Class Notes (807,075)
Canada (492,584)
POL208Y1 (477)

Week 13-15 for notes

15 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
John Haines

Pol208 w13 Tuesday January 11 th Democratic Peace Proposition: The Democratic Peace Proposition is straight forward, It states: democracies rarely fight each other. Doesnt say if democracies are less war prone against non democratic areas.Argument is about relationship between democracies. This proposition is at the core of liberalism in world politics. Liberalists call for freedom from arbitrary authority. Negative freedoms: Freedom of conscience, press, speech, key to liberalists. Call for positive freedom, political social and economic rights. Also calls for democratic participation and representation; necessary to guarantee negative and positive freedoms. Liberal democracies do not fight each other precicely because they are democracies. It is the nature of the regime that makes them more peaceful regarding each other. The type of regime is the crucial variable. Run against what we have seen in the first term about the constraint give by the international system. The realists always argue that it is the condition of anarchy that imposes a certain type of behaviour for states. Building of European union is about enlarging the democratic peace theory. To new members, the conditions to become a member, first one is to be a democracy. The assumption is that among democracies you will not fight amongst each other. Philosophical Roots: Emmanual Kant. 1795: The perpetual Peace In a time where liberal regimes were few. Perpetual peace will be guaranteed when nations will accept three articles of an imaginary treaty. 1) The civil constitution of the state must be republican. Political society where freedoms mentioned before are guarantees. Liberal republics will establish peace among themselves through pacific unions. 2)Pacific Union: treaty among those republics. The treaty maintains itself prevent wars and steadily expand. By that treaty, relationship between the republican regimes are settled. It is a slow, difficult process where setbacks (conflicts) will happen. The slow establishment of a pacific union is more an ideal than a reality. For Kant that is the best way to acheive peace. The expansion of the pacific union is the more difficult point. Trust must be built, but trust can be destroyed. The pacific union is not a single peace treaty (as opposed to versailles). It is a process of slowly expanding the zone of republican regime. Not a treaty abolishing all wars. Not a world government. Kant was opposed to a world government (dictatorship); he wantd instead a nonagression pact; a collective security agreement. 3)Principle of universal hospitality; basic recognition of rights or forevers, as well as citizens.A Tourist will have the same rights as a citizen.Among the republican regime, doesnt matter where youre coming from. Karl Dutch: How a relationship between a state could bring about peaceful relations. Security Community; the more intense, more dense, a relationship between two countries citizens are, the less likely these two countries will go to war against each other. If you have peaceful relationships between individiuals, you will have peacefulness between states. One step needed; www.notesolution.comthe decision by the state to abolishdelete all the defensive infrastructure at its border. Cultural Norms Model:In a democracy, disputes are resolved without force. True democratic political or judicial process. Threat of violence, is this considered legitimate? Decent is expectedneeded. All citizens are expected to share these norms and practices; peaceful resolutions of conflict. The hypothesis: Culture, norms and practices that allow comprimsed negotiations and peaceful resolution of conflict at home will automatically apply to the relationship with another democracy.Assumption: a conflict between ottawa and washington would be resolved peacefully. Relationship is lower between Ottawa and Moscow. Democratic credential of moscow are not as high as that of washington. If you have a problem, or a conflict of interest between two democracies, the leaders will automatically apply what they are doing at home. This expectation however, does not apply to dictatorships. You cannot rely on another leader in a dictatorship to have the same kinds of norms and democratic cultures. Norms of regulated compromise, peaceful transfer of power are to externalize among democracies. According to normative model, democratic peace theory exists, because decision makers expect to be able to sort conflict by nonviolent means. Therefore, democracies will follow norms of peaceful conflict resolution. Democracies will expect other democracies to behave similarly. The more stable the democracy, the stronger these norms will apply. Regarding relationships with non democracies, the leaders use violence to sort internal conflict, therefore, to deal with external conflict, the same standards would apply. Emphasis on norms and democratic values. StructuralInstitutional Model: domestic democratic constraint and structure. : In a democracy, the decisions to go to war are far more difficult to take than in a dictatorship. Key argument used by kant; institutional constraint, democratic leaders have to convince their populationcitizens the merits of war. Democracies are constrained in several ways. Leaders need to ensure a broad popular support. Public opinion needs to be convinced about the causes and the cost of conflict. Different levels in tehse kind of constraints according to the regime type. One example: 2003, U.S invades Iraq. Question for some allies was dow e follow the U.S agenda, or do we oppose it? First Gulf War 1991; Invasion of Iraq by Kuwait. Bush goes before U.S congress for a declaration of war. Got it with 2 votes. Makes a difference if your armed forces are organized around a voluntary, or conscription system. If its voluntary (professional soldiers); the state among public opinion are less sullied than that of a conscription system. Conscription system; it is harder to convince the public of going to war. Conflict in Vietnam; any U.S citizen could be called to serve in Vietnam. So the public dissent opposition is far more important with a conscription system. Vs. Afghanistan; not conscription. In democracy, power checks of balance, it is more difficult to go to war. Division of power, need
More Less

Related notes for POL208Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.