Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict

TLDR

The explanation is based on a theoretical rationale that universal democratic norms help reconcile competing values and interests. The study develops an explanation for the scarcity of war between democratic states, arguing that democracies possess norms and mechanisms to diffuse disputes early, and proposes that disputes between democracies are more likely to settle peacefully. Analyses of contemporary interstate disputes show that, even when controlling for confounding factors, democratic opponents are significantly more likely to reach peaceful settlements than other disputants.

Abstract

The research reported here develops an explanation for the often-noted absence of international war between democratic states. This explanation is derived from a theoretical rationale centered on universal democratic norms for reconciling competing values and interests. I argue that democratic states locked in disputes are better equipped than others with the means for diffusing conflict situations at an early stage before they have an opportunity to escalate to military violence. Not only is this explanatory logic consistent with the published findings on democracy and war, but it also entails the novel empirical proposition that disputes between democracies are more amenable than are other disputes to peaceful settlements, the hypothesis I examine here. Analyses of contemporary interstate disputes reveal that even when potentially confounding factors are controlled, democratic opponents are significantly more likely to reach peaceful settlements than other types of disputants.