By illuminating the conflict-resolving mechanisms inherent in the relationships between democracies, Bruce Russett explains one of the most promising developments of the modern international system: the striking fact that the democracies that it comprises have almost never fought each other.

By illuminating the conflict-resolving mechanisms inherent in the relationships between democracies, Bruce Russett explains one of the most promising developments of the modern international system: the striking fact that the democracies that it comprises have almost never fought each other.

Is Communism's collapse merely the passing of a lethal adversarial relationship between the super powers--or an extraordinary chance to make fundamental changes in how nations resolve conflicts? In this far-reaching study, Russett discusses periods of "democratic peace" and the relationships between democracies.

Are democracies less likely to go to war than other kinds of states? This question is of tremendous importance in both academic and policy-making circles and one that has been debated by political scientists for years. The Clinton administration, in particular, has argued that the United States should endeavor to promote democracy around the world. This timely reader includes some of the most influential articles in the debate that have appeared in the journal International Security during the past two years, adding two seminal pieces published elsewhere to make a more balanced and complete collection, suitable for classroom use.

Bachelor Thesis from the year 2006 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1,0, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School (Department of Politics), course: BA Thesis, language: English, abstract: Abstract There is no regularity in international relations that is as imperturbable as the democratic peace. From the beginning of the statistical research in 1816 until today, no clear-cut case of war between two democratic states has been recorded. The democratic peace has obstinately kept the secret of its causal mechanism. No convincing theory as to its cause has been widely accepted. It is the aim of this dissertation to provide an alternative explanation for why democracies do not fight each other. Empirical research can only account for correlation but not for causal mechanisms. This dissertation thus concentrates on the theoretical explanations. Scholars developed approaches to account for the democratic peace ranging from constructivist through the sociological to game-theoretical methodology. They focus on the single democratic state, the relation between two democratic states and, recently, the international system itself. This dissertation critically examines a number of such theories which vary in methodology and focus. Especially, arguments by Russett, Doyle and Müller are given attention, but, to a greater or lesser extent, they are flawed or insufficient. At the same time, this dissertation points out a number of special characteristics of democratic states of importance. Pulling those together, an approach is proposed based on the assumption that the international system itself bears a major responsibility for the democratic peace. Supporting an approach by Hasenclever, it is argued that international institutions set up by democratic states are especially capable of mitigating conflicts and thus prevent war. Together with the special features of their member-states, such organisations account for the peaceful behaviour of democracies.[...]

In Democracy and International Conflict, James Lee Ray defends the idea, so optimistically advanced by diplomats in the wake of the Soviet Union's demise and so hotly debated by international relations scholars, that democratic states do not initiate war against one another and therefore offer an avenue to universal peace. Ray acknowledges that despite persuasive theoretical arguments and empirical evidence in favor of this idea, the democratic peace proposition is susceptible to attack on three points: the statistical rarity of both international wars and democracies; the difficulty in defining democracy; and the vulnerability of democratic regimes. To confront these criticisms, Ray offers a systematic analysis of regime transitions and a workable definition of democracy as well as careful scrutiny of cases in which democracies averted international conflict.

An evidence-based analysis of governance focusing on the institutional capacities and qualities that reduce the risk of armed conflict.

States seldom resort to war to overthrow their adversaries. They are more likely to attempt to covertly change the opposing regime, by assassinating a foreign leader, sponsoring a coup d’état, meddling in a democratic election, or secretly aiding foreign dissident groups. In Covert Regime Change, Lindsey A. O’Rourke shows us how states really act when trying to overthrow another state. She argues that conventional focus on overt cases misses the basic causes of regime change. O’Rourke provides substantive evidence of types of security interests that drive states to intervene. Offensive operations aim to overthrow a current military rival or break up a rival alliance. Preventive operations seek to stop a state from taking certain actions, such as joining a rival alliance, that may make them a future security threat. Hegemonic operations try to maintain a hierarchical relationship between the intervening state and the target government. Despite the prevalence of covert attempts at regime change, most operations fail to remain covert and spark blowback in unanticipated ways. Covert Regime Change assembles an original dataset of all American regime change operations during the Cold War. This fund of information shows the United States was ten times more likely to try covert rather than overt regime change during the Cold War. Her dataset allows O’Rourke to address three foundational questions: What motivates states to attempt foreign regime change? Why do states prefer to conduct these operations covertly rather than overtly? How successful are such missions in achieving their foreign policy goals?