Abstract
This article argues that the balance of evidence and argument supports a shift from the conventional `separate democratic peace' position that liberal states are peace prone only in relations with other liberal states to the view that they are also more peace prone in relations with non-liberal states than usually thought. The article reviews a range of recent empirical studies that either support or are consistent with this turn and also critiques a number of existing democratic peace theories. Those theories that maintain the view that democracies are peace prone in general are criticized for failing to differentiate the circumstances in which liberal states do and do not go to war. Those theories supporting the predominant `separate' democratic peace position are criticized for failing to explain why liberal states should be peace prone only in relations with other liberal states. The force of this argument challenges scholars to re-specify the extent (and limitations) of liberal state peace proneness and to develop a theoretical explanation of this broader but more complex relationship between liberal states and peace.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
