Why do democratic states not fight each other? A systemic approach to the democratic peace

Table of Contents

Introduction

0.1 Presentation of the subject

0.2 Methodology and literature review

0.3 Definitions

Chapter I The monadic level of analysis

1.1 Empirical research on the monadic level

1.2 The three main axioms and the rationalist approach

1.3 Structural constraints

1.4 Normative constraints

1.5 Synthetic approaches

1.6 Concluding words

Chapter II The dyadic level of analysis

2.1 Empirical research on the dyadic level

2.2 The shared democratic institutions and the credibility of signals

2.3 The shared democratic culture

2.4 A peace of deterrence

2.5 Concluding words

Chapter III The systemic level of analysis

3.1 Alternative approaches to the systemic analysis

3.2 International Organisations

3.3 The international organisation of democratic states prevents war

3.4 Concluding words

Conclusion

4.1 Summary of the argument

4.2 Critical outlooks

Research Objectives and Themes

This dissertation aims to provide an alternative explanation for the democratic peace by critically examining existing theories and proposing a systemic approach. While previous research has focused on monadic and dyadic levels, the author argues that the international system, specifically the role of inter-democratic international institutions, is crucial in explaining why democracies do not fight each other.

• Critical analysis of monadic vs. dyadic theories of democratic peace.
• The role of domestic institutions and norms (monadic perspective).
• The strategic interaction and deterrence between democratic states (dyadic perspective).
• The impact of the systemic level and inter-democratic international organizations on conflict mitigation.
• Evaluation of the democratic deficit within international institutions.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

Introduction: Outlines the research subject, the history of democratic peace theory, and the dissertation’s focus on the systemic level of analysis.

Chapter I The monadic level of analysis: Evaluates theories focusing on the internal structure of single states, examining empirical research and rationalist, structural, and normative constraints.

Chapter II The dyadic level of analysis: Investigates the special relationship between two democratic states, discussing institutions, culture, and deterrence.

Chapter III The systemic level of analysis: Proposes that international organizations composed of democratic states provide the framework for preventing war, mitigating security dilemmas through transparency and cooperation.

Conclusion: Synthesizes the argument that a systemic-level approach provides the most convincing explanation for the democratic peace while noting current challenges and the democratic deficit.

Keywords

Democratic peace, international relations, monadic level, dyadic level, systemic level, war, international organizations, security dilemma, rational choice, institutions, democracy, foreign policy, conflict resolution, deterrence, democratic deficit.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core subject of this dissertation?

The dissertation investigates the long-standing international relations puzzle of why democratic states rarely fight wars against one another, seeking to move beyond traditional explanations.

What are the primary theoretical themes analyzed?

The work explores three distinct levels of analysis: the monadic level (the single state), the dyadic level (the relationship between two states), and the systemic level (the international system).

What is the central research question?

The author asks why existing empirical research remains inconclusive and aims to determine if the international system, particularly inter-democratic organizations, provides the "missing link" in explaining the democratic peace.

Which scientific methodology is applied?

The dissertation is designed as a critical literature review, utilizing comparative methods to evaluate existing academic approaches and theories regarding the democratic peace.

What is the main argument regarding the systemic level?

The author argues that international organizations created by democratic states are uniquely capable of mitigating conflicts by increasing transparency and providing frameworks for non-unilateral conflict resolution.

Which key terms define this research?

Key terms include "democratic peace theory," "monadic," "dyadic," "systemic level," "rationalist approach," "structural constraints," and "deterrence."

How does the author view the role of 'audience costs'?

The author considers the audience-cost approach as a meaningful game-theoretical mechanism that adds credibility to democratic signals of resolve in international disputes.

Does the author consider the European Union a perfect model?

While the EU is highlighted as the most developed inter-democratic organization for mitigating conflict, the author also cautions about a "democratic deficit" within its structure that could reduce public control.