The Determination Of Which International Relations Theory

The Determination Of Which International Relations Theoretical Perspec

The determination of which international relations theoretical perspective offers the greatest explanation for democratic peace is relative to the person and the situation in which peace is absent. Democratic Peace is the concept that two democratic nations will not go to war with one another, so the spread is desirable (Nau, 2017). There are ample arguments from each perspective, such as the Identity perspective would argue that democracies are more peaceful than all other states, and that democracies do not go to war with one another because they share common domestic norms (Nau, 2017). A Liberal Perspective would argue that democracies do not go to war with one another because they do not want to disrupt trade from which each country benefits (Nau, 2017).

Additionally, the liberal perspective would argue that democracies belong to the same international institutions, which establish laws and practices they choose to follow (Nau, 2017). The realist perspective would argue that democracies avoid war with each other because they belong to the same alliances and coordinate strategies against common adversaries (Nau, 2017). Realists also contend that democracies utilize balance-of-power mechanisms to prevent conflict (Nau, 2017). In my opinion, the perspective that offers the greatest chance of success in explaining democratic peace is the liberal perspective, with trade serving as the central focus. Democracies tend not to fight each other because they are more economically intertwined through trade than with non-democracies (Nau, 2017).

The more interconnected the trade relationships between two countries, the more costly and damaging war would be for both parties. It is reasonable to believe that trade fosters peace, and that peace, in turn, encourages nations to develop democratic principles (Nau, 2017). Conversely, the identity perspective offers the least convincing explanation for democratic peace. This perspective argues that democracies do not go to war with one another because they share domestic norms and values, implying that common identity alone suffices to prevent conflict (Nau, 2017). However, such shared norms may be insufficient if other factors, like trade or institutional agreements, are disrupted.

Consider a scenario where a democratic nation’s leadership adopts policies, such as tariffs or sanctions, that are at odds with other democracies. For instance, a president may feel his nation has been unfairly treated and impose tariffs, risking diplomatic breakdowns. Would such actions weaken the normative bonds that supposedly prevent war among democracies? Moreover, if national leaders publicly insult or label democratic allies as threats—similar to how authoritarian regimes sometimes demonize their opponents—could this personal or political provocation override structural factors like economic ties or shared institutions? These questions challenge whether shared identity alone can sustain peace in the face of leadership conflicts or national interests.

Democratic peace is potentially a durable phenomenon because it transcends individual leaders or short-term national interests. When economies are deeply interconnected and democracies share institutions and norms, mutual incentives for cooperation are reinforced, making conflict less appealing. This economic and institutional integration makes democratic peace particularly attractive to nations seeking self-preservation and prosperity. Therefore, U.S. foreign policy should cautiously encourage democracy promotion through passive means—supporting democratic development without overt intervention—so as not to provoke nationalist or anti-American sentiments.

However, critiques of the democratic peace hypothesis warn against excessive optimism rooted in American chauvinism or ideological idealism (Nau, 2017). Critics argue that imposing democracy from outside compromises sovereignty and undermines the very principles of democratic self-determination. Furthermore, some contend that emphasizing democratic peace may serve national interests under false pretenses, masking underlying strategic motives. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for a nuanced understanding of how democratic peace functions and under what conditions it can be sustained.

Paper For Above instruction

The phenomenon of democratic peace remains one of the most debated subjects in international relations, with various theoretical perspectives offering differing explanations for why democracies tend to avoid conflict with each other. Understanding these perspectives provides critical insights into the mechanisms that promote peace and stability among democratic states, as well as the limitations inherent in each approach.

The liberal perspective stands out as the most compelling explanation for democratic peace, primarily because it emphasizes the role of economic interdependence, shared institutions, and liberal norms. According to Nau (2017), democracies that are economically linked through extensive trade are less likely to engage in war against each other because conflict would threaten mutual economic benefits. This perspective views trade as a moderating force, incentivizing peaceful coexistence through economic costs and benefits. Multilateral institutions and international laws further reinforce this peace by providing channels for conflict resolution and shaping state behavior.

The liberal focus on economic ties is supported by empirical evidence indicating that trade volume correlates negatively with conflict likelihood among democracies (Gartzke & Li, 2003). For instance, the European Union is often cited as a case where economic integration has contributed to a long-lasting peace among member states. Such economic interdependence creates so-called "stability through interconnectedness," where the costs of war outweigh potential gains, leading to conflict avoidance.

Moreover, the liberal perspective emphasizes the importance of shared democratic norms and values, which include respect for human rights, political participation, and constitutional governance. These norms foster a sense of community and mutual understanding, reducing the likelihood of military conflict (Maoz & Russett, 1993). Democratic leaders are typically accountable to their populations, and thus more cautious about engaging in wars that may be unpopular domestically. Democratic processes encourage dialogue and negotiation, which reduces misunderstandings and enhances diplomatic solutions.

The identity perspective offers a contrasting explanation, emphasizing shared norms and cultural affinities as the basis for peace. This perspective suggests that democracies do not go to war because they see each other as similar and trustworthy, based on common values and identity (Nau, 2017). However, this explanation is often criticized for its overreliance on normative assumptions and its inability to explain conflicts in cases where democracies do engage in conflict or when shared identities are manipulated for political purposes.

The realist perspective, on the other hand, attributes the democratic peace to strategic and structural factors such as power balancing, alliances, and deterrence. Realists argue that democracies participate in alliances like NATO, which serve to balance against potential threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict among allied democracies (Mearsheimer, 2001). Furthermore, they contend that structural constraints imposed by alliance commitments and military capabilities incentivize peaceful conflict resolution.

Despite the strengths of these perspectives, each faces limitations. For example, trade alone may not prevent war if strategic interests override economic considerations, as exemplified by the tariffs and sanctions implemented by nationalist leaders. Similarly, the shared norms argument does not account for conflicts where democracies have fought each other or where leadership changes alter foreign policy orientations. The realist approach highlights the importance of power politics but may overlook the role of normative and institutional factors that promote peace.

In sum, the liberal perspective—particularly the emphasis on economic interdependence—appears most effective at explaining the sustained peace among democracies. This view integrates empirical evidence and theoretical robustness, illustrating how trade and shared institutions create a web of mutual interests that discourage conflict. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that democratic peace is complex and contingent on various factors; no single perspective fully accounts for all aspects of the phenomenon.

Furthermore, the question of whether democratic peace can withstand leadership crises or strategic betrayals remains critical. Scenarios involving sudden policy shifts, such as trade tariffs or diplomatic insults, can threaten the stability of peace even among democracies. As Nau (2017) suggests, personal leadership decisions and national interests can override structural factors like trade and norms, highlighting the importance of resilient institutions and sustained diplomacy.

Finally, while promoting democracy globally may contribute to long-term peace, policymakers must be cautious of ideological biases and unintended consequences. Excessive foreign intervention can fuel nationalism and anti-American sentiments, undermining the very goals pursued. A balanced approach that encourages democratic development passively, respecting sovereignty, and emphasizing economic cooperation may offer the most pragmatic pathway toward a more peaceful international order.

References

• Gartzke, E., & Li, Q. (2003). Do stakeholder and democracy influence war? International Studies Quarterly, 47(3), 399-425.
• Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Shared party preferences, range of regime types, and the propensity for conflict. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 451-458.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Nau, H. R. (2017). Perspectives on international relations: Power, institutions, and ideas (6th ed.). CQ Press.