Dating back to Lenin's intellectually and politically transformative pamphlet Imperialism, the fateful summer of 1914 has been used to challenge any connection between capitalism and peace. This challenge has generally centered on the failure of a sustained period of globalization, beginning with the elimination of the Corn Laws in 1846, to prevent the outbreak of World War I. The dramatic war-induced end to this long era of globalization has also been referenced to question the broader foundations of liberal international relations theory, cast doubt on any claim linking trade and peace in the period following World War II, and assert that the contemporary era of globalization possesses an underlying fragility overlooked by those forgetting the lessons of history (Rowe 2005; Ferguson 2005). Those skeptical about the pacific consequences of commerce, such as Realist and Marxist–Leninist scholars, have long relied on this first era of globalization to claim that commerce either heightens military tensions between states or simply has no effect at all on conflict (Lenin 1993[1916]; Waltz 1979; Buzan 1984; Copeland 1996; Ripsman and Blanchard 1996/97; Rowe 1999, 2005; Mearsheimer 2001; Jervis 2002).

Apart from the example of World War I, these criticisms have remained strong for multiple reasons. Few studies systematically examine the links between trade and conflict during this first era of globalization (Mansfield and Pollins 2003, p. 8).