Democracy is considered as a peaceful entity and the world without war. American president Woodrow Wilson, for example, believes that democracy is inherently peace desiring and consequently contributes to the world peace, replacing war-like political regime (Gat, 2006). It is largely supported by liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant.
Liberalism is considered as an alternative theoretical thinking to realism, which is regarded as the dominant theory in the international relations (Dunne, 1997). It is a theory of both governments within states and good governance between states and people worldwide. Liberalism believes that even though it is the most important actor in international relations, the state is not the only one. …show more content…
In his book, the republican constitutions protect minorities and losers as a system in the government is well organised. Democracy can be a winner of political regime to protect individual rights such as freedom and education. Kant believes that liberal republicanism is the most successful regime as it encourages promoting production and wealth. By republican Kant means a political society that has solved the problem of combining moral autonomy, individualism, and social order (Doyle, 1985). In addition, the pacific federation of states leads to more peaceful international order. Kant argues that such states will be progressively expanded by the success of federation. The perpetual peace promotes the cosmopolitan law, cross-country law, which is known as universal hospitality (Barkawi and Laffey, 2001). In this, Kant argues that foreigners have the right not to be treated with hostility when they arrive in another country. What he means is that hospitality does not require extending the right to citizenship to foreigners or the right to settlement, but it includes the right of access and the obligation of maintaining the opportunity for citizens. Moreover, Kant argues that representation is important in a democracy because people have their wishes and say, and are able to express their feeling through the vote (Doyle, 1986). The representative government has to be accountable to the …show more content…
The monopoly of military, political, and economic powers and the subordination of states might produce a situation where violence is not a sustainable solution among states (Farber and Gowa, 1997). Additionally, unstable democracies and states undertaking a democratisation process are not completely peaceful. Democratisation has been claimed to promote war, at least during the transition period, because it has been closely associated with self-determination and the assertion of hitherto suppressed ethnic identities and national aspirations, which often conflict with existing state boundaries. Although a democracy indeed decreases the likelihood of war, the initial process of democratisation and the democratic transition have the opposite effect (Lawrence, 1989). However, democracies are less likely to go to war than any other forms of political regimes overall. States can grow more and more liberal and democratic and have done so remarkably during modernity, affecting their attitude towards war and peace. The states have grown increasingly more liberal and democratic since the eighteen-century, whereas the idea of (international) democratic peace seems to have been less secure in the nineteenth-century west but becomes entrenched during the twentieth century (Gat, 2007). For example, the abolition of slavery, the expansion of the franchise to all men as
Liberalism is considered as an alternative theoretical thinking to realism, which is regarded as the dominant theory in the international relations (Dunne, 1997). It is a theory of both governments within states and good governance between states and people worldwide. Liberalism believes that even though it is the most important actor in international relations, the state is not the only one. …show more content…
In his book, the republican constitutions protect minorities and losers as a system in the government is well organised. Democracy can be a winner of political regime to protect individual rights such as freedom and education. Kant believes that liberal republicanism is the most successful regime as it encourages promoting production and wealth. By republican Kant means a political society that has solved the problem of combining moral autonomy, individualism, and social order (Doyle, 1985). In addition, the pacific federation of states leads to more peaceful international order. Kant argues that such states will be progressively expanded by the success of federation. The perpetual peace promotes the cosmopolitan law, cross-country law, which is known as universal hospitality (Barkawi and Laffey, 2001). In this, Kant argues that foreigners have the right not to be treated with hostility when they arrive in another country. What he means is that hospitality does not require extending the right to citizenship to foreigners or the right to settlement, but it includes the right of access and the obligation of maintaining the opportunity for citizens. Moreover, Kant argues that representation is important in a democracy because people have their wishes and say, and are able to express their feeling through the vote (Doyle, 1986). The representative government has to be accountable to the …show more content…
The monopoly of military, political, and economic powers and the subordination of states might produce a situation where violence is not a sustainable solution among states (Farber and Gowa, 1997). Additionally, unstable democracies and states undertaking a democratisation process are not completely peaceful. Democratisation has been claimed to promote war, at least during the transition period, because it has been closely associated with self-determination and the assertion of hitherto suppressed ethnic identities and national aspirations, which often conflict with existing state boundaries. Although a democracy indeed decreases the likelihood of war, the initial process of democratisation and the democratic transition have the opposite effect (Lawrence, 1989). However, democracies are less likely to go to war than any other forms of political regimes overall. States can grow more and more liberal and democratic and have done so remarkably during modernity, affecting their attitude towards war and peace. The states have grown increasingly more liberal and democratic since the eighteen-century, whereas the idea of (international) democratic peace seems to have been less secure in the nineteenth-century west but becomes entrenched during the twentieth century (Gat, 2007). For example, the abolition of slavery, the expansion of the franchise to all men as