Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Media influence on public opinion
Media influence on public opinion
Democratic peace theory argues that
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Intro:
US Presidents have made it a goal during their term(s) in office to establish a good relationship with foreign countries and even try to improve upon existing connections with our allies. Some believe it is to prevent conflicts between the countries while others dispute that it is a threat assessment by the United States to pick and choose their friends and enemies. Preventing conflict between two democracies or countries that practice democracy is called Democratic Peace Theory. However, research has begun to show that Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective and needs to be brought to an end as a model for how international relations are formed or destroyed. Democratic Peace Theory needs to be abolished as a support for forming foreign policy between democracies because of the burden placed on both parties to come to an agreement but still stand proud and victorious as a country without conceding anything.
History is still history:
Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective as a solution to the foreign policy of a country because they forget to include events that happened within their boundaries as a moment in their history because it would lead other countries to think that they are vulnerable and are easy targets to be taken advantage of. For example the American Civil War, when the Southern side decided they had enough of President Abraham Lincoln and trying to release all the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation, they decided they would no longer be part of the United States of America, no one had any idea that there decision would turn into one of the most bloodiest conflicts in US history. This is a great, however tragic example of how Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective in preventing conflict within a country...
... middle of paper ...
...m Madrid, Spain. Jake Tapper, Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez, David Simpson, and Jim Acosta Also Contributed to the Report Written by Tom Cohen in Washington. "Top Senator: Obama Didn't Know of U.S. Spying on Germany's Leader." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 08 Nov. 2013.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, and Havard Hegre. "Peace and Democracy: Three Levels of Analysis." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41.2 (1997): 283-310. ProQuest. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.
Kinsella, David. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace." American Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): n. pag. Print.
Layne, Christopher. "Kant or Cant." EBSCOhost. Ebscohost.com, Fall 1994. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.
Mesquita, Bruce Bueno De, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith. "An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace." JSTOR. American Political Science Review, Dec. 1999. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
The American Academy of Political and Social Science The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science,(2013)
The idea of a lasting, ideally global, peace has been present in the minds of people for centuries. The most notable formulation of this is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. “He saw it as a condition that needed to be maintained by politics between states with governments which represented society and separation of power. From this basic framework stems the idea called “democratic peace theory” (pg. 82). Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) asserts that democracies do not generally fight other democracies because they share common norms and domestic institutions that constrain international, state actors from going to war. Sebastian Rosato states, “In practical terms democratic peace theory provides the intellectual justification for the belief that spreading democracy abroad will perform the dual task of enhancing American national security promoting world peace” (pg. 585).
Association (2003): 31-36. Cambridge Journals Online. American Political Science Association, 30 Jan. 2003. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
Walter M. Simon The American Political Science Review , Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 386-399
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
Larry Johnston (2008) Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State, Third Edition, Chapters 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.
Plomin, R & Asbury, K. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 2005; vol. 600, 1:pp.86-98.
Although Levy believes that the democratic peace theory is by all accounts an empirical law in international relations, there are some scholars who have questioned and examined the practicality of the theory as it applies to a more conflict based or economic context. Scholars have researched this theory using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. On the qualitative side scholars have tested the theory by comparatively analyzing democracies that have actually engaged in conflict (Holsti, 1996; Ganguly, 1997; Kacawicz, 1998, Kivimaki, 2001). On the quantitative side however, scholars have tested the theory focusing more on whether or not the theory is applicable to lesser economically developed democracies (Hegre, 2000; Mousseau et al, 2000, 2002, 2003).
As previously mentioned, peace is needed to ensure that Democracy runs effectively. Without it, there is no political obligation for citizens to follow the laws put in place by their government; people generally do not feel obliged to follow rules of a broken system. That is why it is so essential for political leaders and government staffers to work together to ensure that everything is functioning the way it’s supposed to, at least on the surface. But when discord arise in the political arena, excluding disagreements on state law(s) and foreign policy, the fabric of our government begin to unravel. Discord during the election season can act as an even greater detriment to our government. It creates confusion and brings people’s emotions
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.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Peace agreements are the milestone of peace processes. Once the parties to a conflict decide to sit in the negotiation table with the purpose of signing a peace agreement there is reason to believe that they are committed to find a resolution to the ongoing conflict. Peace agreements bring together conflicting parties on the negotiation table. At the same time they specify policy interventions which deal with conflict issues as perceived and presented by each party (Darby & Mac Ginty, 2008; Guelke, 2003). There are several variations in terminology and definition in the literature about peace agreements. Mac Ginty (2008) discusses the definitions regarding peace agreements, which have been named as: peace agreements,
Web. The Web. The Web. 14 May 2014. Stanley, Jay.
Wanis-St. John, Anthony, 'Peace Processes, Secret Negotiations and Civil Society: Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion', International Negotiation, 13 (2008) 1–9, at http://www.aupeace.org/files/Wanis,%20Intro%20JIN%2013.1.pdf .