Quandaries of the Peace Process
1996; Johns Hopkins University Press; Volume: 7; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1353/jod.1996.0052
ISSN1086-3214
Autores Tópico(s)International Relations and Foreign Policy
ResumoAuthor(s): Solingen, E | Abstract: The notion that democracies rarely wage wars against each other has gained remarkable acceptance in scholarly and policy circles. At the same time, a number of observers have expressed concern that incipient democratization in some Arab countries may pose a threat to the nascent peace between Israel and its neighbors. Are democratization and peace mutually exclusive or mutually supportive in this region? What are the dilemmas each process poses for the other? The democratic-peace theory has found significant—but not unchallenged—acceptance among academic experts, who compete in their explanations of why democratic states are unlikely to wage wars among themselves. 1 Some trace it to a Kantian conception of citizens’ consent: the legitimacy granted by the domestic public of one liberal democracy to the elected representatives of another is said to moderate tendencies toward violent solutions among democracies. Others aver that free speech, electoral cycles, and the public-policy process restrain the ability of democratic leaders to pursue extreme policies toward fellow democracies. Reciprocal transparency—the joint availability of abundant information on each other's domestic evaluations of a policy—is also expected to stem war. Moreover, democracies respect the rule of law and undertake more credible and durable commitments to each other, which strengthens their reputation as predictable partners.
Referência(s)