Class Notes (834,244)
Canada (508,434)
POL208Y1 (499)


2 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Jean- Yves Haine

DEMOCRATIC PEACE PROPOSITION - Not very successful when war is used to impose democracy; Iraq and Afghanistan - Argument, the relationship between democracies, this proposition is at the core of liberalism in world politics - Liberalism call for freedom from arbitrary authority, the negative freedom of liberalism for freedom of press/speech, are at the core of liberal values - Liberalism finally call for democratic participation and representation and this is necessary to gauarntee the negative and positive freedoms, the part of the democratic peace theory is that liberal democracies do not fight each other precisely because thy are dmoecracies, it is the nature of the regime that makes them more peaceful regardin each other, the type of regime is crucial, that runs against what we see in the first term about the constraints giving by the iernaitonal system, remember that realists always argue that it is the condition of anarchy that impose certain type of behaviour for states, t is the nature of the itnernaitonal system itself that constraints the behaviours of states, thats why Wortz speaks about similar functional units, states have to answer in the same manner regarding the conditions of anarchy ,it doesn’t matter for WOrtz if these units/states are democracies or not, and in fact it doesn’t matter for Wortz, what matters is the nature is the nature of the international system, - Dpt, its the nature that matters the most of the state, not the IS, opposite way of realists viewing states - Realists and new realists, the system is far more than the regime of a state - The liberals, you can’t deny that there are few conflicts among democracies, they don’t fight each other, there is a zone of peace, there is a pacific union..any armed conflict between the US and Canada is not possible, these two democracies have developed habits of negotiation to solve conflict of interests peacefully; building EU is about enlarging the DPP...assumption is that among democracies you will not fight against each other, the UN is the embellment of the DPP theory - Philosophical roots of DPP; Immaunel Kant, in the 1795, dpp exists with 3 articles; 1) the civil constition of the state must be republic, by republic Kant meant a political society where freedoms are guaranteed, liberal republics will progressively establish peace amongst themselves by a pacific union, this is the second artlce, 2) the pacific union is a treaty among those republics, the treaty maintains itself prevent wars and steadily expand, by that treaty the relationship between these republican regimes are settled, it is in Kants mind a process, a slow and difficult process, where setbacks (conflicts) will happen, the slow progress of pacific union is an ideal more than reality, but it is the best wya to achieve peace, the expansion of these pacific union is the more difficult part, it is slow, trust must be made but it can be destroyed, the pacific union is not a single peace treaty (unlike versaille) it is a process of slowly expanding the zone of republican regime, it is not a treaty abolishing all wars, the pacific union is not a world government, Kant was opposed to ideal of world government because to him it meant tyranny, what Kant had in mind is something a non-aggression pact, a collective security agreement, the expanding of PU is a slow process, eventually peace will be established, 3) it will be established a cosmopolitan low in the republics, and this CL is to guarantee foreigners the same rights then citizens, the principle of universal hospitality, the basic recognition of right for foreigners as well as citizens, a tourist will have the same right as a citizen, and so among the republican regime it doesn’t really matter where you are coming from, once these republican regime will install a CL, then Kant say you will have a better tool to peace o Once you have these three articles, the condition for perpetual peace is established according to Kant - Another origin relative to 1950s political science, Karl Dutch, he tried to understand relationship b/t states can help to bring about peaceful relations and the way was concentrate on intensity and dephtness of relationships among citizens belonging to different citizens...started with a small criteria, looked at the number of postal letter exchange between countries, and from that little criteria it build up a theory called SECURITY COMMUNITY, the more intense the more dense the relationships between citizens of two different coutnires, the less likely these two countries will go to war against each other, Dutch started to settle the condition whereby from density of relationship between individuals you end up with peaceful relations among states, the steps necessary one of them was the decision by the state to abolish all the defensive infratstructure at its border, in other words, theres no infrastructure or defense aim at the neighbouring countires, once you have rid of defense and wall it is an essential step to building a security community, from there you have an exchange of defense official....seurity and defense officials will communicate, eventually these people will have connection among themselves that will note reflect their national position, it will reflect a security community, from there the likelihood of conflict between these countries will be extremely low...he established a process where we can build a security community... - Kant = philosophical origin, Dutch = IS origin - Two type of explanation 1) Cultural nomadic model; emphasis on norms and democratic values, at its core, that model says in a democracy disputes are resolves without force, through democratic political or judicial process, they resort to organize threat of violence is considered illegitimate in a democratic regime dissent is expected, all citizens are expected to share these norms and practices of peaceful resolution of conflict, hypothesis; cultural norms and practices that are allow compromise negotiation and peaceful resolution at home will automatically apply to the relationship with another democracies, in current dispute about exact boundaries of arctic there is an expectation that any conflict of interest b/t Ottawa and Washington be resolved peacefully, that expectation is lower when it comes to Ottawa and Moscow precisely democratic creditenials of Moscow is lower than Washington, the expectation that these norms will be applied are less present regarding Russia than USA, before of the norms and cultural of a democratic regime it is expected that these nroms will apply among democracies, in other words, if you have a problem if you have conflict of inerest between two democracies the leaders will automatically apply what they are doing at home, the synaue of using force is off the table, the assumption is we will negotiate and compromise because this is what they do domestically, the other side of theis normative model is that this expectation does not apply to dictatorships and ilberal regimes precisely because you cannot rely on another leaders in dictorships to have the same kind of norms and democratic culture, non liberals suffer from presumption of enemity the democratic leaders benefit of presumption of friendship...the norms of regulated political competition, the norms of compromise, the norms of peaceful transfer of power are externalized among democracies, and according to the normative model the DPP exists because decision makers expect to be able to solve conflict by non-violent means therefore democracies will follow norms of peaceful conflict resolution, democracies will expect other democracies to behave similarly, the more stable the democracies the stronger these norms will be applied...conversely regaridn relationships with non-democracies they use violence of threat of violence because they expect their opponents to the same internationally (e.g. north korea possibly use force, not the same for south korea, for the last two months, north korea has displayed willingless to use force and threat to use force in its relationship with south don’t have the expectation of solving that problem peacefully because north korea is not a democracy, and so the negotiation process is extremely slow and largely unsuccessful, the question is the actual control and influence of north Korean patrons [China] and the actual influence China can influence over its ally)...cultural normative argument stress the values and norms and expectations of these values and norms among leaders 2) Structural model/institiutional model; about strucuture and institution, argument is that in a democracy the decisions to go to war is far more difficult to take than in a dictatorship, key argument used by Kant, because you have institutional constraints democratic leaders have to convince their population and citizens about the merits of war, and in deed democracies are constrained in several ways...leaders need to ensure a gross popular support, pop need to be convinced
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.