Introduction: History, Theory, and the Democratic Peace

Abstract

Spencer pleasant, conversation among political scientists about democratic peace theory.1 The essays that follow present the reactions of a group of them to a historian's account of how republican states have avoided war. All of the contributors have published work that intersects with democratic peace theory. Whereas James Lee Ray is a proponent of the theory,2 Christopher Layne critiques it from a political realist perspective.3 Etel Solingen offers a 'coalitional explanation' for whether states decide to engage in international conflicts, and reminds us that democratic peace theory is challenged by domestic-level analyses.4 Miriam Fendius Elman reveals the connection between realist and institutional variants of democratic peace theory, and suggests scope conditions for when the latter are likely to prove useful.5 First, however, Weart explains his methodology and analyses four recent cases. Weart's work offers a useful starting point for discussing the status and prospects of democratic peace theory if only because historians rarely contribute to the debate. Not being a member of any of the paradigmatic schools that populate the international relations subfield of political science, Weart may offer a fresh look at familiar questions. In addition, by reaching far and wide in search of supporting evidence, his work reinforces the welcome move among scholars of international relations towards analysis of case studies drawn from more distant and less familiar periods. Lastly, Weart argues in favour of a particularly clear and unconditional