Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:33:53.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Rest for the Democratic Peace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2005

DAVID KINSELLA
DAVID KINSELLA
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proponents of the democratic peace are accustomed to criticism. Early refutations of the research program's findings focused on questions of measurement and statistical inference. Skepticism about such matters has not fully subsided, but many more now accept the democratic peace as an empirical regularity. The aim of recent complaints has shifted to democratic peace theory. The typical approach has been to highlight select historical events that appear anomalous in light of the theory and the causal mechanisms it identifies. Sebastian Rosato's (2003) is one such critique, noteworthy for the range of causal propositions held up for scrutiny and the unequivocal rejection of them all. But Rosato fails to appreciate the dyadic logic central to democratic peace theory, and much of his criticism is therefore misdirected. Those cases that remain unexplained by the theory are not especially problematic for this progressively evolving research program.

Type
FORUM
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. 453 - 457
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benoit Kenneth. 1996. “Democracies Really Are More Pacific (in General).” Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (December): 636– 57.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita Bruce, James Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alastair Smith. 1999. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review 93 (August): 791– 807.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson, and James Morrow. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chernoff Fred. 2004. “The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations.” International Studies Review 6 (March): 49– 77.Google Scholar
Desch Michael C. 2002. “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters.” International Security 27 (Fall): 5– 47.Google Scholar
Doyle Michael W. 1983a. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Summer): 205– 35.Google Scholar
Doyle Michael W. 1983b. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Fall): 323– 53.Google Scholar
Elman Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman. 2002. “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research.” International Studies Quarterly 46 (June): 231– 62.Google Scholar
Farber Henry S., and Joanne Gowa. 1997. “Common Interests or Common Polities? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace.” Journal of Politics 59 (May): 393– 417.Google Scholar
Gelpi Christopher S., and Michael Griesdorf. 2001. “Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crises, 1918–94. American Political Science Review 95 (September): 633– 47.Google Scholar
Gowa Joanne. 1999. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lakatos Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lake David A. 2003. “Fair Fights? Evaluating Theories of Democracy and Victory.” International Security 28 (Summer): 154– 67.Google Scholar
Layne Christopher. 1997. “Lord Palmerston and the Triumph of Realism: Anglo-French Relations, 1830–48.” In Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?, ed. Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marshall Monty G., and Keith Jaggers. 2002. “Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2002.” University of Maryland. Typescript.
Mueller John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
Oneal John R., and Bruce Russett. 1999. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992.” World Politics 52 (October): 1– 37.Google Scholar
Owen John M. 1997. Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Peceny Mark, Caroline C. Beer, with Shannon Sanchez-Terry. 2002. “Dictatorial Peace?” American Political Science Review 96 (February): 15– 26.Google Scholar
Pitkin Hanna Fenichel. 1972. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Przeworski Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Chebub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ray James Lee. 1995. Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Ray James Lee. 2003. “A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Programme: Does It Falsify Realism (or Neorealism)? In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reiter Dan, and Allan C. Stam. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reiter Dan, and Allan C. Stam. 2003. “Understanding Victory: Why Political Institutions Matter.” International Security 28 (Summer): 168– 79.Google Scholar
Rosato Sebastian. 2003. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review 97 (November): 585– 602.Google Scholar
Rousseau David, Christopher Gelpi, Dan Reiter, and Paul Huth. 1996. “Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review 90 (September): 512– 44.Google Scholar
Rummel R. J. 1995. “Democracies Are Less Warlike than Other Regimes.” European Journal of International Relations 1 (December): 457– 79.Google Scholar
Russett Bruce, and John Oneal. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.
Russett Bruce, and Harvey Starr. 1981. World Politics: The Menu for Choice. San Francisco: Freeman.
Smith Alastair. 1999. “Testing Theories of Strategic Choice: The Example of Crisis Escalation.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (October): 1254– 83.Google Scholar
Vasquez John A. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition.” American Political Science Review 91 (November): 899– 912.Google Scholar
Walt Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz Kenneth N. 1997. “Evaluating Theories.” American Political Science Review 91 (November): 913– 17.Google Scholar
Zinnes Dina A. 2004. “Constructing Political Logic: The Democratic Peace Puzzle.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (June): 430– 54.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.