Democratic States Do Not Wage War Against Each Other, Is It True?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34135/sjps.250203Keywords:
Democracy, War, Liberalism, Realism, International RelationsAbstract
This article critically re-examines the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), a long-standing tenet of liberal thought in international relations, which posits that democratic states are less likely to wage war against one another. While DPT has informed both scholarly discourse and policy-making, this study challenges its theoretical assumptions, empirical foundations, and normative implications through a multi-theoretical and methodologically reflective lens. The paper systematically proceeds in three analytical stages: 1.) a conceptual critique of DPT’s definitional coherence and causal claims, 2.) an empirical assessment using historically documented cases of inter-democratic conflict and aggressive interventions by democracies, and 3.) a theoretical juxtaposition of liberal, realist, and constructivist interpretations of peace and conflict. Particular attention is paid to methodological limitations such as selection bias, endogeneity, and Eurocentric framing. By dissecting both mainstream support and prominent critiques, the article highlights how alternative variables may offer more robust explanations for observed patterns of peace. In its conclusion, the study argues that the deterministic logic of DPT is inadequate for explaining the complex dynamics of contemporary international relations and may even reinforce problematic normative hierarchies that justify interventionism.
References
Antić, M., Vlahovec. J. (2013). “Democratic War”: Democratic Peace Theory and the War in Former Yugoslavia. In: Međunarodne Studije. Vol. 13(2), pp. 56–71.
Attia, N. (2016). The Democratic Peace Theory: Validity in Relation to the European Union
and ʿPeacefulʾ Cooperation Between United States and China. In: International Journal of Peace and Development Studies. Vol. 7(2), pp. 15–17. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPDS2015.0234.
Babst, D. V. (1964). Elective Governments: A Force For Peace. In: The Wisconsin Sociologist. Vol.3(1), pp. 9–14.
Bakker, F. E. 2020. The microfoundations of normative democratic peace theory. Experiments in the US, Russia and China. In: Political Research Exchange. Vol. 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1753084.
Barak, O. (2005). The failure of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, 1993–2000. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 42(6), pp. 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343305057889.
Bhuiya, S., Jahan, M. (2022). The Justification of Democratic Peace Theory in the 21st Century. In: Social Science Review. Vol. 39(1), pp. 211–229.
Cederman, L.-E., Rao, M. P. (2001). Exploring the Dynamics of the Democratic Peace. In: Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 45(6), pp. 818–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045006006.
Chingono, H. (2009). The Nexus between the Democratic Peace Theory and Economic
Coercion: Why Democracies Fight Each Other? In: Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations. Vol. 8(4), pp. 62–78.
Doyle, M. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. In: Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol. 12(3), pp. 205–235.
Elman, C. (2001). Introduction: History, Theory, and the Democratic Peace. In: The International
History Review. Vol. 23(4), pp. 757–766.
Gavris, M. (2021). Revisiting the fallacies in Hegemonic Stability Theory in light of the 2007–2008 crisis: the theory’s hollow conceptualization of hegemony. Review of International Political Economy, pp. 739-760.[MM1.1]
Glasl, F. (2011). Konfliktmanagement. In: Meyer, B. ed., Konfliktregelung und Friedensstrategien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 125–145.
Gowa, J. S. (1999). Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Griffiths, M., et. al. 2007. International relations theory for the twenty-first century. Abingdon: Routledge.
Henderson, E. A. (2009). Disturbing the Peace: African Warfare, Political Inversion and the Universality of the Democratic Peace Thesis. In: British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 39 (1), pp. 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000495.
Kant, I. (2007). Perpetual peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Minneapolis, MN: Filiquarian Publishing LLC.
Kinsella, D. (2005). No Rest for the Democratic Peace. In: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 99(3), pp. 453–457.
Kurfűrst, J., Solik, M., Baar, V., Baarová, B., Graf, J. 2024. Critical Geopolitics in the Era of Identitarian Populism. In: GeoJournal. Vol. 89(14). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-024-11009-6.
Lake, D. A. (1992). Powerful pacifists: Democratic States and War. In: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 86(1), pp. 24–37.
Layne, C. (1994). Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace. In: International Security. Vol. 19(2), pp. 5–49.
Layne, C. (2018). The US–Chinese power shift and the end of the Pax Americana. International Affairs. Vol. 94(1), pp. 89–111.
Lu, J., Shi, T. (2015). The battle of ideas and discourses before democratic transition: Different democratic conceptions in authoritarian China. In: International Political Science Review. Vol. 36(1), pp. 20–41.
Mahmoudi, S. A. (2008). An Evaluation of Kantʾs Theory of Perpetual Peace in the Field of Contemporary Political Philosophy. In: The International Journal of Humanities. Vol. 15(2), pp. 53–70.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Mudde, C. (2021). Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism (The Government and Opposition/Leonard Schapiro Lecture 2019). In: Government and Opposition. Vol. 56(4), pp. 577–597.
Nathan, L. (2006). Domestic instability and security communities. European Journal of International Relations, pp.275-299.[MM2.1]
National archives. (n.d). Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Germany (1917). In: Records of the United States Senate, Record Group 46, National Archives. [online]. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/address-to-congress-declaration-of-war-against-germany#transcript [Accessed 14 08. 2025].
Oneal, J. R., Russett, B., Berbaum, M. L. (2003). Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992. In: International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 47(3), pp. 371–393.
Oren, I. (1995). The Subjectivity of the ‘Democratic’ Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany. In: International Security. Vol. (20)2, pp. 263–301.
Papada, E., Altman, D., Angiolillo, F., Gastaldi, L., Köhler, T., Lundstedt, M., ... & Lindberg, S. I. (2023). Defiance in the face of autocratization. Democracy report 2023. Democracy Report.[MM3.1]
Pietrzak, P. (2024). The Changing Conceptual Landscape of the Russian War in Ukraine (2014-
Present) and Syria (2011-Present). In: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs. Vol. 10(2), pp. 152–170.
Placek, K. (2012). The democratic peace theory. In: E-International Relations [online]. Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/18/the-democratic-peace-theory/ [Accessed 19 08. 2025].
Pourmokhtari, N. (2013). A Postcolonial Critique of State Sovereignty in IR: The contradictory legacy of a ‘West-centric’discipline. In: Third World Quarterly. Vol. 34(10), pp. 1767–1793.
Pribićević, O. (2020). Trump, Brexit and the crisis of the liberal world order. In: Teorija in praksa. Vol. 57(2), pp. 471–488.
Robbani, G. (2007). Regional peace through economic integration: the applicability of the European model in South Asia. In: Dieter, H. ed., The Evolution of Regionalism in Asia: Economic and Security Issues. Abingdon: Routledge, 177–199.
Rosato, S. (2003). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. In: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 97(4), pp. 585–602.
Russett, B. (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Salim, S. K. (2021). Iraq: Media between Democratic Freedom and Security Pressures. In: Richter, C. ed., Arab Media Systems. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 73–90.
Satake, T. (2023). The Rise of “Minilateralism” in the Indo-Pacific: the Quad & AUKUS. In Japan Spotlight [online]. Available at: https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/pdf/248th_Cover_Story_04.pdf [Accessed 11 08. 2025].
Schenoni, L. L., Mainwaring, S. (2019). US hegemony and regime change in Latin America. In: Democratization. Vol. 26(2), pp. 269–287.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2010). The Normative Origins of Democracy in the European Union: Toward a Transformationalist Theory of Democratization. In: European Political Science Review. Vol. 2(2), pp. 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000068.
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on politics, pp. 411-431.[MM4.1]
Slantchev, B. L., Alexandrova, A., Gartzke, E. (2005). Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace. In: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 99(3), pp. 459–462.
Solik, M. and J. Graf. (2023). Russia as a hybrid threat to Moldova in the context of the Russian–Ukrainian war. In: International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00536-7.
Spiro, D. E. (1994). The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace. In: International Security. Vol. 19(2), pp. 50-86.
Waltz, K. N. (1962). Kant, Liberalism, and War. In: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 56(2), pp. 331–340.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Slovak Journal of Political Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Please, read licence agreement.
Publication Charge
There is no publication fee or charge for any submitted or accepted articles. There is no article processing charges (APCs) would be billed to authors.
