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.

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.

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.

Reviewing inter-state warfare literature, I observe a correlation between the growth of international institutions, economic interchange, and levels of democracy, and corresponding decreases in incidents of international war. Conversely, internal conflicts comprise most conflicts in the post-1945 world, compared to inter-state conflicts. Within the larger intra-state literature, I note an underlying lineage to concepts evolving from Kant’s writings, specifically Kantian democratic peace theory (DPT) literature posited by Russett and ONeal (2001), and the informal social-juridical relationship within Metaphysics of Morals. From that pedigree, could a deeper understanding of internal political risks gained through application of Kantian DPT, interpolating Putnam’s (2002) Social Capital Theory (SCT) hold potential to provide researchers and policy makers insight into propensity for descent into conflict early enough to implement corrective actions? This investigation initially questions existence of intra-state processes performing similar ameliorating or exacerbating functions observed at inter-state level. Assessing that intra-state dynamics exhibit an elevated dependence on social factors necessitates adjustments to DPT to accommodate the adaptable nature of social constructs, leading to the designation of my theory as Kantian Adaptable Networks Theory (KANT). To test hypotheses, I start with DPT, incorporate elements of SCT, and identify a hybrid combination presenting greater explanatory power than either DPT or SCT factors alone. Fund for Peace’s Fragile State Indices (FSI) for 2005-2013 provides the dataset to conduct regression analysis to determine significance of DPT and/or SCT elements in static and time-series. Initial results indicate DPT/SCT provides explanatory value at the intra-state level with the Group Grievance factor generally presenting the most significant effect on probability of conflict. To assess resilience to intra-state conflict, I then explore brittleness of social-contract dynamics through the lens of Clausewitz’ center of gravity theory. In my exploration of applicability of KANT at the case level, I analyze FSI data for Syria and Kenya to determine resilience to shocks and ratcheted pressures, and explanation for differing outcomes. Based on the results of quantitative and case analysis, I present policy prescription considerations. Finally, I discuss additional avenues for follow-on research of issues and opportunities identified during the course of the investigation.

Democratic Peace Theory observes a lack of war between liberal democratic states that merits an explanation. Democratic Peace Theory does not give a satisfactory explanation and as such, an exploration into the logic of the theory through an examination of its internal logic and wider implications is warranted. An understanding of dialectical materialism allows for such an examination when used together with a thorough exploration of the relevant cases of Greece and Italy in the two periods from 1960-1979 and 1991-2010 respectively. This examination will look at how well Democratic Peace Theory explains the observed facts through an examination of trade statistics of the two countries, which will here be used as an indicator of foreign policy. Democratic Peace Theory cannot explain the data that is analysed here, but through the examination, a better explanation through dialectical materialism can be arrived at. The international system is constructed through nation states seeking their own interests to the extent that they are able to identify them. The international system in turn gains influence over the same nation states as have constructed it. This is the dialectical functioning of the international system that is created by and affects national interests and will be argued to better explain the observation than Democratic Peace Theory. The main body of the text is 22.000 words.

While not uncontested, the finding that liberal democracies rarely, if ever, fight wars against each other represents one of the seminal discoveries of international relations (IR) scholarship. Nevertheless, 'democratic peace theory' (DPT) – the body of scholarship that seeks to explain the democratic peace finding – still lacks a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon. In this thesis, I argue that a primary source of this failure has been DPT's failure to recognize the importance of collective identification and trust for the eventuation of the 'liberal peace'. Building on existing DPT scholarship, most of it Realist or Rationalist in its inspiration, but also employing insights from Constructivist and Cognitivist scholarship, I develop a new model of how specific forms of collective identification can produce specific forms of trust. On this basis, I elaborate a new explanation of the liberal peace which sees it as arising out of a network of trusting liberal security communities. I then elaborate a new research design that enables a more rigorous and replicable empirical investigation of these ideas through the analysis of three historical cases studies, namely the Canada-USA, India-Pakistan, and France-Germany relationships. The results of this analysis support the plausibility of my theoretical framework, and also illuminate four additional findings. Specifically, I find that (1) IR scholarship needs a more nuanced understanding of the interaction between agents and structures; (2) 'institutionalized collaboration' is especially important for promoting collective identification; (3) DPT scholarship needs to focus more attention on the content of the narratives around which collective identification takes place; and (4) dramatic events play an important role in collective identification by triggering what I term catharses and epiphanies. I close the thesis by reviewing the implications of my findings for IR and for policymakers and by suggesting some areas worthy of additional research.