“Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace” by Christopher Layne
The main argument of Layne is that Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) establishes a correlation between peace and democracies, but fails to create a causal link between the two, and that realism is ‘superior’ in explaining state’s action and behavior. In structural realism, factors in unit level do not change the structure of international politics, and thus democracies and non-democracies respond to rivals in the same way because security and survival of states is always at risk. Layne identifies two strands in DPT strands: 1) Institutional constraints (structural account), and 2) democratic norms and culture (normative account). He dismisses the first strand as being weak …show more content…
He uses process-tracing approach for each of the four cases chosen for the test. The independent variables are DPT and realism and the dependent variable is behavior of state in international arena or what he calls “international outcomes”.
Indicators of DPT: 1) a strong pacifism of public opinion, 2) policymakers avoid making threats against other democracies, and 3) democracies accommodate one another during crises. Indicators of realism: 1) national interests vs democratic respect. Realism factors shape foreign policy when security stakes are high – not democratic norms, 2) policy makers are concerned with power and military capabilities, and 3) importance of geopolitical factors in time of crisis.
Layne, unlike other critics of DPT, mostly avoids intermingling monadic and dyadic arguments for DPT. All his cases are dyadic. Case study is one of the common and acceptable methods used in political science. Case study, if done properly, is a convincing method at getting at argument. The article is well structured in general, however, there are certain flaws and ambiguities within the structure. Some arguments, indicators, and operationalization of certain concepts are poor done. Layne does not explain how he measured public sentiment towards war in his cases. A handful of newspapers and or correspondences among leaders about people’s views do not reflect public …show more content…
How should one assess the use of realist imperatives in shaping foreign policy while security stakes are high? He claims there is a strong economic interdependence among the two countries in all the four cases, but provides little operationalization and measurement to show the degree of interdependence.
Layne does not provide explanation in developing DPT’ indicators. He does not build a clear structure and a logical progression for how the behavior derives from constraining effect of democratic norms and culture. He fails to properly define regime types of the countries in the case study. He refers to all the states in his case study as democracies, but never really measures the level and degree of democracies, and whether these states perceived each other as democratic.
Layne argues how democracies threatened each other and almost went to war. He seems to engage in concept stretching and redefining the DPT. He is expanding the DPT theory’s assumption of democracies not going to war with each other to military preparations and threatening. Democratic states can use threatening in domestic affairs, thus its manifestation in international dealings of the state can be considered as externalization of domestic
The main argument of Layne is that Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) establishes a correlation between peace and democracies, but fails to create a causal link between the two, and that realism is ‘superior’ in explaining state’s action and behavior. In structural realism, factors in unit level do not change the structure of international politics, and thus democracies and non-democracies respond to rivals in the same way because security and survival of states is always at risk. Layne identifies two strands in DPT strands: 1) Institutional constraints (structural account), and 2) democratic norms and culture (normative account). He dismisses the first strand as being weak …show more content…
He uses process-tracing approach for each of the four cases chosen for the test. The independent variables are DPT and realism and the dependent variable is behavior of state in international arena or what he calls “international outcomes”.
Indicators of DPT: 1) a strong pacifism of public opinion, 2) policymakers avoid making threats against other democracies, and 3) democracies accommodate one another during crises. Indicators of realism: 1) national interests vs democratic respect. Realism factors shape foreign policy when security stakes are high – not democratic norms, 2) policy makers are concerned with power and military capabilities, and 3) importance of geopolitical factors in time of crisis.
Layne, unlike other critics of DPT, mostly avoids intermingling monadic and dyadic arguments for DPT. All his cases are dyadic. Case study is one of the common and acceptable methods used in political science. Case study, if done properly, is a convincing method at getting at argument. The article is well structured in general, however, there are certain flaws and ambiguities within the structure. Some arguments, indicators, and operationalization of certain concepts are poor done. Layne does not explain how he measured public sentiment towards war in his cases. A handful of newspapers and or correspondences among leaders about people’s views do not reflect public …show more content…
How should one assess the use of realist imperatives in shaping foreign policy while security stakes are high? He claims there is a strong economic interdependence among the two countries in all the four cases, but provides little operationalization and measurement to show the degree of interdependence.
Layne does not provide explanation in developing DPT’ indicators. He does not build a clear structure and a logical progression for how the behavior derives from constraining effect of democratic norms and culture. He fails to properly define regime types of the countries in the case study. He refers to all the states in his case study as democracies, but never really measures the level and degree of democracies, and whether these states perceived each other as democratic.
Layne argues how democracies threatened each other and almost went to war. He seems to engage in concept stretching and redefining the DPT. He is expanding the DPT theory’s assumption of democracies not going to war with each other to military preparations and threatening. Democratic states can use threatening in domestic affairs, thus its manifestation in international dealings of the state can be considered as externalization of domestic