rights has been recognized by many scholars. For example O’Donnell (2004) summarized the quality of democracy as: Quality of Democracy = human rights + human development. This viewpoint indicates that democracy encapsulates human rights. Several research findings strongly support the idea that states with higher levels of democracy, regardless of their election rules, are more respectful of human rights (Davenport 1997; Poe, Tate, and Keith 1999).