The Nexus between the Democratic Peace Theory and Economic Coercion: Why Democracies Fight Each Other?

Abstract

Recent research shows that the Democratic Peace Theory (hereinafter referred to as DPT) is based on the dyadic (democracies rarely if ever fight one another) and the monadic (democracies are more peaceful in general) assumptions. In asserting these premises the DPT has concentrated mainly on militarized conflict. However, recent scholarly work has shown that the definition of the term “conflict” has widened in scope to include economic conflict prompting the use of coercion. Using some sanctions episodes in Hufbauer Clyde Gary et al (2006) this article investigates how and why democracies have used economic sanctions against each other despite their shared values and beliefs, economic interdependence and universal conflict resolution mechanisms that presumably favor peace. This research seeks to falsify the dyadic premise/claim of the DPT by citing a clash of interests, domestic values and priorities among citizens, high levels of trade between democracies and economic strength of democracies as factors facilitating democracies sanctioning each other. Key words: democratic peace theory (DPT), economic sanctions/coercion, democracies