HomeDocuments on SitePersonalDemocratic PeaceDemocide20th C. DemocideMegamurderersLesser MurderersWhy DemocideDimensionsConflictMethodsTheoryPolicyLinks PHOTOS OF DEMOCIDEGalleries

Democratic Peace Bibliography
Version 3.0



NOTE
This is a bibliography of the democratic peace narrowly defined as democracies don’t make war on each other, or are most peaceful internally. It does not include works on democracy or war in themselves. Moreover, it is most thorough for the years up to 2000. This is version 3.0. More versions will be published on this website as more references are added, or corrections made.
The bibliography is organized by project, papers/speeches, reviews, articles/chapters, and books.
A few on the web have their web address included, and a comment on their conclusion or content.
Bibliographic formats are mixed.
Please help on this. I am trying to make this as comprehesivie as possible and erorr free. If you see an error in an author’s name or title, or the HTML link is dead, please let me know. Similarly, if I miss a speech, paper, article, or book on the democratic peace, please inform me. Contact email:


PROJECTS
wedge Jamesk.A.Smith.Com
* http://www.calvin.edu/~jks4/research.htm
* In the summer of 2004, I am engaged in research with my Mcgregor research fellow (and fellow Canadian!), Nathan Sytsma. The project is entitled "the violence of belief: democratic peace theory's commitment to secularization." The theory of "democratic peace" is often cited as "the closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of international relations." informing American foreign policy for the past two administrations, one aspect of this program has been under-theorized: the relationship of democratic peace theory to the project of secularization. This project will investigate the ways in which the theory is predicated on a confidence in secularity as securing peace and therefore parallels "postmodern" critiques of religious violence. Both feed into the increased secularization of the public sphere based on assumptions about the "violence" of particular, determinate religious confessions.
* My sabbatical project for 2004/2005 is entitled holy wars and democratic crusades: deconstructing myths of religious violence and secular peace. Building on the work on democratic peace theory, this project engages the postmodern critique of religion (especially as articulated by Derrida) as inherently violent. This will represent the culmination of my critique of Derrida that has been sketched in previous articles.

PAPERS/SPEECHES
wedgeAhlmark, Per. "How Democracy Prevents Civic Catastrophes." Speech, Krakow, April 1, 1999.
wedge Bennett, Andrew, and Alexander George. 1997. “case study methods and research on the democratic peace,” Paper Presented at the American Political Science Association Convention, Washington D.C., August.( not for quotation or attribution)
* www.georgetown.edu—apsa97.htm
* It addresses the methods underlying research on the democratic peace, and the methodological lessons of this research
* Research on the democratic peace illustrates the fact that statistical and case study methods contribute different and complementary types of knowledge. Statistical methods have more effectively addressed the question of whether a democratic or interdemocratic peace exists -- corresponding to the notion of causal effects -- while case study methods have been more effective at testing the proposed reasons for why such a peace might exist -- corresponding to the notion of causal mechanisms.
* Bittick, R. M. “Locke, Public Institutions, and Global Peace: An Explanation Of The Role Of Domestic Public Institutions In Bringing About A “Democratic Peace.” The Public Administration Theory Network Inaugural Regional Symposium, Sydney, Australia.
* Bittick, R. M., “Property Rights, Not Elections: Institutional Credibility and The Democratic Peace.” Paper Presented to The 42nd Annual International Studies Association National Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 2001.
* Bittick, R. M., “The Democratic Peace: The Proposition That Democracies Rarely, If Ever, Go To War With Each Other. But Why?” At The 42nd Annual International Studies Association National Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 2001.
wedge Brandt, Patrick T., and John R. Freeman, “Testing Democratic Peace Theory: A New Approach With Application To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Prepared For Presentation At The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, Montreal, March 17-20, 2004.
* http://www.psci.unt.edu/~brandt/working/brandtfreemanisa2004.pdf
* Democratic peace theory has been static and does not address dynamic, causal mechanisms by which democracy fosters peace. We address this shortcoming by proposing a new, disaggregated, research design for analyzing the complex causal dynamics of international conflicts. This research design uses Bayesian vector autoregression (bvar) model.
* Our results show that it is not just democracy per se, but election cycles that are important to the arguments of the democratic peace. Finally, using bvar models, we demonstrate the including measures for elections can improve forecasts and inferences about the path of conflict elections convey information about intent and resolve.
* Bremer Stuart A. 1996. “Power Parity, Political Similarity, and Capability Concentration: Comparing Three Explanations Of Major Power Conflict.” Paper Presented To The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, San Diego, April.
* Bremer, Stuart A. "Are Democracies Less Likely To Join Wars?" Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association, Chicago: September, 1992.
wedge Brookes, Mike, “Perils Of A Democratic Peace,” 10/1/97.
* http://web.nps.navy.mil/~cccnip/abs_brookes.htm
* Contrary to the President Clinton’s assurances, democracy is neither a universally desirable commodity nor the key to an inherently peaceful and secure world.
wedge Bush, President George, “Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls For A ‘Forward Strategy Of Freedom’ To Promote Democracy In The Middle East.”
* Http://Www.Whitehouse.Gov/News/Releases/2003/11/20031106-11.Html
* Cole, Timothy Michael. "Politics and Meaning: Explaining The Democratic Peace." Delivered At The Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association, August 30-September 2, 1990.
* Dawson, Peter M. 1996. “Liberal Hegemony and Democratic Peace.” Paper Presented To The International Studies Association Annual Meeting. San Diego, Ca. April.
wedge Dizerega, Augustus, “Democracy, Spontaneous Order and Peace Implications For The Classical Liberal Critique Of Democratic Politics,” January 3, 2000.
* On line: http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=731
* The work of F. A. Hayek and Michael Polanyi holds the key to understanding the democratic peace, and thereby leads to rethinking the classical liberal and libertarian critique of politics. To jump ahead, democracies are spontaneous orders in Hayek's sense of the term. Consequently democracies are not states in the usual sense, and often do not act like them.
wedge Draman, Rasheed, “Democratizing Security for a Safer World: What role for Parliamentarians?” Sept. 20003.
* http://www.parlcent.ca/africa/papers/democratizing_security.ppt+%22democratic+peace%22+papers&hl=en
* Enterline, and Rew J., “Regime Maturity and The Democratic Peace, 1816-1992.” Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The Midwest Political Science Association, April 1998.
* Fanis, Maria. 1995. “Is The Liberal Peace Really Liberal, Or Merely Hegemonic?” Paper Presented To The International Studies Association Annual Convention. Chicago, Il. February.
wedge Farber, Henry S. and Joanne Gowa, “Common Interests Or Common Polities? Reinterpreting The Democratic Peace,” National Bureau Of Economic Research (Nber), 1995
* papers.ssrn.com—papers.cfm
* The central claim of a rapidly growing literature in international relations is that members of pairs of democratic states are much less likely to engage each other in war or in serious disputes short of war than are members of other pairs of states. Our analysis does not support this claim. Instead, we find that the dispute rate between democracies is lower than is that of other country pairs only after world war ii. Before 1914 and between the world wars, there is no difference between the war rates of members of democratic pairs of states and those of members of other pairs of states.
wedge Fishman, Joel S., The Broken Promise Of The Democratic Peace: Israel and The Palestinian Authority, Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints, No. 477 19 Iyar 5762 / 1 May 2002
* www.jcpa.org—vp477.htm
* The idea of the democratic peace, although not explicitly named, was an essential element of the Oslo Accords
* The Palestinian Authority, which was nominally committed to democracy, and which many had hoped would be a good neighbor, has become an authoritarian middle eastern regime
* Furia, Peter A., "Dispute Intensity, Degree Of Democratization and The Democratic Peace." Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Il, April 1997.
* Furia, Peter A., "Public Opinion and The Democratic Peace." Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1999.
* Gates, Scott, and Sara Mclaughlin. 1996. “Rare Events, Relevant Dyads, and The Democratic Peace.” Paper Presented To The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, San Diego, April.
* Geva, Nehemiah, and D. Christopher Hanson. 1997. “Cultural Similarity, Foreign Political Actions, and Regime Perception: An Experimental Study Of International Cues and Democratic Peace.” Paper Presented To The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, Toronto, March.
wedge Grayson, Kyle, “Democratic Peace Theory As Practice: (Re)Reading The Significance Of Liberal Representations Of War and Peace,” YCISS Working Paper Number 22 March 2003.
* http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/WP22-Grayson.pdf
* At best, the democratic peace is selective in its operation through representational practices that presuppose what political forms are ‘democratic’ and what assumptions can be made about them. Not only does democratic peace theory limit the types of states that can be considered democratic, but more importantly, it limits democratic characteristics those political entities it recognizes as states.
* Haas, Michael. 1995. “When Democracies Fight One Another: Just What Is The Punishment For Disobeying The Law?” Paper Presented To The Annual Convention Of The American Political Science Association, Chicago, Il, 1 September.
* Hellmann, Gunter and Benjamin Herborth, “Democratic Peace and Militarized Interstate Disputes In The Transatlantic Community,” Paper Presented At The 42. Annual Convention Of The International Studies Association In Chicago.
* Kacowicz, Arie. M. 1996. “South America As A Zone Of Peace: Democratic Peace Refuted Or Revindicated?” Paper Presented To The International Studies Association, San Diego, Ca, April.
* Knutsen, Tørbjørn L. 1996. “The Poverty Of Democratic Peace Theory.” Paper Presented To The International Studies Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, Ca. April.
wedge Krain, Matthew, and Marissa Edson Myers, “Democracy and Civil War: A Note On The Democratic Peace Proposition”
* www.wooster.edu—demciv.doc.
* Quantitative analyses supporting the democratic peace (with regards to interstate wars) are particularly convincing because (a) they find significantly less wars occurring than are expected, and (b) these results are highly statistically significant.
wedge Kubik, T.R.W., “How German Is It? Military Professionalism and The Democratic Peace,” International Studies Association 41st Annual Convention Los Angeles, Ca March 14-18, 2000
* www.ciaonet.org—kut01
* Scholars have under-theorized the formative role of the military as an independent variable in society, even when analyzing Immanuel Kant’s foundational work, Toward a Perpetual Peace. If we are genuinely interested in understanding the possible relationships between democracy and the use of force, the social and political import of modern, professional military institutions must be understood historically, and theoretically.
* Lektzian, David James, “Preferences Vs. Signaling: Testing The Democratic Peace By Examining Non-Democratic Dyads.” Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, Portland, Oregon, March 2003. (With Mark Souva).
wedge Lopez, and Rea M., “Russia and The Democratic Peace: The Decision To Use Military Force In Ethnic Disputes,” Paper Prepared For The 13th Annual Graduate Student Symposium, University Of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, April 4-5, 1997
* www.virginia.edu—lopez.html
* Why didn’t Russia intervene to stop nations splitting off? Democratic peace theory answers this better than institutional constraints.
wedge Macmillan, John, Liberalism and The Democratic Peace, European Consortium For Political Research, ECPR Conference - Marburg 2003
* http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/generalconference/marburg/papers/7/6/macmillan.pdf
* The article’s main contribution is to develop the recent under-theorized turn in democratic peace scholarship towards the view that liberal states may be more systematically peace prone than in relations with other liberal states only.
wedge Mesquita, Bruce Bueno De, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith, “Testing The Selectorate Explanation Of The Democratic Peace.”
* on line: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/bdm/dempeace_bdm.pdf
* The constraints argument states that domestic constraints make it difficult for democratic leaders to garner the support they need to wage war. The democratic peace occurs because the leaders of two such constrained states will not both be able to gain the necessary support to go toward war. Our evidence on the greater wartime effort of systems with large winning coalitions seems inconsistent with this argument. Once at war, democracies are more able to mobilize resources for victory.
* Neack, Laura, “Peace Enforcement, Hegemony, and The Democratic Peace,” Paper Presented At The International Studies Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, La, March 24-27, 2002
* Neack, Laura, “The Use Of Force In The Hegemony Of Democratization: Peace Enforcement and The Democratic Peace,” Paper Presented At The International Studies Association Meeting In Hong Kong, July 26-28, 2001
* Oren, Ido, and Jude Hays. 1996. “Democracies May Rarely Fight One Another, But Developed Socialist States Rarely Fight At All.” Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, San Diego, Ca, April 1996. Published In 1997 In Alternatives (22:4) 493-521.
wedge Patty, John Wiggs and Roberto A. Weber, “Agreeing To Fight: An Explanation Of The Democratic Peace,” Seminar Participants At Carnegie Mellon University, November 14, 2001.
* http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/publications/working_papers/demonew6.pdf
* Two rational countries should never agree to go to war when war is inefficient and when rationality is common knowledge. We argue that this result might provide one possible explanation for the empirical finding, often referred to as the “democratic peace,” that modern democracies rarely go to war with one another. We propose that the informational properties of pluralistic institutions (as opposed to oligarchies or dictatorships) lead to better decision-making by democracies and that democracies are therefore more likely to be the rational actors necessary for the “no-war” result. we discuss empirical evidence in support of this proposition.
* Ray, James Lee. "The Future Of International War." Paper Presented To The 1991 Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association, August 29 To September 1, 1991.
* Ray, James Lee. 1993. “Wars Between Democracies: Rare, Or Nonexistent.” International Interactions (18:3) 251-276.
* Ray, James Lee. 1999. “A Lakatosian View Of The Democratic Peace Research Programme: Does It Falsify Realism (Or Neorealism)?” Paper Presented To The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, Washington, DC.
* Ray, James Lee. 2003. “Explaining Interstate Conflict and War: What Should Be Controlled For?” (Presidential Address) Conflict Management and Peace Science 20 (Fall), Pp. 1-31
* Reagan, President Ronald. 1982. “Promoting Democracy and Peace.” Speech Before The British Parliament, London, On 8 June 1982. The Text Is Found In Current Policy No. 399, Washington Dc: Us Department Of State, Bureau Of Public Affairs, 8 June 1982.
wedge Rich, Roland, “Democratic Peace Theory - What Relevance For East Asia,” CDI (CDI Is Based In The Research School of Social Sciences at The Australian National University).
* http://www.cdi.anu.edu.au/activities/democratic%20peace%20theory%20sept03.htm
* Questions the relevance of this to East Asia. While the theory may hold some truth for consolidated democracies, the paper draws attention to the argument by Mansfield and Snyder that transitional democracies tend to be more war-prone in their international relations. Also, democratic peace theory has little to say about the impact of democratization on internal conflict, a number of which exist in East Asia.
wedge Rich, Roland, “International Use Of Force Against Iraq: Democratic Deficit Or Democratic Peace?” Centre For Democratic Institutions, Australian National University, 1-4-2003
* www.apo.org.au—results.chtml
* The paper concludes by asking if there was any aspect of the democratic peace theory that may help fill this apparent democratic deficit with regards to the current situation in Iraq.
* Rothstein, Robert L. "Weak Democracy and The Prospects For Peace and Prosperity In The Third World." Prepared For Delivery At The United States Institute Of Peace Conference On "Conflict Resolution In The Post-Cold War Third World," October 3-5, 1990.
wedge Rummel, R. J. 1991. “The Rule Of Law: Toward Eliminating War and Democide.” Speech Given To The American Bar Association National Security Conference On “The Rule Of Law In United States Foreign Policy and The New World Order.” Washington, Dc. 10-11 October.
* http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ABA.SPEECH.HTM
wedge Rummel, R. J., “What is The Democratic Peace?”
* http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.IS_WHAT.HTM
wedge Rummel, R. J., "Eliminating Democide and War Through an Alliance of Democracies.”
* http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ALLIANCE.HTM
wedge Rummel, R. J., “Democratic Peace Clock.”
* http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM
wedge Silverstone, Scott A., “Federal Democratic Peace: Domestic Institutions, International Conflict, and American Foreign Policy, 1807-1860,” September 1, 2000.
* www.isanet.org—silverstone.html
* How America’s distinctive federal institutional structure produces a particular set of constraints on the use of force that are significantly different than what we find in other democracies…. Tested against a series of international crises involving the United States between 1807 and 1860. In eleven of the fourteen cases examined, the United States was constrained in its use of force. In all eleven cases, the dynamics of American federalism provide a superior explanation to realist and liberal alternatives.
* Simowitz, Rosalyn, 1996. “Scientific Progress In The Democracy - War Debate.” Paper Presented To The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association. San Diego, April.
* Steele, Brent J., “Norm Projection, International Organizations, and The Myth Of The Democratic Peace,” Tracy H. Slagter and Jeremy Youde, Co-Authors. Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association, March 2003.
* Thompson, William R. 1996. “Democracy and Peace: Putting The Cart Before The Horse?” International Organization (50:1 Winter) 141-174.
* Urshkov, Jonas. 1996. “The Historical Limits Of The Democratic Peace Hypothesis: The Methodological Significance.” Paper Prepared For The Annual Meeting Of The International Studies Association. San Diego, Ca, April.
* Wang, Kevin, Noh Soon Chang, and James Lee Ray. "Democracy and The Use Of Force In Militarized Disputes: A Subdyadic Level Analysis." Paper Prepared For The Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association. September 3-6, 1992, Chicago, Illinois.
* Wang, Kevin, Noh Soon Chang, and James Lee Ray. 1992. “Democracy and The Dyadic Use Of Force In Militarized Disputes: A Subdyadic Level Analysis.” Paper Prepared For The Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association. Chicago, Il, September.
wedge Wang, Vincent Wei-Cheng, Does Democratization Enhance Or Reduce Taiwan's Security? A Democratic-Peace Inquiry.” Earlier Version Of This Paper Was Presented At The 1995 Annual Meeting Of The American Political Science Association, Chicago, 31 August-3 September 1995
* Building Taiwan’s security entirely upon the theoretical underpinnings of the democratic peace theory, however, is untenable. The relationship between China and Taiwan contains both quasi-interstate and quasi-internal characteristics and is governed by conflicting international norms.

REVIEWS
wedge Carpenter, Ted Galen. 1998. “Democracy and War: Review Essay.” Independent Review (2:3 Winter) 435-441.
* http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.REV.TGC.HTM
* Furia, Peter A., “Review Of Taraq Barkawi and Mark Laffey, Eds., Democracy, Liberalism and War: Rethinking The Democratic Peace Debate,” International Affairs, April 2002.”
* Glynn, Patrick. Review Of Singer and Wildavsky, “The Real World Order: Zones Of Peace, Zones Of Turmoil.” Commentary, October 1993. Response By Singer In The May 1994 Issue.
* Ivie, Robert L., “Democratizing For Peace,” European Consortium For Political Research Conference -- Marburg 2003.
wedge Peterson, H-C. Jr. “Twelve Problems With Ted Carpenter's Review of Power Kills.” 1998
* www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.REV.HCP.HTM
wedge Rummel, R. J. 1998b. “Democracy and War: Reply.” Independent Review (3:1 Summer) 103-108.
* http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.REV.RJR.RESP.HTM
wedge Carpenter’s rejoinder was in the same winter 1998 issue (Pp. 109-110).
* www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.REV.TGC.REPLY.HTM

ARTICLES/CHAPTERS
* Archibugi, Daniele. 1995. “Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law, and Peace.” European Journal Of International Relations (1:4 December) 429-456.
* Babst, Dean V. "Elective Governments--A Force For Peace." The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9-14.
* Babst, Dean V.. "A Force For Peace." Industrial Research (April 1972): 55-58.
* Babst, Dean, and William Eckhardt. 1992. “How Peaceful Are Democracies Compared To Other Countries?” Peace Research (24:2 August) 51-56.
* Bachteler, Tobias. 1997. “Explaining The Democratic Peace: The Evidence From Ancient Greece Reviewed.” Journal Of Peace Research (34:3 August) 315-323. See Rejoinder By Bruce Russett, Same Issue, Pp. 323-4.
* Benoit, Kenneth. 1996. “Democracies Really Are More Pacific (In General): Reexamining Regime Type and War Involvement.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (40:5 December) 636-658.
* Bliss, Harry, and Bruce Russett. 1998. “Democratic Trading Partners: The Liberal Connection.” Journal of Politics (39 September).
* Braumoeller, Bear F. 1997. “Deadly Doves: Liberal Nationalism and The Democratic Peace In The Soviet Successor States.” International Studies Quarterly (41:3 September) 375-402.
* Bremer, Stuart A. "Democracy and Militarized Interstate Conflict, 1816-1965." International Interactions 18 (No. 3, 1993): 231-249.
* Bremer, Stuart A. 1992a. “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting The Likelihood Of Interstate War, 1816-1965.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (36:2 June) 309-341.
* Bremer, Stuart A. 1993b. “Advancing The Scientific Study Of War.” International Interactions (19:1-2) 1-26.
* Brinkley, Douglas. 1997. “Democratic Enlargement: The Clinton Doctrine.” Foreign Policy (106 Spring)111-127.
* Carothers, Thomas. 1995. “Democracy Promotion Under Clinton.” Washington Quarterly (18:4 Autumn) 13-28.
* Chan, Steve. "Democracy and War: Some Thoughts On Future Research Agenda." International Interactions 18 (3, 1993): 205-213.
* Chan, Steve. "Mirror, Mirror On The War...Are Democratic States More Pacific?" Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (1984): 617-648.
* Chan, Steve. 1997. “In Search Of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise.” Mershon International Studies Review (41:1 May) 59-91.
* Chapman, Stephen. 1995. “Will A Democratic World Really Be More Peaceful?” Creators Syndicate. 8 January.
* Clinton, Bill. 1993. “American Foreign Policy and The Democratic Ideal.” Orbis (37:4 Fall) 651-660.
* Codevilla, Angelo. 1994. “Birds Of A Feather.” National Interest (35 Spring) 58-64.
* Cohen, Raymond. 1994. “Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal Of The Theory That ‘Democracies Do Not Go To War With Each Other.” Review Of International Studies (20) 207-223.
* Cohen, Raymond. 1995. “Needed: A Disaggregate Approach To The Democratic-Peace Theory” (Reply To Russett and Ray Response To Cohen 1994). Review Of International Studies (21:3) 323-325.
* Czempiel, Ernst-Otto. 1992. “Governance and Democratization.” In James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Eds., Governance Without Government: Order and Change In World Politics. Cambridge Studies In International Relations:20. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
* Dixon, William J. "Democracy and The Management Of International Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (March 1993): 42-68.
* Dixon, William J. "Democracy and The Peaceful Settlement Of International Conflict." American Political Science Review 88 (March 1994): 1-17.
* Dixon, William J. 1993. “Democracy and The Management Of International Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (37:1 March) 42-68.
* Dixon, William J. 1994. “Democracy and The Peaceful Settlement Of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review (88:1 March) 1-17.
* Dizerega, Gus. 1995. “Democracies and Peace: The Self-Organizing Foundation For The Democratic Peace.” Review Of Politics (57:2 Spring) 279-308.
* Doyle, Michael 1995a. “To The Editors” (Correspondence On The Democratic Peace). International Security (19:4 Spring) 180-184
* Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review (80:4 December) 1151-1169.
* Doyle, Michael W. 1994. “The Voice Of The People: Political Theorists On The International Implications Of Democracy”. In The Fall Of Great Powers: Peace, Stability, and Legitimacy, Edited By Geir Lundestad. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
* Doyle, Michael W. 1995b. “Liberalism and The End Of The Cold War.” In Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen, Eds., International Relations Theory and The End Of The Cold War. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
* Doyle, Michael. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I." Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983): 205-235. Part Ii, Ibid.: 323-353.
* Doyle, Michael. "Liberalism and World Politics." American Political Science Review (December, 1986): 1151-1169.
* Doyle, Michael. "Michael Doyle On The Democratic Peace." International Security 19 (Spring 1995): 180-184.
* Ember, Carol, Melvin Ember, and Bruce Russett. "Peace Between Participatory Polities: A Cross-Cultural Test Of The 'Democracies Rarely Fight Each Other' Hypothesis." World Politics 44 (4, 1992)
* Ember, Carol, Melvin Ember, and Bruce Russett. 1992. “Peace Between Participatory Polities: A Cross-Cultural Test Of The ‘Democracies Rarely Fight Each Other’ Hypothesis.” World Politics (44:4).
* Engelhardt, Michael. "Democracies, Dictatorships and Counterinsurgency: Regime Type Really Matter?" Conflict Quarterly 12 (3, 1992): 52-63.
* Interline, and Raw J. 1996. “Driving While Democratizing (DWD).” International Security (41:3 Spring) 183-196. Response To Mansfield and Snyder 1995b.
* Enterline, and Rew J. 1998.” Regime Changes, Neighborhoods, and Interstate Conflict 1816-1992.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (42:6 December) 804-829.
* Farber, Henry S., and Joanne Gowa. 1995. “Polities and Peace.” International Security (20:2 Fall) 123-146.
* Forsythe, David P. 1992. “Democracy, War, and Covert Action.” Journal Of Peace Research (29:4 November) 385-3
* Garnham, David. "War-Proneness, War-Weariness, and Regime Type: 1816-1980." Journal Of Peace Research 23 (1986): 279-289
* Gartzke, Erik, “Kant We All Just Get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and The Origins Of The Democratic Peace,” In: American Journal Of Political Science Jg. 42, Nr. 1, 1998, Ps. 1-27.
* Gartzke, Erik, “Preferences and The Democratic Peace,” In: International Studies Quarterly Jg. 44, Nr. 2, 2000, S. 191-212.
* Gates, Scott, and Torbjørn L. Knutsen & Jonathon W. Moses. 1996. “Democracy and Peace: A More Skeptical View.” Journal Of Peace Research (33:1) 1-10.
* Gaubatz, Kurt. 1991. “Election Cycles and War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (35:2 June) 214-244.
* Gaubatz, Kurt. 1996a. “Democratic States and Commitment In International Relations.” International Organization (50:1 Winter) 109-139.
* Gaubatz, Kurt. 1996b. “Kant, Democracy, and History.” Journal Of Democracy (7:4 October) 136-150.
* Geva, Nehemia, Karl Derouen, and Alex Mintz. "The Political Incentive Explanation Of The 'Democratic Peace': Evidence From Experimental Research." International Interactions 18 (3, 1993): 215-229.
* Geva, Nehemiah, Karl Derouen, and Alex Mintz. 1993. “The Political Incentive Explanation Of The ‘Democratic Peace’: Evidence From Experimental Research.” International Interactions (18:3) 215-229.
* Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Michael D. Ward. 2000. “War and Peace In Space and Time: The Role Of Democratization.” International Studies Quarterly (44:1 March) 1-29.
* Gleditsch, Nils Petter. "Democracy and Peace." Journal Of Peace Research 29 (4, 1992): 369-376.
* Gleditsch, Nils Petter. "Geography, Democracy, and Peace." International Interactions, Forthcoming, 1995.
* Gleditsch, Nils-Petter, and Håvard Hegre. 1997. “Peace and Democracy: Three Levels Of Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (41:2) 283-310
* Gleditsch, Nils-Petter. 1992. “Focus On: Democracy and Peace.” Journal Of Peace Research (29:4) 369-376.
* Gleditsch, Nils-Petter. 1993b. “Democracy and Peace: Good News For Human Rights Advocates.” Pages 287-307 In Broadening The Frontiers Of Human Rights: Essays In Honor Of Abjørn Eide, Edited By Donna Gomien. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
* Gleditsch, Nils-Petter. 1995b. “Democracy and The Future Of European Peace.” European Journal Of International Relations (1:4 December) 539-571.
* Gochman, Charles, and Zeev Maoz. 1984. “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1975: Procedures, Patterns, Insights.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (28:4 December) 585-615.
* Gochman, Charles. 1993. “The Evolution Of Disputes.” International Interactions (19:1-2) 49-76.
* Gochman, Charles. 1996. Correspondence To The Editors On Democracy and Peace. International Security (21:3 Winter) 177-187. Reply To Farber and Gowa 1995.
* Gowa, Joanne. 1995. “Democratic States and International Disputes.” International Organization (49:3) 511-522.
* Hagan, Joe D. 1994. “Domestic Political Systems and War Proneness.” Mershon International Studies Review (38) 183-207.
* Hart, Robert A., Jr., and William Reed. 1999. “Selection Effects and Dispute Escalation: Democracy and Status Quo Evaluations.” International Interactions (25:3) 243-263.
* Henderson, Errol Anthony. 1998. “The Democratic Peace Through The Lens Of Culture, 1820-1989.” International Studies Quarterly (42:3 September) 461-484.
* Hermann, Margaret G. and Charles W. Kegley, Jr. 1995. “Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives From Political Psychology.” International Studies Quarterly (39) 511-533.
* Hewitt, J. Joseph, and Jonathan Wilkenfeld. 1996. “Democracies In International Crisis.” International Interactions (22:2) 123-142.
* James, Patrick, and Glenn E. Mitchell Ii. 1995. “Targets Of Covert Pressure: The Hidden Victims Of The Democratic Peace.” International Interactions (21:1) 85-107.
* Kacowicz, Arie M. 1995. “Explaining Zones Of Peace: Democracies As Satisfied Powers?” Journal Of Peace Research (32:3) 265-276.
* Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and Margaret Hermann. 1995. “Military Intervention and The Democratic Peace.” International Interactions (21:1) 1-21
* Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and Margaret Hermann. 1996. “How Democracies Use Intervention: A Neglected Dimension In The Studies Of The Democratic Peace.” Journal Of Peace Research (33:3 August) 309-322.
* Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Margaret Hermann.1997. “Putting Military Intervention Into The Democratic Peace.” Comparative Political Studies (30) 78-107.
* Kilgour, D. Marc. "Domestic Political Structure and War Behavior: A Game-Theoretic Approach." Journal of Conflict Resolution 35 (June 1991): 266-284.
wedge Kirisci, Kemal, The “Enduring Rivalry” Between Greece and Turkey: Can ‘Democratic Peace’ Break It? Alternatives: Turkish Journal Of International Relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 2002
* www.alternativesjournal.net—kirisci.pdf
* Though techniques such as confidence building measures, inter-governmental dialogues, mediation, etc., are very important they may not succeed in achieving more than conflict reduction or management. What is really required is a sort of paradigmatic shift allowing a conducive environment for the notion of ‘democratic peace’ to take root.
wedge Krain, Matthew, and Marissa Edson Myers. 1997. “Democracy and Civil War: A Note On The Democratic Peace Proposition.” International Interactions (23:1) 109-118.
* www.wooster.edu—demciv.doc.
* Quantitative analyses supporting the democratic peace (with regards to interstate wars) are particularly convincing because (a) they find significantly less wars occurring than are expected, and (b) these results are highly statistically significant.
* Lake, David A. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War." American Political Science Review 86 (March 1992): 24-37.
* Layne, Christopher, Kant Or Cant: The Myth Of The Democratic Peace, In: International Security Jg. 19, Nr. 2, 1994, S. 5-49.
* Layne, Christopher. "Kant Or Cant: The Myth Of The Democratic Peace." International Security 19 (Fall 1994): 5-49.
wedge Levy, Gilat and Ronny Razin, It Takes Two: An Explanation For The Democratic Peace, Journal Of The European Economic Association March 2004 2(1): 1-29
* http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lihu3d1kkd4j:mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/jeea_2_1_1_0.pdf+%22democratic+peace%22+book&hl=en
* When information asymmetries and strategic complements are present in the conflict resolution game, the strategic interaction between two democracies differs from that of any other dyad. In our model, the interaction of two democracies produces the highest probability that a conflict will be peacefully resolved. But, it takes two democracies for peace; a conflict involving only one democracy will not be resolved in a peaceful way more often than a conflict involving two nondemocratic regimes.
* Levy, Jack S. 1998. “The Causes Of War and The Conditions Of Peace.” Chapter In Annual Review Of Political Science, Volume 1. Edited By Nelson W. Polsby. Palo Alto, Ca.
* Levy, Jack. 1994. “The Democratic Peace Hypothesis: From Description To Explanation.” Mershon International Studies Review (38 October) 352-354.
* Mansfield Edward D., and Jack Snyder 1997. “A Reply To Thompson and Tucker.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (41:3 June) 457-461.
* Mansfield, Edward D. "Democratization and War." Foreign Affairs 74 (May/June 1995b): 79-97.
* Mansfield, Edward D. and Jack Snyder, Democratization and The Danger Of War, In: International Security Jg. 20, Nr. 1, 1995, S. 5-38.
* Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. "Democratization and The Danger Of War." International Security 20 (Summer 1995): 5-38.
* Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. 1995a. “Democratization and War.” Foreign Affairs (74:3 May/June) 79-97.
* Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. 1995b. “Democratization and The Danger Of War.” International Security (20:1 Summer) 5-38.
* See Responses By Wolf 1996, Weede 1996b, Enterline 1996, and The Reply By Mansfield and Snyder 1996.
wedge Mansfield, Edward D., and Jack Snyder. 1996. “The Effects Of Democratization On War.” International Security (20:4 Spring) 196-207.
* Reply To Wolf 1996, Weede 1996b, and Enterline 1996.
* Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. "Alliance, Contiguity, Distance, Wealth, and Political Stability: Is The Lack Of Conflict Among Democracies A Statistical Artifact?" International Interactions 17 (No. 3, 1992): 245-268.
* Maoz, Zeev, and Nasrin Abdolali. "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976." Journal of Conflict Resolution (March 1989), Pp. 3-35.
* Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. 1992. “Alliances, Contiguity, Wealth, and Political Stability: Is The Lack Of Conflict Among Democracies A Statistical Artifact?” International Interactions (17:3) 245-267.
* Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes Of The Democratic Peace, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review (87:3 September) 624-638.
* Maoz, Zeev, and Nasrin Abdolali. 1989. “Regime Type and International Conflict, 1817-1976.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (33:1 March) 3-35.
* Maoz, Zeev. "Normative and Structural Causes Of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986." American Political Science Review 87 (September 1993): 624-638.
* Maoz, Zeev. 1997. “The Controversy Over The Democratic Peace: Rearguard Action, Or Cracks In The Wall?” International Security (22: 1 Summer) 162-198.
* Maoz, Zeev. 1998. “Realist and Cultural Critiques Of The Democratic Peace: A Theoretical and Empirical Re-Assessment.” International Interactions (24:1) 3-89 (Entire Issue).
* Merritt, Richard L., and Dina A. Zinnes. "Democracies and War." In On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, [Edited] By Alex Inkeles. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1991, Pp. 207-234.
* Merritt, Richard L., and Dina A. Zinnes. 1991. “Democracies and War.” Chapter In On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, Edited By Alex Inkeles. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
* Mesauita, Bruce Bueno De, and Randolph Siverson. 1995. “War and The Survival Of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study Of Regime Types and Political Accountability.” American Political Science Review (89:4 December) 841-856
* Mintz, Alex, and Nehemia Geva. "Why Don't Democracies Fight Each Other? An Experimental Study." Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (3, 1993): 484-503.
* Modelski, G., and Gardner Perry Iii. "Democratization In Long Perspective." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1990.
* Morgan, T. Clifton, and Sally Howard Campbell. "Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War--So Why Kant Democracies Fight?" Journal of Conflict Resolution 35 (June 1991): 187-211.
* Morgan, T. Clifton, and Valerie L. Schwebach. "Take Two Democracies and Call Me In The Morning: A Prescription For Peace?" International Interactions 17 (1992): 305-320.
* Morgan, T. Clifton, and Sally Howard Campbell. 1991. “Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War–So Why Kant Democracies Fight?” Journal of Conflict Resolution (35:2 June) 187-211.
* Morgan, T. Clifton, and Valerie Schwebach. 1992. “Take Two Democracies and Call Me In The Morning: A Prescription For Peace.” International Interactions (17:4) 305-320.
* Mousseau, M. 2003. The Nexus Of Market Society, Liberal Preferences, and Democratic Peace: Interdisciplinary Theory and Evidence. International Studies Quarterly 47:483-510
* Mousseau, Michael. 1997. “Democracy and Militarized Interstate Collaboration.” Journal Of Peace Research (34:1 February) 73-87.
* Mousseau, Michael. 1998. “Democracy and Compromise In Militarized Interstate Conflicts 1816-1992.” Journal of Conflict Resolution (42:2 April) 210-230.
* Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett 1999b. “Is The Liberal Peace Just An Artifact Of Cold War Interests? Assessing Recent Critiques.” International Interactions (25:3) 213-241.
* Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett. 1997. “The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-1985.” International Studies Quarterly (41:2 June) 267-294.
* Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett. 1999a. “Assessing The Liberal Peace With Alternative Specifications: Trade Reduces Conflict.” Journal Of Peace Research (36:4) 423-432.
* Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett. 1999c. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits Of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992.” World Politics (52:1) 1-37.
* Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett. 2000. “Why ‘An Identified Systemic Analysis Of The Democracy-Peace Nexus’ Does Not Persuade.” Peace and Defense Economics (11:2) 197-214.
* Oneal, John, Frances H. Oneal, Zeev Maoz, and Bruce Russett. 1996. “The Liberal Peace: Interdependence, Democracy, and International Conflict, 1950-1985.” Journal Of Peace Research (33:1 February) 11-28.
wedge Oren, Ido, "The Subjectivity Of The 'Democratic' Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions Of Imperial Germany," International Security, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Fall 1995).
* http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/oren.htm
* The democratic peace claim is not about democracies per se as much as it is about countries that are "America-like" or of "our kind." the apparently objective coding rules by which democracy is defined in fact represent current American values.
* The democratic peace claim is ahistorical.
* Oren, Ido. 1995. “The Subjectivity Of The ‘Democratic’ Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions Of Imperial Germany.” International Security (20:2 Fall) 147-184.
* Owen, John 1994. “How Libe