Is International Relations Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

Whether international relations are a solution to the problem or a way to provoke war is worth discussing. The Democratic Peace Theory under Liberalism holds that all democracies (or, more accurately, all liberal democracies) will not or rarely go to war with another. This theory is further explored in depth the link between democracy and peace. This paper analyzes the situation in Afghanistan, North Korea’s nuclear program and the United States intervention in the world. Finally, it is concluded that international relations theory can solve regional problems and lead to conflict and war. In other words, international relations are both parts of the problem and part of the solution to the issues in international affairs.

The Democratic Peace Theory: Is War a Means to Peace?

In the twenty first century, the idea of democracy has transcended its original conception of domestic governance to actively influence international relations. The nature of state—democratic or nondemocratic—has come to determine hierarchy, alliances, and status in international relations. It tends to bestow a degree of moral superiority to democratic states in dealings of international relations. This moral superiority in its most aggressive form, in the past two decades, has led to wars in the name of democracy. It has been used to justify military intervention in nondemocratic states by democratic nations. The use of force to bring about desired consequences has become the norm in inter-state relations. The focus is not on the action, but on its intent. This article studies the use of force and war by Western democratic countries to establish democracies through military intervention in other parts of the world. The article analyzes the widespread impact of foreign policies of the stronger nation-states and seeks to understand if the desired results are achieved or not. Beginning with the democratic peace theory that is held in high opinion by democracies of today, the article moves toward Immanuel Kant and his idea of perpetual peace. The democratic peace theory finds its base in Kant’s perpetual peace and finds an echo in Western democracies’ foreign policies. The article then sees how this theory is used to justify war, through the case study of Afghanistan, and what is the intention behind the wars. The article concludes that the desired aim of “positive peace” cannot be achieved via violent means. In the process of establishing peaceful and healthy democracy, Kant’s categorical imperatives are crucial.

Economic Peace Revisited: Coercion and Democracy

Scholars have argued whether democratic peace also holds in the realm of economic sanctions — whether there is an economic peace. Substantial amounts of evidence have been gathered both for and against economic peace and findings have been extremely sensitive to changes in research design. This article provides a new insight, with the use of the updated TIES data set and improved methodology, into the topic of economic peace. It find that democracies are more likely to issue economic sanctions and that there is no economic peace. In fact, democracies are more likely to sanction one another. The article indicate that lack of economic peace is consistent with the public choice approach to economic sanctions. It also argue that the exercise of power among democracies has been rechannelled to economic coercion.

The Limited Scope of the Democratic Peace: What We Are Missing

The democratic peace program arguably constitutes one of the most successful empirical research programs in the discipline. Its main empirical finding motivated extensive theorizing (e.g., challengers, as well as distinct theoretical enterprises), sparked further debate about how to conceptualize and operationalize democracy, and shifted the foreign policy discourse, particularly in the United States. Lost in these successes, however, is a critical unanswered question: how much interstate peace can the democratic peace potentially explain? We explore these limits (i.e., scope, or empirical coverage) in this study. We first identify the peaceful dyadic relationships—namely those that never go to war across long historical periods. We next classify these dyads as democratic (i.e., both members are democracies) or nondemocratic. The empirical analysis then examines this democracy–peace relationship across three time periods, three distinct samples (which address potential false positives), two definitions of “peace,” and two thresholds for democracy. Regardless of how we approach the data, only 4–26 percent of all peaceful dyads qualify as “democratic.” Because we control for the obvious trivial explanation (insufficient capabilities due to distance), some other (set of) factor(s) must account for the majority of interstate peace. We close with a discussion about where future research might search for these factors, as well as the larger policy implications of the study.

Perang Ekuador dan Peru Tahun 1995

This study tries to explain the reasons why Peru and Ecuador went to war with each other in 1995, even though both are democracies. The research was conducted concerning Immanuel Kant's Democratic Peace Theory by examining norms and institutions as essential factors in developing his theory. This study uses qualitative research with literature review and interview methods. The study will focus on the conditions of norms and institutions in Peru and Ecuador in 1995, the year the two countries decided to go to war with each other. Based on the research results, it is known that democratic norms and institutions owned by Ecuador and Peru have not been able to create peace as has been assumed by Immanuel Kant in the Democratic Peace Theory. Although Ecuador has democratic institutions that can reduce the authority of its leaders in decision-making, the domestic democratic norms established in the 1830 Constitutional Law cannot make the Ecuadorian people's support refer to peace in overcoming the Cenepa border conflict. On the contrary, in Peru, democratic norms that prefer to negotiate and make peace are not followed by the effectiveness of the role of democratic institutions that cannot limit President Fujimori's authority, who chooses to carry out attacks in border areas which then triggers a war.

Liberal Ideology and Foreign Opinion on China

Why do autocratic powers like China evoke negative attitudes from the citizens of some countries but not from others? Factors like economic and security threat are of course part of the answer, but this study finds that ideational factors exert a distinct effect. Drawing from social theories of the democratic peace and international relations more broadly, it observes that governments and their citizens form communities along ideological lines, which most prominently includes differences in liberal democracy. This argument implies that people within the liberal community tend to view authoritarian powers like China as having a harmful influence on the world. Furthermore, democratic citizens will evaluate China from the standpoint of liberal democratic norms. Because liberal norms are not just about having multiparty, electoral institutions, people's opinions on China could vary even if its single-party political system does not change. Three empirical studies drawing from cross-national observational data, two original survey experiment, and a difference-in-differences analysis of historical polls confirm that liberal democracy affects foreign perceptions about China. The findings advance debates about soft power, democracy and public opinion, and the role of ideology in international society.

THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE IN THE THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The article focuses on the analysis of the theory of democratic peace - one of the most popular and influential ideas in international relations. The theory argues that democracies do not go to war against other democracies, but resolve existing contradictions peacefully. A world, in which there are as many as possible democratic states, is a peaceful world. Thus, the theory encourages and supports democratization in the world, a policy pursued by both the great Western powers and international organizations. Meanwhile, some researchers are critical of the theory of democratic peace and talk about its crisis.