Chapter 4 Revision Guide

Realists argue that in an anarchical system every country is a potential enemy to every other. Yet there are restraints on use of force. Treating international politics as an unending struggle risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
A competing perspective needs to be considered. This is sometimes labelled a liberal-institutionalist perspective.
Immanuel Kant is a key thinker associated with this line of thought. Kant believed that natural processes of self-interest could impel rational individuals to bring about peace. He proposed that republican (democratic) governments, commercial exchange and economic interdependence, and international law could provide basis for peace.
Kantian perspective is often contrasted to realism, but this is an error. Kant’s vision accommodated Thomas Hobbes’ notion of conflict among sovereign states. As such, his pacifistic framework is characterized more accurately as a confederation, not as a world state.
Four key changes have taken place in the world.
- First, there has been a reduction in global conflict deaths since the end of WWII.
- Second, there has been a decline in autocracies.
- Third, there has been an associated rise in economic openness and interdependence.
Fourth, in membership of intergovernmental organizations.
This chapter suggests, and carefully assesses the evidence, for the claim that Kantian logics on democracy, economic interdependence and international institutions are behind the reduction in conflict.
This research is conducted in a way analogous to that of medical scientists who try to understand the causes of disease. Substantial data and careful analysis of evidence help researchers uncover the causes of peace. Here data is collected and analysed on relations between virtually all countries in the world in each year over the period from 1885 to 2001.
Realists approach the understanding of restraints on war by focus on four factors: power ratio (deterrence is brought about by great power differences), allies (will not fight each other), distance (only neighbours tend to fight), size (great powers only tend to fight distant wars).
Kantians, or liberal institutionalists, insist, however, that there are three further constraints on war:
1. Democracies will refrain from using force against other democracies, due to normative and institutional accountability
2. Economically important trade creates incentives for maintaining peaceful relations, as it often requires mutual (normative) identity across boarders
3. international organizations can constrain decisions to fight, in acting as mediators among states.
Democracy can constrain conflict by two means: 1) force of norms shared by actors; 2) democratic institutions constraining leaders deciding to fight. Both explanations are likely to operate depending on circumstances.
International trade may result in greater mutual understanding and depend on expectation of peace with trading partner.
International organizations may mediate conflict, reduce uncertainty, expand member’s material interests to more long-term, shape norms and generate narratives of mutual identification.
Statistical techniques are used here to uncover the relative importance of various influences on risk of war. Results show that Kantian influences are very important, while realist constraints also play some role (especially unequal power ratio).
But are democracies more peaceful in general? Dyadic and monadic (general) claims to democratic peace must be distinguished and monadic democratic peace may be hard to identify. Evidence shows that great powers are less constrained by trade and IGOs. Democratic systems also vary greatly in how effectively they can restrain their leaders.
But democratic peace is only one part of Kantian perspective. Different forces create series of feedback loops with each of the other major forces. The EU is a good example of this, illustrating that such feedback loops change the dominant norms and institutions of the whole system.
Case study. In the aftermath of the World War II, European leaders came together to set up an intricate system of mutually reinforcing political, economic and social elements, creating conditions for peace. The cornerstones of this approach were: 1) democracy, 2) economic integration and 3) international organization.
Case study continued. Strengthening each of these areas, the European Union has acquired supranational powers and enforces a wide variety of common regulations. EU institutions range from the European Council, to the European Parliament, and recently have resulted in the Economic and Monetary Union between members. Yet, members retain important elements of traditional sovereignty.
Case study continued. European integration began during the Cold War, but has outlasted the Cold War and expanded beyond the initial cold war allies. Europe’s experience shows how virtuous circles can solidify peaceful relations while states retain many of their traditional characteristics.
It is not inevitable that Kantian peace will prevail. The processes involved can be reversed, for example by a severe economic shock, and feedback loops may reverberate back through the different forces identified. Yet, the system now has a great deal of institutional and normative resistance built into it.
Interesting question is the relationship between US and China. In the past Kantian influences have failed to mitigate risks, but in the 21st century liberal Kantian influences have come into play, through trade liberalization and membership of IGOs. Yet, peaceful relations cannot be assumed.
Conclusion. US is often described as hegemonic. Yet hegemony cannot last forever, and Kantian perspective can provide means for sustaining stable peace when military advantage fades. Kantian perspective offers an alternative reading of as well as a possibility for reshaping of international politics.