War refresh to the intentional armed conflict between or among communities so as to achieve political, economic goals. It is an act of violence that one community can use to compel the other to fulfill the aggressor’s will. Based on the above definitions, the war was crucial in the 19th-century nations as a means of achieving their ends. This paper discusses empirical evidence that democracies do not go to war with other democracies as well as analyzing the common pronouncement that it is either the capitalist or liberal peace.
A normative approach to the theory that democracies do not go to war with other democracies maintains that the stability between two or more democracies can be understood from both democratic and liberal concepts (Starr, 1997; Cited in Bhatnagar, n.d.) . Based on this approach, the existent culture and knowledge about democratic political values as well as their means of conflict resolutions by nature support the honest and peaceful relations between such states and their leaders. In addition, the leaders of the democratic states expect their counterparts to understand the necessity of solving their differences using nonviolent means ( Bhatnagar, n.d.) . A state, therefore, has a democratic perception about another state which shapes their foreign policies about one another. Thus, political ideologies become the determinant of how democratic states distinguish allies from enemies. Democracies that provide representation and act for interests of the citizenry are often treated with respect as opposed to those who treat the citizenry with violence and oppression (Starr, 1997 cited in Bhatnagar, n.d.) . Such states are undemocratic and are thus are treated with suspicions and mistress by other states.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second is that democracies often have a nonviolent relationship with other democracies as opposed to non-democratic states. However, despite their peaceful nature, they would be willing to use violence whenever threatened. In the phase of threats, democracies will often use escalating confrontations rather than engage in war. Rummel, (1995; Cited in Hayes, 2012) explains that for democracies, violence, and war is a means only applied as a last resort and in most cases to protect themselves. Such behaviors are of the incomplete Kantian world. Democracies can also be more peaceful with other democracies since they are prone to respect mutual agreements among themselves. Liberal democracies often have international agreements that bind them. They may include treaties among others. Such agreements when ratified compel the democracies to mutually engage peacefully in resolving their differences ( Hayes, 2012) . A systemic analysis of such agreements reveals that a world composed of democracies will always be peaceful. Through international agreements or coalitions that democracies make, they not only preserve their peaceful co-existence but also have a good front in defeating their mutual enemies. Weede, (1992; Cited in Graeff, & Mehlkop, 2008) explains that during the French revolutionary wars in the period 1861-62 the two democracies, Great Britain, and Mexican were embroiled in conflict. Britain and France assisted Spain in capturing Veracruz from the democracy of Mexico but did not engage in violent action.
Thirdly, democracies respect the sovereignty of other democracies. Democracies cannot, therefore, interfere in the affairs of other democracies (Graeff, & Mehlkop, 2008). Such democracies instead will use the opportunity to form mutually beneficial relationships that constitute a web of mutual advantages. Such relationships have resulted into the cooperative foundation of relationships that encourages diplomacy in conflict among democracies (Weede, 1992 Cited in Graeff, & Mehlkop, 2008). Some of the beneficial relationships include NATO which brings together countries like Bulgaria and Canada. The two countries as a mature democracy have come together to form a political and military alliance. NATO is an Empirical Evidence of how democracies peacefully address their conflicts based on its structure and objective. The essential purpose of NATO is to defend the security and freedom of its member states. NATO promotes the values of democracy through encouraging consultations as well as corporations through military and political means. As such, the states have hence adopted corporation on defense and security to enable conflict resolution among the member countries through building trust and preventing conflict.
Additionally, democracies act with democratic norm when dealing with issues about them. Democracies believe in the tenets of democracy which among others include equality, minority rights and the rights to be governed (Rummel, 1995 cited in Hayes, 2012 ). Aggression is perceived by pro-democracy as legitimate and thus should not be used on minorities or majorities within a democracy (Graeff, & Mehlkop, 2008). Such norms become codified in law that governs the democracies enabling them to use such regulations in solving their disputes rather than war. In most cases, Democracies also avoid war in a bit to secure their interests ( Hayes, 2012) . However, studies show that the democratic systems have restrained which prevent the use of war as a way of solving disputes among democracies. For example. During the French revolutionary wars in the period 1861-62 the two democracies, Great Britain, and Mexican were embroiled in conflict. Britain and France assisted Spain in capturing Veracruz from the democracy of Mexico. The entire operation was done without fighting and immediately the French geared up for a military Britain Left.
It Is either the Capitalist or Liberal Peace
Over the past, Capitalist has served to reduce the various reasons that originally nations had to go to war. According to Gartzke (2007), capitalists ensure that the gains of a nation going to war become subtle in comparison to the cost of fighting since they focus on the importance of trade and malleability of resources. Developed capitalists often have a similar interest which means, there will be fewer chances for conflict of interest that may lead to war (Gartzke, 2007). Also, economically integrated states have ways of issuing threats on one another based on the integrations to avoid war. Such trade threats can be effective although less dangerous than warfare. Among the evidence of reduction of war among the capitalist world as a result of capitalism include market variables, common interests, and development. Also, dual development of states has been proven to reduce chances of war or violence. When a state has a greater amount of public property, its chances of having war are also increased (Gartzke, 2007). Consequently, the main cause of liberal peace is industrialized capitalism.
Recent studies have established that warring has declined especially as of late. This drop in worldwide wars has provoked a curious groundswell of in-fighting in the liberal school of international relations, where researchers are arguing the reasons for this new peace. Dillon and Reid (2000) discusses, while just democratic peace extensively benefitted from a wide consensus during the 1990s, some have as of late proposed that the lessening of violence is owing to the dispersion of capitalism. This conversation has imperative approach suggestions, as it could propose whether promoting democracy or economic growth and development would be most valuable in advancing peace. So as to borrow from the late commitments to this conversation, liberal peace can only be achieved by following the substantive outcomes acquired in the course of recent decades, highlighting the issues that greatly affect every kind of peace which include Kantian, capitalist, democratic, and commercial ( Castelli, & Chatagnier, 2013) .
Capitalists propose a one of a kind relationship between democratic nations which shields each from going to war with each other. Dillon and Reid (2000) explains that democratic states do not confront one another physically through war, detailing a correlation between democracy and peace. Capitalism assumes an essential part in international relations and its thoughts are at the center of foreign policies for most western nations; its origin basically exists in liberalism. Capitalists speak to liberalism, where the working of international institutions coupled with the corporation would lead to the building of peace; while the neo-realist approach speaks to the idea of the balance of power and that each is a potential threat to the other.
The idea of capitalists is that liberal states intentionally accept that they are making a casual, shared understanding (Dillon & Reid 2000). All through late history, there has been practically zero war between democratic states, despite the fact that there has been strife on different levels, for example in the international law. War is far-fetched as capitalist states need to keep the peace. Liberalism becomes either self-consciously enthusiastic or inalienable peace loving.
Conclusion
The concept of democracies do not go to war with other democracies can be understood from both democratic and liberal concepts. The paper has found out the existent culture and knowledge about democratic political values as well as their means of conflict resolutions by nature supports the honest and peaceful relations between such states and their leaders. Secondly, the leaders of the democratic states expect their counterparts to understand the necessity of solving their differences using nonviolent means. Democracies often have a nonviolent relationship with other democracies as opposed to non-democratic states and respect the sovereignty of other democracies. Regarding the pronouncement that it is either the Capitalist or Liberal Peace, the paper has found out that capitalists ensure that the gains of a nation going to war become very small in comparison to the cost of fighting since they focus on the importance of trade and malleability of resources. As such, Capitalists propose a one of a kind relationship between democratic nations which shields each from going to war with each other detailing a correlation between democracy and peace.
References
Bhatnagar, A. (n.d.). The Democratic Peace Thesis: Not a Force for Peace after All. InPEC Magazine – International Politics, Energy & Culture. Retrieved from https://inpecmagazine.com/the-democratic-peace-thesis-not-a-force-for-peace-after-all/.
Castelli, E., & Chatagnier, T. J. (2013). From democracy to capitalism: The war over the liberal peace . Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica - Anno XLIII (3), 435-453.
Dillon, M., & Reid, J. (2000). Global governance, liberal peace, and complex emergency. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political , 25 (1), 117-143.
Gartzke, E. (2007). The capitalist peace. American journal of political science , 51 (1), 166-191.
Graeff, P., & Mehlkop, G. (2008). Capitalism, Democracy and the Prevention of War and Poverty. London: Routledge.
Hayes, J. (2012). The democratic peace and the new evolution of an old idea. European Journal of International Relations 18 (4):767-791.
