They witness that democratic leaders are beholden to voters, and claim that voters reject war because of its human and financial costs. This altercation, which dates to Immanuel Kant, predicts that democracies will react peacefully in general—avoiding war not only against democracies, but also against autocracies. Hist... ... middle of paper ... ...ion of the liberal argument." European Journal of International Relations 1.4. Rosato, S. (2003).
Realists critique the idealist that a international body can fight and prevent aggression. For example, the failure of the League of Nations did not prevent WWII. Germany and Japan still started WWII. Realists critique the idealist on the role of the U.S. in the world. They can argue that it is not to be the “world police,” and they can argue that entangling alliances, like the League of Nations, hinders American sovereignty.
Democratic peace theory fails to account for human behavior and perception. This is especially crucial when understanding terrorism at its core. This essay proposes certain systemic flaws in Democratic Peace Theory, such as Rosato states, “Democracies do not generally fight other democracies is a false premise; Democracies do not disseminate their norms of domestic politics and conflict resolution, and consequentially the do not respect each other when t... ... middle of paper ... ...tlieb. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010. 235-271.
Many questions surround the proposition and the ultimate failure of the Ludlow Amendment, such as which ideals it borrows from, who was in favor of it and why, who opposed and why, and lastly, why it failed. Isolationists championed the Ludlow Amendment as a measure to prevent war, reduce presidential power, and refine democracy, but they failed to pass the amendment because of Roosevelt’s opposition and the amendment’s impracticality, coupled with the growing international conflicts. Roosevelt was adamantly opposed to this amendment because it would have crippled his power. Roosevelt’s campaign against the Ludlow Amendment was not out of principle, but out of practicality. Louis Ludlow was born on a farm in Indiana in 1873.
Peace has been the goal of many political scientists since the very beginning of the science. Studying war and its causes is the very nature of international politics. Many have proposed world models that would create a everlasting peace. One of the most accepted and quoted is Immanuel Kant's essay Perpetual Peace. Kant proposed that liberal states are inherently peaceful, and do not become aggressors in war (790-792).
Doyle is cognizant of the limitations of his Democratic Peace Theory, stressing that protection of liberalism’s heritage of democratization may in fact ensure the adverse consequence of stimulating illiberal practices (Doyle, 1983). The significance of a peace theory which concludes its own underlying principles may actually engender belligerent behavior is questionable. Doyle’s Democratic Peace Theory offers an interesting starting point in the study of the relationship between democratic nations and conflict; however, his suppositions should not to be valued as law.
The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained... ... middle of paper ... ... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations. In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism.
However, just war has its critics made by pacifists who believe that war is a morally wrong path taken in obtaining peace for it does not serves its purpose for protecting its people but rather harming them and it should not be considered but alternatives should be taken into account. Pacifists also believe that one should live according to the holy book which stipulates that one is to love his offender and not wage war against him (Anscombe, 1981). In this essay an effort will be made to discuss the relationship between defensive war by states and the individual right to self-defense. Secondly, how these defensive wars control the actions that states and individuals take when faced with an imminent attack. Thirdly, North Korea will be used as reference in addressing the right to defend one’s self when in danger.