Introduction
There is a predominate theory in International Relations called the Democratic Peace theory. It states that democratic states rarely, if ever, engage in conflict with one another. In a 1988 study by Jake Levy, a political science professor at Rutgers University, entitled “The Democratic Peace Hypothesis: From Description to Explanation” he states that, “this absence of war between democracies comes as close to anything we have to an empirical law in international relations” (Levy, 1988).
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).
Moreover, this literature presents researchers with tests of the democratic peace theory as it pertains to various regions throughout the world (Goldsmith, 2006; Henderson, 2008). Both studies greatly vary in their methodologies and data samples. As such, they vary greatly in their results. Benjamin Goldsmith, in his study entitled “A Universal Proposition? Region, Conflict, War, and the Robustness of the Kantian Peace” demonstrates that the democratic peace theory is inap...
... middle of paper ...
...13, World War I (1914-1918), the interwar period (1919-1938), World War II (1939-1945), and the post-World War II era (1946-1980). They found a correlation between democracy and peace applicable only to the post-World War II era (Farber and Gowa, 1995).
Overall, my study examines, using a different perspective, the chronological critique laid out by the studies of Spiro and Farber and Gowa. The conclusions that I have drawn do not necessarily imply inaccuracies of the studies done by Goldsmith and Henderson, but rather they add a caveat upon the testing accuracies of the democratic peace theory as it is applied from region to region. Ultimately, I firmly believe that more time needs to pass and that further studies should be done down the road as to best examine and retrieve reliable data as it applies to the testing of the democratic peace theory across regions.
A Separate Peace, written by John Knowles is a flashback of the main character, Gene Forrester’s schooling at the Devon School in New England. During this flashback Gene remembers his best friend Finny, who was really athletic and outgoing. Gene and Finny’s friendship was a relationship of jealousy. Gene was jealous of Finny’s talent in athletics, and Finny was envious of Gene’s talent in school. In the end, Gene’s jealousy of Finny takes over and causes him to shake the tree branch that makes Finny fall and break his leg. The break was bad, but it was not until Finny fell down the stairs and broke his leg again, that he had to have surgery. The surgery that Finny would undergo would cause more complications and heartbreaking news for Gene. During the surgery Finny would lose his life due to some bone marrow that escaped into his blood stream and stopped his heart from beating. “As I was moving the bone some of the marrow must have escaped into his blood stream and gone directly to his heart and stopped it” (Knowles 193). Although people do not normally think about bone marrow as being a huge part of the human body, it can cause some major issues if it has to be replaced or escapes into the blood stream.
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.
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.
Michael Morpurgo once said “Wherever my story takes me, however dark and difficult the theme, there is always some hope and redemption, not because readers like happy endings, but because I am an optimist at heart.” In A Separate Peace by John Knowles; there are a wide variety of themes such as: coming of age, jealousy and identity. This novel is about two main characters one being Gene who is still living and another being Finny who passed away in his earlier years of life. Gene returns to his old prep school Devon where both he and Finny once attended. A Separate Peace brings back old memories from the summer of 1942 to the summer of 1943. During this duration of time World War II is taking place. Gene goes back in his adult years for two reasons; to visit the “fearful sights,” the marble staircase and the tree by the river. The three major symbols throughout this novel are coming of age, jealousy and identity.
In most cases, the cost of war does not play a role in explaining the democratic peace, only in explaining why democracies are unlikely to engage in fewer wars in general. While nationalism can be used to override concerns over the cost of war and mobilize popular support, it does not work against nations which share similar principles and in fact works against the predilection towards war. In part, this may help redeem the public constraint component of the structural explanation of the democratic peace. In particular, when combined with the assumption that the democratic peace is valid only in the post-World War II regions of the Americas and Western Europe, this explanation becomes more plausible.
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.
Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1997). Common Interests or Common Politics? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2): 393-417.
The first one, refers to democracies. Waltz puts in doubt the peace thesis arguing that the increase number of democracies will not assure peaceful intentions of states towards others. Indeed, Waltz argues that, contrary to peace thesis defenders, the United States and Great Britain, the predominant democracies in the nineteenth century, instead of using force, they used their influence ov...
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 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.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
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.
DuNann Winter, D., & Leighton, D. C. (2001 ). Structural Violence . Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st. New York : Prentice-Hall.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).