No / The victory of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, in the January 2006 elections for the Palestinian Authority, was greeted with dismay by the international community, which responded by cutting off aid. This article seeks to understand why Hamas was elected, as well as the international community's response, through an analysis of the liberal peace thesis. This thesis states that democracies do not go to war with one another, thus it was thought that building a democratic Palestinian state would buttress the peace process. The Palestinian people have, however, elected an organization that rejects the peace process. This has provided a wake-up call for the US to face up to the fact that promoting democratization may not always produce the results it desires. The US sees the election of Hamas as the cause of the current crisis and the main obstacle to peace. This article, however, argues that this is merely a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis. The Palestinian Authority's lack of sovereignty and its complete dependence on Israel put severe limitations on the building of a viable, democratic state. The article concludes that the US's uncompromising response to Hamas could well undermine democracy promotion in the region.

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 purpose of this thesis is to see, in the post-Cold War world, what kind of association that democracies have with other states around them. As the world sees more and more democracies take root, it is worth studying what kind of relationship these democracies have formed with both other democracies and non-democracies. Democratic governments have in some cases forced democracy upon parts of the world that have never sought democracy. With this in mind I will look at the spread of democracies all over the globe through the theory of biopolitics. This theory is the idea that a government must control its population, even the reproduction of it. Policies on abortion, the death penalty, and end of life laws might seem controversial to some but to a government are very necessary to ensure the safety and promotion of life in a state. If countries are forcibly spreading democracy to others countries that are not, are they trying to control a population in another place? This thesis seeks to answer that question within the context of the modern world that we live in.

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.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the link between internal and external conflict of states in the field of International Relations. More specifically, it is a critique of the Diversionary War theory, which argues that political leaders can instigate foreign conflict to divert the attention from domestic issues in order to secure their political positions. This paper will test an alternative approach to the Diversionary War theory called the Diversionary Peace theory, which inverts the logic of the original theory. It argues that leaders facing domestic strife have incentives to cooperate with other states in order to deal with the internal problems in a more cost effective way. Using process tracing methodology, the Diversionary Peace theory is applied to Turkey from 1984-1999, to understand how the Kurdish issue as a source of domestic conflict in Turkey affected the Turkish-Syrian relations. The Diversionary Peace Theory would assume that as the Kurdish conflict escalates at the domestic level, Turkey would be inclined to give concessions to Syria to deescalate conflict at the international level. This paper proves otherwise: as the domestic conflict escalates, relations actually deteriorate and cooperation becomes less likely. Therefore, it is both a critique of the Diversionary War theory and the Diversionary Peace theory. The main interpretation of the findings is that the theory is not applicable to those cases where the boundaries between domestic and international realms are too porous as in the case of the Kurdish politics. When the domestic conflict and international dispute is interlinked, as in this case, I argue that cooperation might not be possible. Future reseachers in the area are advised to pay attention to whether the domestic factor and the international factor are interlinked, how the level of domestic conflict affects foreign relations and the impact of domestic audience costs.

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.

In Creating the Language of Peace: Peace, War, and Art in the Works of Maxine Hong Kingston, I explore how this Chinese American writer pursues the creation of peace in her writings and life. These chapters explore Kingston's discussion of war and her determination to create a language of peace through creative non-fiction, fiction, and poetry. Her works draw our attention to the ubiquity of war in our lives and furthers her endeavor to highlight this as well as her struggle for peace against the backdrop of an American pro-war political landscape. Creating the Language of Peace will be the first book length treatment of these topics across Kingston's career. It also considers Kingston's oft-expressed intention to create peace through artistic means, in her case, through writing. This dissertation will fill the gap in research and analysis, refocusing the discussion on the themes and issues Kingston has repeatedly indicated are vital to understanding her work: peace, war, art, and the creation of a language of peace. Throughout, I consider Kingston's development of a language of peace, her explorations of war and its consequences, the influence of her Buddhist philosophies, the close compatibility of her works with contemporary peace theory, and the possibility for peace poetics within her poetry. The Woman Warrior (1976) and China Men (1980) are the focus of chapter one, an investigation into Kingston's first analyses of war and its consequences for all who are touched by its violence. Chapter two takes the novel Tripmaster Monkey (1989) and compares Kingston's pacifist choices with Johan Galtung's peace theory. Thich Nhat Hanh's version of engaged Buddhism and its influence on both Kingston's The Fifth Book of Peace (2003) and her peace activism is explored in chapter three. The final chapter turns to her two books of poetry, To Be the Poet (2002) and I Love a Broad Margin to My Life (2011), exploring how the role of the American poet as a political voice develops in her poetry.

Building peace and preventing the emergence of new and existing conflicts is one of the fundamental objectives of the United Nations, seen as deep down as in the charter of the organization. As the United Nations has existed for some time their peacebuilding framework has changed on several occasions, with the most recent change taking place in 2016. This paper is concerned with how this new United Nations approach to peace from 2016 has changed the way in which the United Nations understands peacebuilding. As this paper is focused on peacebuilding, this study applies the theoretical lenses of Liberal peace theory, critical peacebuilding and Scandinavian peace theory to critically examine the current United Nations approach as well as the previous approach to peacebuilding. The use of the ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ approach allows for the identification of how the peace frameworks of the United Nations problematizes peacebuilding, the underlying assumptions as well as the effects. From this, it is determined that the new/current United Nations approach to peacebuilding has not significantly changed. Both frameworks are characterized by state-centricity with a focus on the necessity of liberal-democratic values being in place in order for sustainable peace to be achieved. The findings did show that the new approach emphasizes more interaction with local actors in the peace process however this emphasis was underpinned with a focus on peace through the state and not through the local.

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...