The purpose of this thesis is to inquire into the hard decisions that democracies are making in the 21st century in the context of working to spreading democracy and maintaining peace through foreign policy. Ever since the American-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks, democratic peace theorists have been pushed further to the sidelines as their theory has been put to the test and struggled to stand up to the challenges of political realities in contemporary world politics. The idea that the diffusion of democracy would help build a Kantian world peace would seem to have taken a severe blow with the rise of populist candidates and policies in the West in recent years. The democratic peace theory (DPT) is in crucial respects about the mechanisms to indirectly control other countries' economies and politics through forcibly installing democratic regimes. Though done in the name of safety and security for western nations, this foreign policy looks an awful lot like an attempt at biopolitical engineering. Has DPT morphed into a form of biopolitics? The goal of this thesis is to delve into this question and to learn what the implications are if this is the case, and what it means for the West, democracies, terrorism, and societies. For if democracies are less and less able to justify their role in driving the proper conditions for peace, we must scrutinize the role they play in international affairs in a much broader political perspective. / Master of Arts

The democratic peace theory proposes that democratic states are less likely to go to war with each other, but will go to war with nondemocratic states, and usually win. This is a theory that has generated much controversy. There is no denial that peace exists between democracies, but the controversies arise over why. The twenty-first century has seen a rise in China (an autocratic state) and its struggle to obtain a presence on the world stage and equality with the United States (a democratic state). There has not been a militarized dispute between them and they report billions of dollars in trade each year. Which begs the question, how has the United States-China trade relationship challenged the democratic peace theory? To answer this question a thorough review of the democratic peace theory becomes necessary as an aim to introducing the theory and reviewing the literature advanced by democratic peace theorists. A discussion of the theory's origins, central features, limits and its critics is presented. The opening of China and its economy in relationship with the United States is analyzed to show how trade interdependence has meant closer and increased trade. I argue that the United States-China relationship, which addresses the peaceful constraints of economic interdependence, can reveal important limits of the democratic peace theory. The method chosen to examine the argument is based on a case study of the peaceful relationship between the United States and China. The selected cases provide trade data to assess the magnitude of trade interdependence between them. Concluding that the theory is limited in that it fails to address the influence of trade interdependence as a better explanation for peace, and not democratic processes.

Abstract In this study the notion of domestic democratic peace will be examined by using a holistic understanding of internal conflicts. Domestic democratic peace has most commonly been studied by using quantitative methods. This study will be qualitative using an abductive approach when understanding why mature democracies are more stable than other types of regimes. The holistic understanding of internal conflicts used in this study is based on the concepts of relative deprivation, instrumentalisation of politics and politicisation of identity. Burton’s sources of conflict are used to show how relative deprivation can be experienced. The questions to be answered in this essay are as follow: How can the proposed holistic understanding explain why mature democracies are more stable than newly established democracies and autocratic states? - In what ways do mature democracies decrease experience of relative deprivation and thereby safeguarding Burton’s sources of conflict? - In what ways do mature democracies cater to a more peaceful process of politicisation of identity and instrumentalisation of politics?Key Words: domestic democratic peace, holistic understanding of internal conflicts, mature democracies

Alexis de Tocqueville is widely hailed as one of the most insightful students of democracy and as one of the most perceptive observers of America. While this high praise is fully deserved, Tocqueville was more than simply the author of Democracy in America. Indeed, he completed the journey that inspired his seminal work before he was out of his twenties. The remainder of his life was devoted to the practice of politics. Both as an involved citizen and as a member of the Chamber of Deputies, Tocqueville researched and wrote extensively on French foreign policy. His most notable works are several reports endorsing French colonial projects in Algeria and articles advocating for the emancipation of slavery in the French Caribbean colonies. In this essay I argue that one cannot truly understand Tocqueville the student without analyzing Tocqueville the politician. Approaching his career as a consistent whole, rather than two distinct and incongruous parts, opens new avenues of investigation into his works. First, his incisive examination and critique of the distinct mildness engendered by equality of conditions in America helps fill several theoretical gaps in the democratic peace research program. Second, his arguments in support of both French imperial enterprises as well as the emancipation of slaves reveals that his diplomatic career was animated above all by the desire to forestall the further proliferation of this democratic mildness, which he viewed as one of democracy’s most dangerous vices. Examining his foreign policy positions in light of the lessons he learned in writing Democracy in America is the only way to discover the consistent goal of his life—namely, to educate and guide the future generations of democracy—and thus to understand Tocqueville as he understood himself. / text

This master thesis focuses on Fukuyama's End of History thesis and the Theory of Democratic Peace. Broader theoretical framework is the liberal-idealist tradition of international relations. The basis for analysis is liberalism which is presented as a scientific research program. Liberal theory is chosen also due to the fact that it provides better explanation of contemporary complex and interconnected world. The analysis focuses on theoretical foundations of both theories and follows their main supporting arguments. Liberal-democratic system is interpreted as an emergent property and the consequence of spontaneous order (societal self-organization based on voluntary co-operation), i.e. as an outcome of an evolutionary process in a complex system with feedback. The consequence for the international system is that it can be no longer considered as mainly anarchical environment.

This thesis engages peace studies in a liberalist approach in International Relations. The three main schools of liberalism have their shortage. Democratic peace theory suggests the correlation between democracy and peace, but cannot proof there be a necessary causality between them. Neo-liberal institutionalism claims that international institutions help to assure peace. However, institutions cannot be fair to every country. Interdependent theory claims that closer interdependence could bring peace. Nevertheless, the more interdependent countries are, the more conflicts there are. This thesis applies spontaneous order theory in international peace studies , which stresses the importance of freedom and law-making for keeping the best and free status of human being.

This dissertation, by using the case of tensions between the United States and Venezuela between 2001-2007, examines Rummel’s hypothesis that democratic countries are inherently peaceful, and investigates whether the tensions in US-Venezuela relations under president George W Bush and president Hugo Chavez confirms or rejects Rummel’s hypothesis. A review of relevant documents, reports by non-governmental organizations and previous research in the field of international relations lead us to the conclusion that while the strained relationship between the US and Venezuela did reach a stage of coercive diplomacy, as defined by Jakobsen, the threats between the two countries did not escalate towards military aggression, and therefore Rummel’s hypothesis is confirmed.

The democratic peace theory assert that democracies never or rarely fight each other in war. It is the closest we have to an empirical law in political science and peace and conflict studies as it contains the intellectual justification that by spreading democracy abroad, we can promote world peace. The aim of this research is to broaden our knowledge on how lasting peace may be established by confirming or rejecting hypothesis ‘democracies do not fight each other’. Essentially, this research is a continuation of Dean Babst statistical testing from 1964, who analysed all major wars fought 1789-1941 and determined whether any were fought between freely elected governments (democracies). This research inherits the same working format, however testing the hypothesis to 21st century wars (2000-2020) and with different operationalization of war and democracy – Based on the Uppsala Conflict Data programme (UCDP) and Regimes of the World (RoW). The adopted research design is quantitative statistical and collects both quantitative and qualitative data to provide context to every state- based war fought and actors involved. In this research, 38 wars are identified to be fought in the 21st century but only 5 are fought between two governments (primary and secondary). 10 governmental oppositions are counted to exist within these 5 wars. 5 of them are fought between democracies and autocracies, while 5 other oppositions are between purely autocracies. The results are that 0 out of 38 wars in 2000-2020 are fought between democracies, and this research can thereby confirm hypothesis to the period and the operationalisation of war and democracy studied.

i Abstract Liberalism encompasses many disciplines. Individual freedom, free-market capitalism, republican form of government, and rule of law are considered to be among its main pillars. The Thesis illustrates an original analysis of three partial "liberal" theories of International Relations (IR) - referred to as "approaches" because of their interdisciplinarity - and their main scholars' considerations vis-à-vis important selected elements of global politics, with peace as the general background. The three analyzed approaches are Economic Liberalism, Democratic Peace Theory, and Democratic Realism. Keeping into account their differences, traditions, and purposes, the approaches are operationalized through five subchapters - institutions, free-market, international law, conflict intervention, and nationalism - to prove their compatibility, non-contradiction, and possible juxtaposition vis-à-vis these features. Despite some "empirical differences", while looking at the selected-IR issues, the approaches have "common threads", and this is visible when the three frameworks and their top-selected scholars are confronted with the elements. After a general introduction on liberalism, a definition of peace in IR, and a quick overview of Peace Studies, the three approaches are presented in their theoretical...

No description available.