scholarly journals More Democracies, More Peaceful? The Influences of Democratic Peace Theory in Asean’s Democratization Agenda and Possible Challenges

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad

Artikel ini mencoba melacak jejak pengaruh Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) di dalam agenda demokratisasi ASEAN. Untuk itu, tulisan ini mengulas pengaruh DPT dalam dokumen-dokumen yang menjadi panduan bagi agenda demokratisasi ASEAN serta mengenali lebih jelas pengaruh tiga 'aliran' ('strand') dari DPT, yaitu (1) 'institutional constraints,' (2) 'democratic norms and culture,' serta (3) 'economic interdependence' di dalam dokumen-dokumen tersebut. Tulisan ini kemudian membandingkan antara asumsi dasar yang melandasi agenda demokratisasi ASEAN, yang dengan sangat kuat dipengaruhi oleh DPT, dengan kondisi politik dan keamanan negara-negara anggota ASEAN. Dengan melakukan hal tersebut, tulisan ini mencoba mengimbangi 'optimisme teoritis' dari DPT yang mewarnai agenda demokratisasi ASEAN tersebut dengan 'kewaspadaan realistis' bahwa demokratisasi dapat menjadi kotak pandora yang melepaskan bahaya. Demokratisasi dapat berlangsung dengan berkelanjutan hanya jika kita memahami kerumitan dan resiko-resiko di dalam proses tersebut.  

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-123
Author(s):  
Ahmad Daniel Kusumah Anshary

This study tries to explain the reasons why Peru and Ecuador went to war with each other in 1995, even though both are democracies. The research was conducted concerning Immanuel Kant's Democratic Peace Theory by examining norms and institutions as essential factors in developing his theory. This study uses qualitative research with literature review and interview methods. The study will focus on the conditions of norms and institutions in Peru and Ecuador in 1995, the year the two countries decided to go to war with each other. Based on the research results, it is known that democratic norms and institutions owned by Ecuador and Peru have not been able to create peace as has been assumed by Immanuel Kant in the Democratic Peace Theory. Although Ecuador has democratic institutions that can reduce the authority of its leaders in decision-making, the domestic democratic norms established in the 1830 Constitutional Law cannot make the Ecuadorian people's support refer to peace in overcoming the Cenepa border conflict. On the contrary, in Peru, democratic norms that prefer to negotiate and make peace are not followed by the effectiveness of the role of democratic institutions that cannot limit President Fujimori's authority, who chooses to carry out attacks in border areas which then triggers a war.


2020 ◽  
pp. 002234331988367
Author(s):  
David Altman ◽  
Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta ◽  
Francisco Urdinez

Democracies do not take up arms against each other. Although this axiom has attained the status of a mantra in the field of international relations, this statement is much more complex than it appears, in part because it is highly contingent on the definitions and operationalizations of both democracy and conflict. This article revisits democratic peace theory, combining both institutional constraints and similarity-based arguments. Interactions between the democratic level of the dyad (the average democratic level of its members) and its democratic spread (difference between the democratic scores of its members) create a dyadic triangle that encompasses all possible combinations of cases, revisiting which dyads are more prone to conflict. The findings partially confirm and partially refute both the institutional constraints and the similarity-based arguments, leading to a nuanced alternative theory: the Interactive Model of Democratic Peace. Akin to democratic peace theory, our evidence shows that the higher a dyad’s level of democracy is, the lower the probability of fatal militarized interstate disputes between that pair of states. However, contrary to democratic peace theory, we find that dissimilar-regime dyads can still be peaceful as long as they have a high mean of democracy. Following the theory of regime similarity, we consider the democratic spread of each dyad, but we find that being similar is not a sufficient condition for peace between the members of a dyad. From the empirical evidence, the article derives three heuristic zones of conflict, filling much of the gray area that has been left unexplained by previous models.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100
Author(s):  
Arseniy D. Kumankov

The article considers the modern meaning of Kant’s doctrine of war. The author examines the context and content of the key provisions of Kant’s concept of perpetual peace. The author also reviews the ideological affinity between Kant and previous authors who proposed to build alliances of states as a means of preventing wars. It is noted that the French revolution and the wars caused by it, the peace treaty between France and Prussia served as the historical background for the conceptualization of Kant’s project. In the second half of the 20th century, there is a growing attention to Kant’s ethical and political philosophy. Theorists of a wide variety of political and ethical schools, (cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and liberalism) pay attention to Kant’s legacy and relate their own concepts to it. Kant’s idea of war is reconsidered by Michael Doyle, Jürgen Habermas, Ulrich Beck, Mary Kaldor, Brian Orend. Thus, Doyle tracks democratic peace theory back to Kant’s idea of the spread of republicanism. According to democratic peace theory, liberal democracies do not solve conflict among themselves by non-military methods. Habermas, Beck, Kaldor appreciate Kant as a key proponent of cosmopolitanism. For them, Kant’s project is important due to notion of supranational forms of cooperation. They share an understanding that peace will be promoted by an allied authority, which will be “governing without government” and will take responsibility for the functioning of the principles of pacification of international relations. Orend’s proves that Kant should be considered as a proponent of the just war theory. In addition, Orend develops a new area in just war theory – the concept of ius post bellum – and justifies regime change as the goal of just war.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document