Term
| DPT Definition (Boutros Boutros Ghali 96) |
|
Definition
Democracies are less prone to fight wars, or at least less prone to fight wars with each other
'a culture of democracy is fundamentally a culture of peace' |
|
|
Term
| DPT Methodological issues |
|
Definition
| Limited empirical evidence: most case studies pre or early 19th, seem less relevant today. Difficulty of analysing counterfactuals |
|
|
Term
| Key Concepts: Democracy (procedural v liberal) |
|
Definition
-Huntington: electoral competition
- Liberal democracy: emphasis on civil rights and checks/balances to power
- dichotomous v scalar definitions |
|
|
Term
| Key concepts: war/peace (positive v negative) |
|
Definition
- Negative relation (absence of war)
- Positive: active cooperation
- War (>1000 deaths on battlefield) or violence more generally (covert, regime undermining, terrorism?) |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Liberal theories 1: Kant |
|
Definition
| Republican government at core of 'perpetual peace.' Leads to public accountability, mutual respect for citizens, economic interdependence |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Liberal theories 2: Doyle (liberalism as currency, 3 pillars //Kant) |
|
Definition
- Democratic participation as a liberal right
- 3 pillars: caution (accountability), Justice (externalisation and reciprocity of democratic norms), commerce (liberal economic norms) |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Liberal Argument 1: Institutional account |
|
Definition
| public accountability, extensive bureaucratic process leads to higher scrutiny and checks on decisions |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Liberal argument 2: normative (ideas) |
|
Definition
| Externalisation of democratic norms and expectation of reciprocity |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Contructivist view 1 (Muppidi: identities, not liberal democracy per se) |
|
Definition
| Shared identities makes state less war-prone: population object to killing of similar, institutions constrain states |
|
|
Term
| DPT Constructivist view 2 (perception and identity) |
|
Definition
Whether a state is objectively democratic has little importance in dyadic situations, perception is critical
if other identities are stronger than liberal values, they will take precedent and see redefinition of dyadic relations |
|
|
Term
| DPT constructivist view 3: case study (India-China since 1918) |
|
Definition
- Interwar + immediate post-WWII: shared common identity based on anti-Imperialist/Western views.
- Amicable relations: India one of first to recognise People's Rep. + push for inclusion in UN
- 62 war over border dispute: I condemned C as imperialist (fit with India's identity as anti-Imperialist), didn't emphasise C as non-D |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Realist view (identification caused by interests, balance of power) |
|
Definition
States concerned with BoP. Use identities strategically to justify conflict (if we don't want to fight, we'll claim they're a fellow democracy and vice-versa)
Security concerns trump domestic institutions + Democracies are prone to nationalism (US in Iraq) + (Layne) checks and balances exist in non-democracies (Iran) |
|
|
Term
| DPT: Realist justification for peace between democracies (pre-WWII, CW, Pax Americana) |
|
Definition
Pre-WWII: not enough democracies for them to clash (and see France-Germany)
Post WWII: ideological struggle of CW distorts perceptions: forced unity due to common struggle
post-CW: US policing world peace |
|
|
Term
| DPT Russett 1: definition |
|
Definition
| 'very rarely engage in large scale international war with one another' |
|
|
Term
| DPT Russett 2: causal logic (externalisation and reciprocity) |
|
Definition
1) Norm externalisation: acquiring of domestic norms are transferred to international sphere
2) Reciprocity: expectation of similar behaviour from others with similar norms |
|
|
Term
| DPT Russett 3: Objections 1 (monadic on dyadic) |
|
Definition
- Does 1) hold? Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib
- projection of monadic reasoning (externalisation) onto dyadic relations (reciprocity) |
|
|
Term
| DPT Russett 4: Objections 2 (inherent value of democracy) |
|
Definition
If explanation is monadic (extern.) DPT would hold between Ds/non-Ds to a certain degree (even without 2) acting as multiplier).
In other words, if D made states inherently more peaceful, their relations with non-Ds would necessarily be more peaceful |
|
|
Term
| DPT Russett 5: Response and rejoinder (R does work v R fails because no inherent value) |
|
Definition
- Reciprocity, not extern. does the work, so the claim rests on dyadic factors
- But how does R work if Ds aren't inherently more peaceful? implausible virtuous circle: Ds see other Ds go to war with other states. 2) fails because 1) does |
|
|
Term
| DPT Russett 5: Response (structural institutional model) |
|
Definition
| Checks, balances + expectation of resorting to conflict resolution mechanism quells fears of sudden attack between Ds (reliance on supranational institutions?) |
|
|
Term
| DPT Objections 1: Institutional model (monadic + Iran) |
|
Definition
- Monadic implications are not validated (If D institutions had normative pull, Ds would be more peaceful with non-Ds)
- Arguably they are: US handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions today v Mossadeq 53
- But US values haven't changed, level of international scrutiny has |
|
|
Term
| DPT Objection 2: Direction of causal relation |
|
Definition
Oren (// Waltz): to say that Ds are pacifist is one step away from saying that whatever is pacifist is D (define D wrt to peace)
Doesn't hold all the time |
|
|
Term
| DPT Objection 3: Correlaton v Causation (Rosato) |
|
Definition
- Correlation is sturdy
- but NE isn't (Mossadeq radical but only wanted superpower disengagement, defensive ≠ offensive move)
- Instit isn't: D publics are malleable to nationalist propaganda + checks/balances don't always delay reaction time (US war w/o Congress: Truman in Korea, Bush Desert Storm) |
|
|
Term
| DPT Risk: Policy device (Liberal interventionism, Blair) |
|
Definition
Instituting democracy by intervention in interest of IPS (Blair on liberal interventionism 99 Chicago). See Iraq
+ If US intervention in Iran did ever occur, one could predict a shift to focus on its non-D nature (rigged elections) beforehand |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
process from autocracy to mixed democracy:
- D led by elite bargaining: pop has little real power over gov despite elections
- use of nationalist rhetoric to garner support, necessitates conflict (Nasser and 67 war, had no choice) |
|
|
Term
| DPT and Latin America 1: independence and early 19th |
|
Definition
Following independence: persistent wars of state formation + nation building
Late 19th: number+intensity of wars way down despite domestic violence, political instability, protracted militarised border disputes, authoritarian rule
violence used as diplomatic instrument in border conflicts |
|
|
Term
| DPT and LA 2: 70s-80s pessimism |
|
Definition
pessimism: struggle for natural resources worsened border disputes (oil, River Panama in Brazil/argentina as hydro-electric resource)
military regimes |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Pessimism proved misplaced: Argentina/Brazil Rapprochement (despite democratising status) culminating in MERCOSUR 91. by mid-90s: relatively stable security community + 95 Chile rapprochement with MERCOSUR |
|
|
Term
| DPT and LA 4: explanations |
|
Definition
Realist: geopolitical location (insulation from extra-regional influencing + policing of US)
IS/Const: shared cultural/historical experience
Liberals struggle |
|
|
Term
| DPT and LA 5: conclusion (counter ex + North LA) |
|
Definition
| Rapprochement Brazil/Argentina: strong counter-example to DPT. note that this only applies to Southern Cone: Colombia, Venezuela, Peru support thesis of belligerent democratisation |
|
|
Term
| DPT and US CW policies 1 (covert, Chile 73 Iran 53) |
|
Definition
US: paradigmatic liberal democracy, has arguably not engaged in any wars with liberal democracies (but US civil war).
But covert actions against emerging/plausible democracies (Shah back in Iran, Allende replaced by Pinochet 73) |
|
|
Term
| DPT and US CW policies 2: implications (Muppidi, liberal democracy v economic ideology) |
|
Definition
| points strongly towards constructivist approach to shared identities (Muppidi): US identified more strongly with economic interests and ideology than liberal democratic/non-imperialist identities) |
|
|
Term
| DPT and 'shifting definitions' (Spiro) 1: Democracy (scalar view and liberal v western democracy) |
|
Definition
Democracy: I agree electoral/procedural D has no value and that Dising states are risky: fair move for DPT (Doyle) to limit itself to consolidated democracies.
But Iran: arguably didn't suffer from same ailments as LA democracies. distinguish between liberal and western democracy |
|
|
Term
| DPT and 'shifting definitions' 2: Peace (hollowing out) |
|
Definition
| to allow only formal wars (>1000): covert interventions clearly undermine sovereignty and often level of democracy of a state (Shah, Pinochet): To make this move is a hollowing out of DPT (it would have explanatory - Ds can't be seen to go to war - ≠ predictive value) |
|
|
Term
| DPT my objection: intentions |
|
Definition
| Covert interventions and liberal interventionism (Iraq) refute DPT as a result of motive, not fact. LA was prioritising of ideology over democracy, Iraq was oil over democracy |
|
|
