Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-klj7v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-23T23:23:43.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Towards a Critical Theory of Democratic Peace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2011

Abstract

The Democratic Peace research programme remains a prominent and influential strand of International Relations theory. It occupies a central place in the discipline, both as a dominant version of liberal internationalism, and as a supposedly paradigmatic case demonstrating the strengths of positivist scholarship. Nonetheless, Democratic Peace scholarship has been challenged by recent real world events, notably the belligerent behaviour of democratic states during the so-called ‘War on Terror’, and the use of its findings to justify the US led invasion of Iraq. In this regard, Democratic Peace research has struggled to deal with the ethical and practical consequences of its work, as the focus has been on empirically observable and testable problems that fit within the remit of positivist social scientific practice. Responding to this state of affairs, it is argued here that there is a pressing need to further extend and pluralise existing scholarship by incorporating approaches which commence from different ontological, epistemological and methodological starting points. While there are multiple possibilities, Frankfurt School Critical Theory has great potential to contribute to an expanded research agenda. The article outlines what a Critical Theory approach to the study of Democratic Peace would entail, highlighting the substantial contribution it can make.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hamilton, Alexander, ‘Federalist Paper 6’, in Carey, G. W. and McClellan, J. (eds), The Federalist Papers (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), pp. 2324Google Scholar .

2 Ibid., p. 24.

3 Geis, Anna, Brock, Lothar and Müller, Harald (eds), Democratic Wars: Looking at the Dark Side of Democratic Peace (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

4 Both Ish-Shalom and Smith have demonstrated how democratic peace research was incorporated into neo-conservative thinking, and used by the Bush administration in explicating its actions. The actual role of the theory in legitimating, and perhaps even motivating, the Iraq war is a very difficult issue and largely beyond the scope of this article. See Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of Democratization’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:4 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘“The Civilization of Clashes”: Misapplying the Democratic Peace in the Middle East’, Political Science Quarterly, 122:4 (2007–2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Smith, Tony, A Pact with the Devil: Washington's Bid for World Supremacy and the Betrayal of the American Promise (New York: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar .

5 Steele, Brent, ‘Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique’, International Studies Review, 9:1 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Anna Geis and Wolfgang Wagner, ‘How Far is it from Königsberg to Kandahar? Democratic Peace and Democratic Violence in International Relations’, Review of International Studies (forthcoming); ‘Roundtable: Between the Theory and Practice of Democratic Peace’, International Relations, (forthcoming).

6 For an excellent up to date overview of the literature, see Geis and Wagner, ‘From Democratic Peace to Democratic Distinctiveness’.

7 Ish-Shalom, , ‘Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism’; Oren, Ido, Our Enemies and US: America's Rivalries and the Making of Political Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003)Google Scholar .

8 Lapid, Yosef, ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33:3 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

9 As understood here, a basic definition of ‘positivism’ centres on the following five tenets: (1) the unity of the scientific method; (2) naturalism or phenomenalism; (3) empiricism; (4) value freedom and, (5) instrumental knowledge. Delanty, Gerard, Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997), p. 12Google Scholar .

10 Levy, Jack, ‘Domestic Politics and War’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18:4 (1988), p. 662CrossRefGoogle Scholar , emphasis added.

11 Chernoff, Fred, ‘International Relations, Paleontology, and Scientific Progress: Parallels between Democratic Peace Studies and the Meteor Impact Extinction Hypothesis’, International Studies Perspectives, 9:1 (2008), p. 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar . See also, Russett, Bruce, ‘Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses’, European Journal of International Relations, 15:1 (2009), p. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

12 Riker, William, ‘The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science’, American Political Science Review, 76:4 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

13 Van Belle, Douglas, ‘Dinosaurs and the Democratic Peace: Paleontological Lessons for Avoiding the Extinction of Theory in Political Science’, International Studies Perspectives, 7:3 (2006), p. 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

14 Chernoff, Fred, ‘The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations’, International Studies Review, 6:1 (2004), p. 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

15 Chernoff, ‘The Study of Democratic Peace’, pp. 50–1.

16 Chernoff, ‘The Study of Democratic Peace’, p. 72.

17 Thaddeus Jackson, Patrick, ‘Hunting for Fossils in International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives, 7:3 (2006), pp. 100101Google Scholar .

18 There have been suggestions that this is the case in the natural sciences as well.

19 Steele, , ‘Liberal-Idealism’; Ido Oren, ‘Can Political Science Emulate the Natural Sciences? The Problem of Self-Disconfirming Analysis’, Polity, 38:1 (2006)Google Scholar .

20 Jackson, ‘Hunting for Fossils in International Relations’, p. 101.

21 One prominent commentator notes that, ‘the statistical evidence in support of the idea that democracies rarely fight wars with one another is so strong as to have prompted a rich and forceful literature that commands a notable impact on foreign policy decision making’. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, ‘Domestic Politics and International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 46:1 (2002), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

22 Ish-Shalom, ‘Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism’.

23 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘Theorizing Politics, Politicizing Theory, and the Responsibility that Runs Between’, Perspectives on Politics, 7:2 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; ‘Roundtable: Between the Theory and Practice of Democratic Peace’.

24 Piki Ish-Shalom, ‘Theorizing Politics, Politicizing Theory’; Christopher Hobson, ‘The Sorcerer's Apprentice’, International Relations (forthcoming).

25 Chan notes that, ‘the democratic peace proposition is arguably one of the most robust generalisations that has been produced to date by this research tradition’. Chan, Steve, ‘In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise’, Mershon International Studies Review, 41 (1997), p. 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

26 Chernoff, ‘The Study of Democratic Peace’, p. 56; Van Belle, ‘Dinosaurs and the Democratic Peace’, pp. 292–3. For the Polity IV project, see: {http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm}, and for the Correlates of War project, see: {http://www.correlatesofwar.org/}. All pages accessed on 18 June 2009.

27 Ibid., p. 57–65; Van Belle, ‘Dinosaurs and the Democratic Peace’, pp. 292–4.

28 Consider this response by R. J. Rummel to the question, ‘But can you really apply today's definition of democracy to previous centuries?: ‘The fundamental question about any definition is: Does it work? Does it define something in reality that predicts something else? If we have so defined an x such that it regularly predicts to y, then that is a useful and important definition of x. […] Moreover, we have statistics. That there have been no wars between democracies since, say, 1816, is statistically significant.’ It is completely tautological, however, to justify the definition used in terms of statistics and the results produced, as these outcomes are predicated on the definitions first employed. See R. J. Rummel, ‘Q and A on Democracy and War’. Available at: {http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM} accessed on 2 June 2008.

29 Cavallar, Georg, ‘Kantian Perspectives on Democratic Peace: Alternatives to Doyle’, Review of International Studies, 27:2 (2001), p. 238CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

30 Gebhardt, Eike, ‘A Critique of Methodology’, in Arato, A. and Gebhardt, E. (eds), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader (New York: Continuum, 1982), p. 377Google Scholar .

31 Notables exceptions are Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:4 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark (eds), Democracy, Liberalism, and War (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001)Google Scholar ; Kurki, Milja, Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar , chap. 7.

32 Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders’, Millennium, 10:2 (1981), pp. 128130CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

33 Hobson, Christopher, ‘Democracy as Civilisation’, Global Society, 22:1 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

34 Russett, Bruce and Oneal, John, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: Norton, 2001), p. 50Google Scholar ; Macmillan, John, ‘Beyond the Separate Peace’, Journal of Peace Research, 40:2 (2003), pp. 233, 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

35 ‘Though critics dispute about the reasons, there is now scholarly near-consensus for the basic empirical claim that rarely over the past century or two have democracies fought one another.’ Russett, ‘Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses’, p. 11.

36 Harrison, Ewan, ‘Waltz, Kant and Systemic Approaches to International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 28:1 (2002), pp. 159160CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; McLaughlin Mitchell, Sara, ‘A Kantian System? Democracy and Third-Party Conflict Resolution’, American Journal of Political Science, 46:4 (2002), pp. 752753Google Scholar .

37 Russett, Bruce, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 138Google Scholar .

38 Weart, Spencer, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 296Google Scholar , emphasis added.

39 The standard measure used to demonstrate this shift is the Freedom House surveys. Available at: {http://www.freedomhouse.org/} accessed on 5 October 2007. See also, Huntington, Samuel, The Third Wave (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), pp. 1326Google Scholar .

40 Deudney, Daniel and Ikenberry, G. John, ‘The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail’, Foreign Affairs, 88:1 (2009), p. 93Google Scholar , emphasis added.

41 Hobson, ‘Democracy as Civilisation’, p. 93.

42 Weber, Max, ‘Politics as Vocation’, in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1948), p. 122Google Scholar .

43 For instance, see Russett, Bruce, ‘Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace’, International Studies Perspectives, 6:4 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

44 This claim does not extend to Kant's thought. Whether this kind of civilising logic is present in Kant is disputed and beyond the scope of the argument.

45 Price, Richard, ‘Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics’, International Organization, 62:2 (2008), p. 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

46 For example, Russett, ‘Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace’.

47 This is beyond the scope of the argument, but it is not merely a matter of semantics. Kant was explicit that perpetual peace cannot come about between democracies. It is republics that are needed, as a democracy is ‘necessarily a despotism’. Kant, ‘Perpetual Peace’, pp. 99–102. Modern theorists are much too quick to elide Kant's republics with ‘our’ democracies. For a rare exception, seeFerejohn, John and McCall Rosenbluth, Frances, ‘Warlike Democracies’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52:1 (2008), pp. 610CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

48 Cavallar, ‘Kantian Perspectives’, p. 248.

49 This has also been suggested by Hasenclever, Andreas and Wagner, Wolfgang, ‘Introduction. From the Analysis of a Separate Democratic Peace to the Liberal Study of International Conflict’, International Politics, 41:4 (2004), p. 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Geis and Wagner, ‘From Democratic Peace to Democratic Distinctiveness’, p. 29.

50 Special issue on ‘Critical International Relations Theory after 25 years’, Review of International Studies, 33:S1 (2007)Google Scholar ; Wyn Jones, Richard, ‘Introduction: Locating Critical International Relations Theory’, in Jones, R. Wyn (ed.), Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001)Google Scholar .

51 Gebhardt, ‘A Critique of Methodology’, p. 380.

52 Antonio, Robert, ‘Immanent Critique as the Core of Critical Theory’, The British Journal of Sociology, 32:3 (1981), p. 332Google Scholar .

53 Marcuse, Herbert, ‘A Note on Dialectic’, in Arato, A. and Gebhardt, E. (eds), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader (New York: Continuum, 1982), p. 445Google Scholar .

54 Benhabib, Seyla, Critique, Norm, and Utopia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)Google Scholar , part 1.

55 Linklater, Andrew, ‘The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory’, in Jones, R. Wyn (ed.), Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001)Google Scholar .

56 Linklater, ‘The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory’, p. 25.

57 Beck, Ulrich, ‘Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A Cosmopolitan Vision’, Constellations, 16:1 (2009), p. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

58 Hobson, Christopher, ‘Beyond the End of History: The Need for a “Radical Historicisation” of Democracy in International Relations’, Millennium, 37:3 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

59 Butterfield's historical description of international order can be extended to democratic peace: it ‘is not a thing bestowed upon by nature, but is a matter of refined thought, careful contrivance and elaborate artifice’. Butterfield, Herbert, ‘The Balance of Power’, in Wight, M. and Butterfield, H. (eds), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), p. 147Google Scholar .

60 This contrasts strongly with the kind of account suggested in Deudney and Ikenberry, ‘The Myth of the Autocratic Revival’.

61 Russett, ‘Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses’, pp. 20–3.

62 Keane, John, The Life and Death of Democracy (London: Simon and Schuster, 2009)Google Scholar , part 3.

63 This perspective argues against the determinism and absolutism Steele finds in much Democratic Peace scholarship. Steele, ‘Liberal-Idealism’, pp. 43–44.

64 In earlier work with Antholis, Russett downplays the numerous examples in Thucydides of war between different dēmokratia, most notably between Athens and Syracuse. Russett, Bruce and Antholis, William.‘Do Democracies Fight Each Other? Evidence from the Peloponnesian War’, Journal of Peace Research, 29:4 (1992), p. 430CrossRefGoogle Scholar . For a critique, see Robinson, Eric, ‘Reading and Misreading the Ancient Evidence for Democratic Peace’, Journal of Peace Research, 38:5 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

65 Quoted in Vincent Macleod, Emma, A War of Ideas: British Attitudes to the Wars Against Revolutionary France, 1792–1802 (Brookfield: Ashgate, 1998), p. 44Google Scholar .

66 de Maistre, Joseph, ‘On the Nature of Sovereignty’, in Lebrun, Richard (ed.), Against Rousseau (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996), p. 152Google Scholar .

67 Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, {http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/} accessed on 25 March 2009.

68 This differentiates itself from both hard teleological versions of liberalism and cyclical realist accounts. Linklater, Andrew, The Transformation of Political Community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), pp. 2122Google Scholar .

69 Horkheimer, Max, Critical Theory (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972)Google Scholar and Eclipse of Reason (New York: Continuum, 1974), p. 24Google Scholar .

70 Geis, , Brock, and Müller, (eds), Democratic WarsCrossRefGoogle Scholar .

71 Bohman, James, ‘How to Make a Social Science Practical: Pragmatism, Critical Social Science and Multiperspectival Theory’, Millennium, 31:3 (2002), p. 501CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

72 Russett and Oneal, Triangulating Peace.

73 Marcuse, Herbert, ‘On Science and Phenomenology’, in Arato, A. and Gebhardt, E. (eds), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader (New York: Continuum, 1982), p. 475Google Scholar .

74 Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders’, p. 128.

75 Ish-Shalom, ‘Theorising Politics, Politicizing Theory, and the Responsibility that Runs Between’.

76 Price, ‘Moral Limit and Possibility’, p. 218.

77 Linklater, ‘The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory’, p. 42.

78 Ibid., p. 38.

79 Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community; Bohman, James, Democracy Across Borders: from Dêmos to Dêmoi (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007)Google Scholar .

80 Bohman, James, ‘Beyond the Democratic Peace: An Instrumental Justification of Transnational Democracy’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 37:1 (2006), p. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

81 Booth, Ken (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2005)Google Scholar .