From the Turmoil of International Anarchy to the Calm of the Liberal Peace

Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 119–23 cited inCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wade L. Huntley, “Kant’s Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace,” International Studies Quarterly, 40 (1996), p. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

J. Levy, “Domestic Politics and War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18 (1988), pp. 661–62 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar

N. Gleditsch, “Democracy and Peace,” Journal of Peace Research, 29 (1992), p. 372 cited in Huntley, “Kant’s Third Image,” p. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chris Brown, International Relations Theory (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1992), p. 40.Google Scholar

Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), pp. 80–123.Google Scholar

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), pp. 18–37.Google Scholar

J.D. Singer and Associates, Explaining War: Selected Papers from the Correlates of War Project (London: Sage Publications, 1979) cited in Brown, International Relations Theory, p. 41.Google Scholar

Howard Williams and Ken Booth, “Kant: Theorist beyond Limits” in Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann, eds., Classical Theories of International Relations (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and London: MacMillan Press, 1996), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Part 1,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12 (1983), pp. 209–12.Google Scholar

Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Part 1,” p. 212. Importantly, I use the terms “liberal” or “illiberal” and Doyle’s terms “liberal regime(s)/state(s)/republic(s)” or “non-liberal regime(s)/state(s)” throughout this chapter. The terms “ ‘republican,’ representative government(s)” or “non-republican, unrepresentative government(s)” are also used and are a subcategory of Doyle’s terms “liberal regime(s)/state(s)/republic(s)” or “non-liberal regime(s)/state(s),” respectively. According to Doyle’s adopted terminology and definition here, a “liberal regime [or state]” necessarily has “republican, representative government.” The key is to avoid use of the terms “democratic” or “democracy” (unless it is understood to be “representative democracy” as in the Freedom House survey later) in discussion of Perpetual Peace. Kant was clearly against the establishment of pure “democracy” since it was not “representative.” In Perpetual Peace, he states, “Of the three forms of sovereignty [autocracy, aristocracy and democracy], democracy, in the truest sense of the word, is necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power through which all the citizens may make decisions about (and indeed against) the single individual without his consent, so that decisions are made by all the people and yet not by all the people; and this means that the general will is in contradiction with itself, and thus also with freedom.” Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, ed. Hans Reiss, trans. H.B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 101 (emphasis in original). This is a further reason why I choose the phrase “liberal peace” over the more widely used phrase “democratic peace” throughout this chapter and the book as a whole. Many scholars do, however, use the latter phrase throughout their studies and articles on the subject.Google Scholar

Adrian Karatnycky, ed., Freedom House, Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties 1999–2000 (New York: Freedom House, 2000).Google Scholar

John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 51.Google Scholar

Doyle notes the following important point from Melvin Small and J. David Singer’s influential work Resort to Arms: “Significantly, the most war-affected states have not been liberal republics.” Melvin Small and J. David Singer, Resort to Arms (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1982), pp. 176–79 cited in Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Part 1,” p. 228.Google Scholar

A.C.F. Beales, The History of Peace: A Short History of the Organized Movements for International Peace (New York: The Dial Press, 1931), p. 36.Google Scholar

R.B. Mowat, The European States System: A Study of International Relations (2nd ed.) (London: Oxford University Press, 1929; first published in 1923), p. 94.Google Scholar

Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1992).Google Scholar