Misplaced Pages

List of wars between democracies: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:48, 23 June 2010 editOpenFuture (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,245 edits →Nineteenth Century: Still does not fulfill your own requirements on what should go here.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:29, 22 November 2024 edit undoFarSouthNavy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users111,648 editsm →20th century: Minor rewordingTag: Visual edit 
(637 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|None}}
{{POV|date=June 2010}}
{{war}}
{{Disputed|date=June 2010}}
{{democracy}}
{{Merge|Democratic peace theory|discuss=Talk:List of wars between democracies#Move proposal|date=June 2010}}
This is an incomplete list of wars between entities that have a ]ally ] ] and actually practice it. Two points are required: that there has been a war, and that there are democracies on at least two opposing sides. For many of these entries, whether there has been a war, or a democracy, is a debatable question; all significant views should be given.
{{technical|section=|date=April 2009}}


==Definition dependence==
This is an incomplete list of those conflicts referred to as wars between democracies; many of the references are to the opponents and supporters of the ] or liberal peace, which asserts that democracies never or rarely go to war with each other. Definitions of ] and ] vary; three supporters of the theory<ref>], ], and ]</ref> hold, on different grounds, that there are no exceptions whatever; others hold that it is a strong correlation<ref>See, for example, {{citation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=22jupg3FqdYC|page=85|title=An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis|author=Thomas Heine Nielsen}}, also Doyle, Russert, and others below.</ref>, and therefore find marginal exceptions to be unsurprising, and in some cases illuminating. {{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
{{see also|Democratic peace theory|History of democracy|Types of democracy}}
Almost all of these depend on the definition of "democracy" (and of "war") employed. Some ], such as ], instead of classifying democracies give a quantitative metric without a threshold. As James Lee Ray points out, with a sufficiently restrictive definition of democracy, there will be no wars between democracies: define democracy as true ], the right of all – including children – to vote, and there have been no democracies, and so no wars between them. The interactive model of democratic peace found in V-Dem Democracy Indices gradual influences from both democracy score and political similarity on wars and militarized interstate disputes.<ref name="interactive"></ref>


On the other hand, Ray lists the following as having been called wars between democracies, with broader definitions of democracy: The ] including the ], the ], the ], the ], the ], the war of 1849 between the ] and the ], the ], the ], the ], the ], ], ] (as a whole, and also the ] by itself), the ], the ], the ], the ], and the ].<ref name=":0">James Lee Ray: "Wars between democracies: Rare, or nonexistent?", ''International Interactions'' Volume 18, Issue 3 February 1993, pages 251–276; child suffrage and from Ray, ''Democracy and International Conflict'' p. 88. Restricted definitions of democracy can also be constructed which define away all wars between democracies, and yet include many regimes often held to be democratic; Ray finds this more rhetorically effective than saying that ''full-scale'' international war between ''established'' democracies with ''wide'' suffrage is less likely than between other pairs of states.</ref> The mean democracy scores over the pairs of countries at war are on the low end and consistent with the interactive model of democratic peace.<ref name="interactive"/>
Few students of the democratic peace discuss wars prior to the nineteenth century; democracies were extremely sparse - and whether Athens or Florence is comparable to modern democracies is debateable. Data sets on wars do not always extend back any further; data on much earlier wars - including such questions as the number of troops on each side - are difficult to obtain.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}


Similarly, the school of ], founder of the ] dataset, divides regimes into three classes: democracies, autocracies, and "]"; the last being the sort of weak or new states which are marginal democracies or marginal autocracies; many of the wars below involve weak or marginal democracies.<ref>Ze'ev Maoz, Nasrin Abdolali, "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976", ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' vol. 33, no. 1 (March 1986) pp. 3–35.</ref>
⚫ ==Early ]==
===Wars involving the Greek democracies===


Jack Snyder and Edward D. S. Mansfield challenge instead the democratic peace theory by stating that "countries undergoing incomplete democratization with weak institutions are more likely than other states to initiate war". The authors point out mostly to emerging democracies in Eastern and Central Europe. The collapse of authoritarian institutions during the democratization process has the potential of making transition "fraught and unestable".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, Edward D. S. Mansfield and Jack Snyder – Irénées |url=https://www.irenees.net/bdf_fiche-documentation-534_en.html |access-date=2024-09-16 |website=www.irenees.net |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mansfield |first1=Edward |title=Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. |last2=Snyder |first2=Jack |publisher=MIT Press |year=2005 |isbn=9780262134491 |pages=7 |language=en}}</ref> ] conflicts, suppressed during communist rule, resumed once the democratization brought partisan tendencies to the surface.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Mkrtchyan |first=Tigran |year=2007 |title=Democratization and the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh |url=https://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_turkey_tpq_id_111.pdf |journal=Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG)}}</ref>
⚫ The ] included a great many conflicts among Greek city-states. The principal war was between Athens (and her allies), most of them democracies, on one side, and Sparta, (and her allies), most of them oligarchies - although most of them held elections among a citizen body. But the war lasted for twenty-seven years, with a brief armistice, and a great many side-conflicts occurred; and states changed from democracy to oligarchy and back again. Most notable of these was the ], ]-], in which Athens went to war with ]. ] finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs.


==Antiquity==
Athens, like other ], was a ] in which decisions on war and peace were taken by an ] of the people. Their chief advisors were ten (elected) generals, and orators who held no office, and were under "more direct and immediate control" by their constituents than modern statesmen.<ref name="finley73">''Oxford Classical Dictionary'', "Democracy, Athenian". M.I. Finley ''Democracy, Ancient and Modern'', 1973, p. 18 (quote; and cited by Ray),</ref> Athenian citizens had properly formalized rights, including political, legal, property rights and freedom of speech.<ref name="GREECE0">{{cite paper | author=Blackwell, Christopher | title=Athenian Democracy: a brief overview| url=http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/democracy_overview.pdf | work=Dēmos: classical Athenian Democracy| format = PDF |
accessdate=2006-07-28}}</ref> Athens, like most Greek democracies, elected the officials in charge of war and foreign policy.


===Peloponnesian War===
Russett adds that the norms of democracy - and of peace between democratic states - were still evolving; he sees the democratic peace as emerging through time. Athenian domestic politics (the best documented of any Greek state) was not itself peaceable; an unwelcome legislative proposal or an unsuccessful battle could result in a death sentence for the proposer or the general. ] also lays stress on the differences between Greek democracy and modern democracies: many Greek democracies had a large non-citizen population, and all of them had slaves - and direct democracy may have different social effects than elections.
⚫ The ] included a great many conflicts among ]. The principal war was between Athens and its allies (most of them democracies) on one side, and ] and its allies (most of them oligarchies—although most of them held elections among a citizen body{{citation needed|date=March 2013}}) on the other. However, the war lasted for twenty-seven years, with a brief armistice, and a great many side-conflicts occurred; and states changed from democracy to oligarchy and back again. Most notable of the wars between democracies was the ], 415–413 BC, in which Athens went to war with ]. ] finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs.<ref>Bruce M. Russett, ''Grasping the Democratic Peace'', p. 47–71; Russett, one of the few to consider the democratic peace before 1750, thinks it likely that the norm of interdemocratic peace developed gradually through the centuries.</ref> Classicist ] thinks one of Russett's examples unlikely, but adds several instances of wars between democracies before and after the Peloponnesian War.<ref>Hansen ''et al.'': ''An inventory of archaic and classical poleis'' (2005), pp. 85 et seq.</ref>


===Wars involving the ]=== ===Second and Third Punic Wars===
The democratic ], before its collapse in the late 1st century BC, is amply documented; its ] (including the ], which was composed of current and former magistrates) were elected by universal suffrage by adult (male) citizens; all male citizens were eligible. There was a political class of wealthy men; most successful candidates belonged to this class, and all of them were supported by a party drawn from it, but this does not distinguish Rome from other democracies—nor, indeed, from non-democratic states; freedom of speech was, however, a characteristic difference between the Republic and the later ].<ref>], ''The Roman Revolution'' (1939, repr. and revised 1962), including the view on the oligarchy behind ''all'' constitutions.</ref> The ].<ref>David Churchman, ''Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict'', University Press of America (2005), p.143, who discusses Rome ''and'' Carthage.</ref> The old ], before the ], was described by Aristotle as a mixture of democracy and oligarchy; after the disastrous end of that war, about 240&nbsp;BC, there was a democratic change, the direct election of a pair of executives, and the ] was fought under that constitution; there continued to be an oligarchic party. There were several further changes of party, and democratic reforms; the election of the democratic party, which favored a less passive foreign policy, in 151&nbsp;BC, provoked Rome to begin the ] two years later.<ref>Serge Lancel: ''History of Carthage'' (1993, Eng. tr. 1995) pp. 116–120, 411; Richard Miles ''"Carthage must be destroyed"'' (2010): 214, 318, 337</ref>
In particular, the ], ]-], with over 1000 deaths in battle. The leaders in both ] and ] were elected. However, both states are usually considered oligarchies.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} The Roman Republic had large numbers of non-voting slaves, former slaves, Italian allies,{{Dubious|date=June 2010}} and foreigners. Roman citizens had different political rights based on heredity and wealth. The ] had considerable power and was dominated by noble families. <ref name="McManus"></ref><ref name="UNRV"></ref><ref name="Kondrat"></ref><ref name="Pennell"></ref><ref>cf. Spencer Weart, ''Never at War'' on whether there is enough data on the Carthiginian government to classify it in his terms; the government of Carthage is described by ], ], and ].</ref>
==Nineteenth Century==
Like all instances in this article, these depend on how restrictive a definition of democracy is used; the first also depends on the definition of war.
⚫ *] between the Roman Republic and the ]<ref>Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965". ''Jerusalem Journal of International Relations'' 1: 50–69 </ref>
*]<ref>Jeanne Gowa, ''Ballots and Bullets: the Elusive Democratic Peace'', p.50</ref>


==]== ==17th century==
* The ] featured conflict between the ] and the ].
⚫ *]: Fought in ], with about 1000 estimated battle deaths. In both states, elections had been held with universal suffrage. In the polity scale, Poland received a +8 rating in combined democracy/autocracy in 1920, while Lithuania received a +7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy.<ref name="PIVP"/> The conflict is by both Polish and Lithuanian historians seen as a part of the wars of independence from the Soviet Union (see the article on the ]).
*]:<ref>Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965". ''Jerusalem Journal of International Relations'' 1: 50–69 </ref> A formal state of war between ] and ] resulting from the Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941; unlike the formal war between ] and Finland, there was actual, if limited, conflict between the two parties.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Gleditsch, Nils P. | title=Democracy and Peace | journal=Journal of Peace Research | year=1992 |volume=29(4) | pages= 369&ndash;376|url=http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199211%2929%3A4%3C369%3ADAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y | doi=10.1177/0022343392029004001 |issue=4 | ref=harv }}</ref>
⚫ *]: War fought in ] between ] and ]. The leaders of both countries had been ]. Ecuador receives a rating of +9 in the ] of combined democracy/autocracy, while Peru receives a +7, meaning that both countries are classified as democratic, and Ecuador even as "very democratic".<ref name="PIVP">{{cite web | title=Polity IV Project | url=http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm| accessdate=March 4, 2006}}</ref> However, the "war" involved only as high as two hundred deaths in battle. Furthermore, the Peruvian democracy was less than one year old and the Ecuadorian less than 3 years. In addition, both nations lacked democratic control over their militaries.<ref name="WEART98">{{cite book | author=Weart, Spencer R. | title=Never at War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1998 | id=ISBN 0-300-07017-9 }}</ref> p.&nbsp;70, 316.


==References== ==18th century==
* The ] and ] chose opposite sides in the ]
⚫ {{Reflist|2}}
* The ], a naval conflict from 1798 to 1800 between the ] and the ]. Neither side declared war.


==19th century==
{{DEFAULTSORT:List Of Wars Between Democracies}}
* ]<ref>Reiter, D. and Stam, A.C., ''Democracies at War''.</ref>
]
* ]<ref name="autogenerated51">John Mueller, "Is War Still Becoming Obsolete?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August–September 1991, p. 51.</ref> (civil war between cantons in Switzerland)
⚫ * ] between the ] and the ]<ref>Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965". ''Jerusalem Journal of International Relations'' 1: 50–69; Bruce Russett, ''Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security'' (1990), p. 123.</ref>
* ] between ] and ]<ref>Spiro, David E. (1994). "Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace". ''International Security'', Vol. 19, No. 2. (Autumn, 1994): 50–86.</ref>
* ] (1898): <!-- Spain in 1898 ranked 7 in Polity IV per McLaughlin & Vazquez, p. 17 --><ref>Gowa, Joanne (1999) ''Ballots and Bullets: the Elusive Democratic Peace'', p. 50.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Wang |first=Bella |date=2012-05-21 |title=Power, Domestic Politics, and the Spanish-American War |url=https://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/21/power-domestic-politics-and-the-spanish-american-war/ |access-date=2023-10-16 |website=E-International Relations |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Peceny |first=Mark |date=1997 |title=A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/424863 |journal=Journal of Peace Research |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=415–430 |doi=10.1177/0022343397034004004 |jstor=424863 |issn=0022-3433}}</ref> Due to ], an institutionalized scheme of systematic electoral fraud, the government of Spain during the Spanish-American War is considered neither democratic nor parliamentary in Spanish historiography.<ref name="Varela2001">{{cite book
| last = Varela Ortega
| first = José
| author-link = José Varela Ortega
| title = Los amigos políticos. Partidos, elecciones y caciquismo en la Restauración (1875–1900) ''(in Spanish)''
| others = Prologue by ]
| year = 2001
| orig-year = 1977
| publisher = Marcial Pons
| location = Madrid
| isbn = 84-7846-993-1
| page = 101
| quote = " fue un régimen liberal, no democrático."
}}</ref> However, it is also considered "more pluralistic than the ] period".<ref>{{harvnb|Varela Ortega|2001|p=150}}</ref>
* ] and ]s between the ] and the ]/]<ref>Bruce Russett, ''Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security'' (1990), p.123; on the ] as direct democracy, see also ''The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics'' 2:74; in general, see Dean V. Babst. "Elective Governments – A Force For Peace". ''The Wisconsin Sociologist'' 3 (1, 1964): 9–14 (he writes of, and defines, ''freely elective governments'', but his papers have been taken as the founding of democratic peace theory, and cited as being about democracies); Raymond Cohen, "Pacific unions: a reappraisal of the theory that 'democracies do not go to war with each other{{'"}}, ''Review of International Studies'' 20 (3, 1994) 207–223.</ref>

==20th century==
* ] (1912–13): The ] had established a constitutional government in ] in 1908, and continued to struggle for greater ].<ref>Ayhat Kansu, ''Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913''</ref> Since 1879 ] had a ]; the "relatively democratic" Constitution of ] had been restored in 1903, and attained complete openness of executive recruitment. Bulgaria and its allies, the constitutional monarchies of Serbia, ] and ], won the war; Turkey suffered a military coup as a result of defeat.<ref>Mansfield and Snyder, ''Electing to Fight'', MIT Press, 2007; pp. 210–11, 221.</ref>
* ]: The Polity IV dataset does not rank any of the ] as democracies, although the component of democracy for ] had been higher than that of autocracy since the 1890s, when ] was replaced by ];<ref>Mansfield and Snyder, ''Electing to Fight'', MIT Press, 2007; p. 200</ref> neither does the somewhat controversial<ref>Vanhanen calls his own methodology of ranking democracies approximate, and subject to short-term variation; others call it "unacceptable", and using "invalid" or "controversial" indicators; see Tatu Vanhanen, ''Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries'', Routledge, 2003, p. 36, 61. He primarily uses it to measure and compare long-term trends in the democracy of single countries, in which such fluctuations will cancel out.</ref> ranking of ].<ref>Tatu Vanhanen, ''Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries'', Routledge, 2003, p72</ref> On the other hand, all of the Central Powers had elected parliaments; the ] had been elected by universal manhood suffrage, and voted on whether a credit essential to the German conduct of the war should be granted. Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is "a difficult case";<ref name=":1" /> the constitution of the German Empire required that the ] consent to wars other than defensive wars; <ref>{{Cite book |last=Wright |first=Herbert Francis |title=The Constitutions of the States at War, 1914-1918 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |year=1919 |pages=223 |language=en}}</ref> ] concludes, however, that the government was not absolutely dependent on the ] – and that Germany was a ], effectively a mixture of two different constitutions, and democratic on internal affairs.<ref name=":1">Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". ''Philosophy and Public Affairs'' 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): p. 216</ref>
* ]: A war taking place from January 1919 to July 1921, over that period a total of 2,300 people died in the war, 900 of which were civilians. In the ] ] had won 72% of the seats in Ireland which formed the democratic mandate for Irish Independence and the formation of the ].
⚫ * ]: Fought in 1920, with about 1,000 estimated battle deaths. In both states, elections had been held with universal suffrage. In the polity scale, ] received a +8 rating in combined democracy/autocracy in 1920, while ] received a +7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy.<ref name="PIVP" />
* ] (World War II):<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Small | first1 = Melvin | last2 = Singer | first2 = David J. | year = 1976 | title = The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965 | journal = Jerusalem Journal of International Relations | volume = 1 | pages = 50–69 }}</ref> During the Second World War, a formal state of war between Great Britain (and Australia and Canada) versus Finland existed due to Finland going to war with their ally the Soviet Union in 1941. There was slight conflict between the United Kingdom and Finland, including ], with associated attacks on Finnish shipping, such as the capture of the Finnish freighter ''Modesta'' by an armed trawler on 5 June 1941,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wiberg |first=Eric |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UpgxDwAAQBAJ&dq=UK+war+%22Finnish+ship%22&pg=PT116 |title=U-Boats off Bermuda: Patrol Summaries and Merchant Ship Survivors Landed in Bermuda 1940–1944 |date=2017 |publisher=Fonthill Media |pages=18 |language=en}}</ref> although that took place some months before the declaration of war.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Gleditsch |first=Nils P. | title=Democracy and Peace | journal=Journal of Peace Research | year=1992 |volume=29 | pages= 369–376| doi=10.1177/0022343392029004001 |issue=4 | jstor=425538|s2cid=110790206 }}</ref><ref>Wayman, Frank (2002). "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 23–27, 2002</ref>
* ]: as against ]; ] had not yet held elections.<ref>Bruce Russett, ''Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security'' (1990), p.123: "the nearest exception"; Russett notes that Singer and Small (see note on the Continuation War) do not count Israel as yet being a democracy.</ref>
* ]: Ranked as a full-scale war between democracies in the ] dataset;<ref name=autogenerated1>Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p.120</ref> they present a table of crises ranking it as a full-scale war, cite it as an example of a crisis where both regimes were of the same type, and discuss the influence of ]'s democracy on the crisis and the related crises over other princely states.<ref>Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, ''Crises in the Twentieth Century'', I, 129, 122, 209–210; they do not generally disaggregate the differences in regime type (democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government) in each pair of states from other differences between states, and differences between other states in the same crisis. For a briefer discussion of the emerging democracy of India and the ultimately unsuccessful democracy of the Dominion of Pakistan, see Mansfield and Snyder, ''Electing to Fight'', MIT Press, 2007; pp. 241–242.</ref> There were fewer than a thousand battlefield casualties in this war.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> Both countries, then ]s, then had governments based on the ], implemented 1937, which set up ] for all of ];<ref>Imtiaz Omar: ''Emergency powers and the courts in India and Pakistan'', 2002, p.2</ref> in ], the politicians, at odds with the civilian bureaucracy, failed to maintain civilian control over the military, and converted the ] into a political office; there was a military coup ten years after the war; the Polity IV dataset counts it as anocratic until 1957–58 (see ]), the years before the coup; the same dataset shows India as having been a stable democracy throughout the period.<ref>''Cambridge History of India'', Volume IV, part 1, "Politics of India since independence", p. 61; for more discussion of the destruction of Pakistan's first democracy, see Ian Talbot, ''A short history of Pakistan'', chapter 5, which cites the detailed history of the period; Allan McGrath, ''The Destruction of Pakistan's Democracy'' (1998). For Polity IV, see Diehl, Goertz and Saeedi, "Theoretical specifications of enduring rivalries", pp. 27–54 in T. V. Paul, ''The India–Pakistan Conflict; An Enduring Rivalry'' (2005), pp. 47–48, which considers a difference of +7 the line marking full democracy.</ref>
* ]: Protracted fishing disputes between the United Kingdom and ], opposing the naval forces of both countries.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cohen|first=Raymond|date=July 1994|title=Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory That 'Democracies Do Not Go to War with Each Other'|journal=Review of International Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=20|issue=3 |pages=207–223|doi=10.1017/S0260210500118030 |s2cid=144275086 }}</ref>
* ]: Indian forces repelled the Pakistani intervention into ] and Kashmir, before the UN negotiated a ceasefire between the two burgeoning powers.
* ]: The ] intervened against Israel, while both Israel and Lebanon were democratic states.<ref>Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". ''Philosophy and Public Affairs'' 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): 205–235</ref><ref>Parker T. Hart. "A New American Policy towards the Middle East". ''Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science'', Vol. 390, A New American Posture toward Asia (July 1970), pp. 98–113</ref>
* ] (Soccer War): War fought in 1969 between ] and ].<ref>David Churchman, ''Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict'', University Press of America (2005), p. 143</ref>
* ]: An invasion by ], which had a new democratic government since 1973;<ref>Mansfield and Snyder, ''Electing to Fight'' (2007), pp. 223–225; they also apply their theory that a democratizing regime tends to be belligerent to hold itself together to the military government in Greece, which was not directly involved in the war.</ref> ] had been a constitutional democracy, although one with severe intercommunal problems, since independence in 1958;<ref>Library of Congress Country Study: Cyprus, Chapter I</ref> the Turkish military operation was a response to a coup. The democratic order of the Republic of Cyprus was restored three days after the invasion, and the war continued for another month.<ref>Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, ''Crises in the Twentieth Century'', I, 305–06, p. 128 ranks it as a full scale war.</ref> ] regards this as a debatable case of dual democracy.<ref>Virginia Page Fortna: ''Peace time: cease-fire agreements and the durability of peace''. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2004; pp. 110–111.</ref>
⚫ * ]: War fought in 1981 between ] and ]. The leaders of both countries had been ]. Ecuador receives a rating of +9 in the ] of combined democracy/autocracy, while Peru receives a +7, meaning that both countries are classified as democratic, and Ecuador even as "very democratic".<ref name="PIVP">{{Cite web | title=Polity IV Project | url=http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm| access-date=March 4, 2006}}</ref> However, the Peruvian democracy was less than one year old and the Ecuadorian less than 3 years. In addition, both nations lacked democratic control over their militaries.<ref name="WEART98">{{cite book | author=Weart, Spencer R. | title=Never at War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-300-07017-0 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/neveratwarwhydem00wear }} p.&nbsp;70, 316.</ref>
* ]: ], the ] and ] became multiparty democracies after their declarations of independence in 1991.<ref name=":2" />
* ]: ], ], ], ], ] and the ] were all formal multiparty democracies,<ref name=":0" /><ref>Antić, Miljenko and Vlahovec, Jadranka (2013). . ''Hrčak'' (). ].</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tarzi |first=Shah M. |date=December 2007 |title=Democratic Peace, Illiberal Democracy and conflict behaviour |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20752801 |journal=International Journal on World Peace |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=48 |jstor=20752801}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pavlovic |first=Dusan |author-link=Dušan Pavlović (economist) |date=27 May 2005 |title=Democratisation in Southeast Europe. An Introduction to Election Issues: Competitive Authoritarianism In South East Europe |url=http://www.policy.hu/pavlovic/Bibliografija/Chapter3.pdf |journal=Southeast European Research Centre |location=Thessaloniki, Greece |pages=3}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Democracy and Peace in the Global Revolution |url=https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~hafa3/democracy.htm |access-date=2024-09-11 |website=users.sussex.ac.uk}}</ref> although some of their leaders, particularly ], had been often described as authoritarian or autocratic.<ref>{{Cite web |title=BBC News {{!}} Europe {{!}} Milosevic: Serbia's fallen strongman |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/931018.stm |access-date=2024-09-11 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cohen |first=Lenard J. |date=March 2001 |title=Post-Milosevic Serbia |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/45318583 |journal=Current History |volume=100 |issue=644 |pages=99–108 |doi=10.1525/curh.2001.100.644.99 |jstor=45318583}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hall |first=Gregory O. |date=June 1999 |title=The Politics of Autocracy: Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic |url=https://www.proquest.com/openview/be72333cd03508a59d93a4c7669d2de9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47966 |journal=East European Quarterly |volume=XXXIII |issue=2 |pages=233–49 |via=ProQuest}}</ref> Croatia's ]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sadkovich |first=James J. |date=2010 |title=Forging Consensus: How Franjo Tuđman Became an Authoritarian Nationalist |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/67472 |journal=Review of Croatian History |language=en |volume=VI |issue=1 |pages=7–35 |issn=1845-4380}}</ref><ref name="The Rise of Competitive Authoritari">{{cite journal |last1=Levitski |first1=Steven |last2=Way |first2=Lucan |date=April 2002 |title=The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism |journal=Journal of Democracy |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=51–65 |doi=10.1353/jod.2002.0026 |s2cid=6711009}}</ref> and Bosnia's ].<ref>, ''The New York Times'', 20 October 2003</ref> were labeled in the same way, in the case of Itzebegovic also accused of ideological links with ].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bezruchenko |first=Viktor |title=The Civil War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95) |publisher=Raphael Israeli |year=2022 |isbn=9781682357125 |pages=93}}</ref>
* ]: A brief 1995 continuation of the Paquisha War between Ecuador and Peru.<ref>{{Cite book |title = Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy|url = https://archive.org/details/regionalordersat00soli|url-access = limited|last = Solingen|first = Etel|publisher = Princeton University Press|year = 1998|isbn = 0691058806|pages = }}</ref>
* 1999 ]: both ] and ] were considered democratic states at the time of the war.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Webb |first=A. J. |date=2009 |title=Reality or Rhetoric: The Democratic Peace Theory |ssrn=2169672 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2169672}}</ref>

==See also==
* ]

==References==
⚫ {{Reflist|32em}}


{{portalbar|politics}}
]
]
]
]
]
⚫ ]

Latest revision as of 13:29, 22 November 2024

Part of a series on
War
(outline)
History
Military
Battlespace
Weapons
TacticsList of military tactics
Operational
StrategyList of military strategies and concepts
Grand strategy
Administrative
Organization
Personnel
Logistics
Science
Law
Theory
Non-warfare
Culture
Related
Lists
Part of the Politics series
Democracy
Types
Related topics
Region
icon Politics portal

This is an incomplete list of wars between entities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government and actually practice it. Two points are required: that there has been a war, and that there are democracies on at least two opposing sides. For many of these entries, whether there has been a war, or a democracy, is a debatable question; all significant views should be given.

Definition dependence

See also: Democratic peace theory, History of democracy, and Types of democracy

Almost all of these depend on the definition of "democracy" (and of "war") employed. Some democracy indices, such as V-Dem Democracy indices, instead of classifying democracies give a quantitative metric without a threshold. As James Lee Ray points out, with a sufficiently restrictive definition of democracy, there will be no wars between democracies: define democracy as true universal suffrage, the right of all – including children – to vote, and there have been no democracies, and so no wars between them. The interactive model of democratic peace found in V-Dem Democracy Indices gradual influences from both democracy score and political similarity on wars and militarized interstate disputes.

On the other hand, Ray lists the following as having been called wars between democracies, with broader definitions of democracy: The American Revolution including the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, the French Revolutionary Wars, the War of 1812, the Belgian Revolution, the Sonderbund War, the war of 1849 between the Roman Republic (1849–1850) and the Second French Republic, the American Civil War, the Spanish–American War, the Second Philippine War, the Second Boer War, World War I, World War II (as a whole, and also the Continuation War by itself), the 1947–1949 Palestine war, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, the Six-Day War, the Yugoslav Wars, and the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. The mean democracy scores over the pairs of countries at war are on the low end and consistent with the interactive model of democratic peace.

Similarly, the school of Ted Robert Gurr, founder of the Polity IV dataset, divides regimes into three classes: democracies, autocracies, and "anocracies"; the last being the sort of weak or new states which are marginal democracies or marginal autocracies; many of the wars below involve weak or marginal democracies.

Jack Snyder and Edward D. S. Mansfield challenge instead the democratic peace theory by stating that "countries undergoing incomplete democratization with weak institutions are more likely than other states to initiate war". The authors point out mostly to emerging democracies in Eastern and Central Europe. The collapse of authoritarian institutions during the democratization process has the potential of making transition "fraught and unestable". Ethnic-nationalist conflicts, suppressed during communist rule, resumed once the democratization brought partisan tendencies to the surface.

Antiquity

Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War included a great many conflicts among Greek city-states. The principal war was between Athens and its allies (most of them democracies) on one side, and Sparta and its allies (most of them oligarchies—although most of them held elections among a citizen body) on the other. However, the war lasted for twenty-seven years, with a brief armistice, and a great many side-conflicts occurred; and states changed from democracy to oligarchy and back again. Most notable of the wars between democracies was the Sicilian Expedition, 415–413 BC, in which Athens went to war with Syracuse. Bruce Russett finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs. Classicist Mogens Herman Hansen thinks one of Russett's examples unlikely, but adds several instances of wars between democracies before and after the Peloponnesian War.

Second and Third Punic Wars

The democratic Constitution of the Roman Republic, before its collapse in the late 1st century BC, is amply documented; its magistrates (including the Roman Senate, which was composed of current and former magistrates) were elected by universal suffrage by adult (male) citizens; all male citizens were eligible. There was a political class of wealthy men; most successful candidates belonged to this class, and all of them were supported by a party drawn from it, but this does not distinguish Rome from other democracies—nor, indeed, from non-democratic states; freedom of speech was, however, a characteristic difference between the Republic and the later Roman Empire. The Punic Wars. The old constitution of Carthage, before the First Punic War, was described by Aristotle as a mixture of democracy and oligarchy; after the disastrous end of that war, about 240 BC, there was a democratic change, the direct election of a pair of executives, and the Second Punic War was fought under that constitution; there continued to be an oligarchic party. There were several further changes of party, and democratic reforms; the election of the democratic party, which favored a less passive foreign policy, in 151 BC, provoked Rome to begin the Third Punic War two years later.

17th century

18th century

19th century

20th century

  • First Balkan War (1912–13): The Young Turks had established a constitutional government in Ottoman Turkey in 1908, and continued to struggle for greater liberalization. Since 1879 Bulgaria had a democratic Constitution; the "relatively democratic" Constitution of Serbia had been restored in 1903, and attained complete openness of executive recruitment. Bulgaria and its allies, the constitutional monarchies of Serbia, Greece and Montenegro, won the war; Turkey suffered a military coup as a result of defeat.
  • First World War: The Polity IV dataset does not rank any of the Central Powers as democracies, although the component of democracy for Germany had been higher than that of autocracy since the 1890s, when Bismarck was replaced by Leo von Caprivi; neither does the somewhat controversial ranking of Tatu Vanhanen. On the other hand, all of the Central Powers had elected parliaments; the Reichstag had been elected by universal manhood suffrage, and voted on whether a credit essential to the German conduct of the war should be granted. Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is "a difficult case"; the constitution of the German Empire required that the Bundesrat consent to wars other than defensive wars; Michael W. Doyle concludes, however, that the government was not absolutely dependent on the Reichstag – and that Germany was a dyarchy, effectively a mixture of two different constitutions, and democratic on internal affairs.
  • Irish War of Independence: A war taking place from January 1919 to July 1921, over that period a total of 2,300 people died in the war, 900 of which were civilians. In the December 1918 general election Sinn Féin had won 72% of the seats in Ireland which formed the democratic mandate for Irish Independence and the formation of the new parliament of Ireland.
  • Polish–Lithuanian War: Fought in 1920, with about 1,000 estimated battle deaths. In both states, elections had been held with universal suffrage. In the polity scale, Poland received a +8 rating in combined democracy/autocracy in 1920, while Lithuania received a +7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy.
  • Continuation War (World War II): During the Second World War, a formal state of war between Great Britain (and Australia and Canada) versus Finland existed due to Finland going to war with their ally the Soviet Union in 1941. There was slight conflict between the United Kingdom and Finland, including an air raid against Finnish territory, with associated attacks on Finnish shipping, such as the capture of the Finnish freighter Modesta by an armed trawler on 5 June 1941, although that took place some months before the declaration of war.
  • 1947–1949 Palestine war: as against Lebanon; Israel had not yet held elections.
  • First Kashmir War: Ranked as a full-scale war between democracies in the International Crisis Behavior dataset; they present a table of crises ranking it as a full-scale war, cite it as an example of a crisis where both regimes were of the same type, and discuss the influence of India's democracy on the crisis and the related crises over other princely states. There were fewer than a thousand battlefield casualties in this war. Both countries, then Dominions, then had governments based on the Government of India Act 1935, implemented 1937, which set up Westminster democracy for all of British India; in Pakistan, the politicians, at odds with the civilian bureaucracy, failed to maintain civilian control over the military, and converted the Governor-Generalship into a political office; there was a military coup ten years after the war; the Polity IV dataset counts it as anocratic until 1957–58 (see above), the years before the coup; the same dataset shows India as having been a stable democracy throughout the period.
  • Cod Wars: Protracted fishing disputes between the United Kingdom and Iceland, opposing the naval forces of both countries.
  • 1965 Indo-Pakistani War: Indian forces repelled the Pakistani intervention into Jammu and Kashmir, before the UN negotiated a ceasefire between the two burgeoning powers.
  • Six-Day War: The Lebanese Air Force intervened against Israel, while both Israel and Lebanon were democratic states.
  • Football War (Soccer War): War fought in 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras.
  • Turkish invasion of Cyprus: An invasion by Turkey, which had a new democratic government since 1973; Cyprus had been a constitutional democracy, although one with severe intercommunal problems, since independence in 1958; the Turkish military operation was a response to a coup. The democratic order of the Republic of Cyprus was restored three days after the invasion, and the war continued for another month. Page Fortna regards this as a debatable case of dual democracy.
  • Paquisha War: War fought in 1981 between Ecuador and Peru. The leaders of both countries had been democratically elected. Ecuador receives a rating of +9 in the polity scale of combined democracy/autocracy, while Peru receives a +7, meaning that both countries are classified as democratic, and Ecuador even as "very democratic". However, the Peruvian democracy was less than one year old and the Ecuadorian less than 3 years. In addition, both nations lacked democratic control over their militaries.
  • First Nagorno-Karabakh War: Armenia, the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan became multiparty democracies after their declarations of independence in 1991.
  • Yugoslav Wars: Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro and the Serb Autonomous Regions were all formal multiparty democracies, although some of their leaders, particularly Solobodan Milosevic, had been often described as authoritarian or autocratic. Croatia's Franjo Tudjman and Bosnia's Alija Itzebegovic. were labeled in the same way, in the case of Itzebegovic also accused of ideological links with Islamic fundamentalism.
  • Cenepa War: A brief 1995 continuation of the Paquisha War between Ecuador and Peru.
  • 1999 Kargil War: both India and Pakistan were considered democratic states at the time of the war.

See also

References

  1. ^ Altman, D., Rojas-de-Galarreta, F., & Urdinez, F. (2021). An interactive model of democratic peace. Journal of Peace Research, 58(3), 384–398.
  2. ^ James Lee Ray: "Wars between democracies: Rare, or nonexistent?", International Interactions Volume 18, Issue 3 February 1993, pages 251–276; child suffrage and from Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p. 88. Restricted definitions of democracy can also be constructed which define away all wars between democracies, and yet include many regimes often held to be democratic; Ray finds this more rhetorically effective than saying that full-scale international war between established democracies with wide suffrage is less likely than between other pairs of states.
  3. Ze'ev Maoz, Nasrin Abdolali, "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976", Journal of Conflict Resolution vol. 33, no. 1 (March 1986) pp. 3–35.
  4. "Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, Edward D. S. Mansfield and Jack Snyder – Irénées". www.irenees.net. Retrieved 2024-09-16.
  5. Mansfield, Edward; Snyder, Jack (2005). Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 9780262134491.
  6. ^ Mkrtchyan, Tigran (2007). "Democratization and the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh" (PDF). Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG).
  7. Bruce M. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace, p. 47–71; Russett, one of the few to consider the democratic peace before 1750, thinks it likely that the norm of interdemocratic peace developed gradually through the centuries.
  8. Hansen et al.: An inventory of archaic and classical poleis (2005), pp. 85 et seq.
  9. Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (1939, repr. and revised 1962), including the view on the oligarchy behind all constitutions.
  10. David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Press of America (2005), p.143, who discusses Rome and Carthage.
  11. Serge Lancel: History of Carthage (1993, Eng. tr. 1995) pp. 116–120, 411; Richard Miles "Carthage must be destroyed" (2010): 214, 318, 337
  12. Reiter, D. and Stam, A.C., Democracies at War.
  13. John Mueller, "Is War Still Becoming Obsolete?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August–September 1991, p. 51.
  14. Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965". Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1: 50–69; Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p. 123.
  15. Spiro, David E. (1994). "Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace". International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Autumn, 1994): 50–86.
  16. Gowa, Joanne (1999) Ballots and Bullets: the Elusive Democratic Peace, p. 50.
  17. Wang, Bella (2012-05-21). "Power, Domestic Politics, and the Spanish-American War". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
  18. Peceny, Mark (1997). "A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War". Journal of Peace Research. 34 (4): 415–430. doi:10.1177/0022343397034004004. ISSN 0022-3433. JSTOR 424863.
  19. Varela Ortega, José (2001) . Los amigos políticos. Partidos, elecciones y caciquismo en la Restauración (1875–1900) (in Spanish). Prologue by Raymond Carr. Madrid: Marcial Pons. p. 101. ISBN 84-7846-993-1. fue un régimen liberal, no democrático.
  20. Varela Ortega 2001, p. 150
  21. Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123; on the Orange Free State as direct democracy, see also The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics 2:74; in general, see Dean V. Babst. "Elective Governments – A Force For Peace". The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9–14 (he writes of, and defines, freely elective governments, but his papers have been taken as the founding of democratic peace theory, and cited as being about democracies); Raymond Cohen, "Pacific unions: a reappraisal of the theory that 'democracies do not go to war with each other'", Review of International Studies 20 (3, 1994) 207–223.
  22. Ayhat Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913
  23. Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; pp. 210–11, 221.
  24. Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; p. 200
  25. Vanhanen calls his own methodology of ranking democracies approximate, and subject to short-term variation; others call it "unacceptable", and using "invalid" or "controversial" indicators; see Tatu Vanhanen, Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, Routledge, 2003, p. 36, 61. He primarily uses it to measure and compare long-term trends in the democracy of single countries, in which such fluctuations will cancel out.
  26. Tatu Vanhanen, Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, Routledge, 2003, p72
  27. ^ Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): p. 216
  28. Wright, Herbert Francis (1919). The Constitutions of the States at War, 1914-1918. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 223.
  29. ^ "Polity IV Project". Retrieved March 4, 2006.
  30. Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965". Jerusalem Journal of International Relations. 1: 50–69.
  31. Wiberg, Eric (2017). U-Boats off Bermuda: Patrol Summaries and Merchant Ship Survivors Landed in Bermuda 1940–1944. Fonthill Media. p. 18.
  32. Gleditsch, Nils P. (1992). "Democracy and Peace". Journal of Peace Research. 29 (4): 369–376. doi:10.1177/0022343392029004001. JSTOR 425538. S2CID 110790206.
  33. Wayman, Frank (2002). "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 23–27, 2002
  34. Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123: "the nearest exception"; Russett notes that Singer and Small (see note on the Continuation War) do not count Israel as yet being a democracy.
  35. ^ Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p.120
  36. Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 129, 122, 209–210; they do not generally disaggregate the differences in regime type (democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government) in each pair of states from other differences between states, and differences between other states in the same crisis. For a briefer discussion of the emerging democracy of India and the ultimately unsuccessful democracy of the Dominion of Pakistan, see Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; pp. 241–242.
  37. Imtiaz Omar: Emergency powers and the courts in India and Pakistan, 2002, p.2
  38. Cambridge History of India, Volume IV, part 1, "Politics of India since independence", p. 61; for more discussion of the destruction of Pakistan's first democracy, see Ian Talbot, A short history of Pakistan, chapter 5, which cites the detailed history of the period; Allan McGrath, The Destruction of Pakistan's Democracy (1998). For Polity IV, see Diehl, Goertz and Saeedi, "Theoretical specifications of enduring rivalries", pp. 27–54 in T. V. Paul, The India–Pakistan Conflict; An Enduring Rivalry (2005), pp. 47–48, which considers a difference of +7 the line marking full democracy.
  39. Cohen, Raymond (July 1994). "Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory That 'Democracies Do Not Go to War with Each Other'". Review of International Studies. 20 (3). Cambridge University Press: 207–223. doi:10.1017/S0260210500118030. S2CID 144275086.
  40. Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): 205–235
  41. Parker T. Hart. "A New American Policy towards the Middle East". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 390, A New American Posture toward Asia (July 1970), pp. 98–113
  42. David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Press of America (2005), p. 143
  43. Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight (2007), pp. 223–225; they also apply their theory that a democratizing regime tends to be belligerent to hold itself together to the military government in Greece, which was not directly involved in the war.
  44. Library of Congress Country Study: Cyprus, Chapter I
  45. Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 305–06, p. 128 ranks it as a full scale war.
  46. Virginia Page Fortna: Peace time: cease-fire agreements and the durability of peace. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2004; pp. 110–111.
  47. Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-07017-0. p. 70, 316.
  48. Antić, Miljenko and Vlahovec, Jadranka (2013). "'Democratic War': Democratic Peace Theory and the War in Former Yugoslavia". Hrčak (Croatian scholarly journals). University of Zagreb.
  49. Tarzi, Shah M. (December 2007). "Democratic Peace, Illiberal Democracy and conflict behaviour". International Journal on World Peace. 24 (4): 48. JSTOR 20752801.
  50. Pavlovic, Dusan (27 May 2005). "Democratisation in Southeast Europe. An Introduction to Election Issues: Competitive Authoritarianism In South East Europe" (PDF). Southeast European Research Centre. Thessaloniki, Greece: 3.
  51. "Democracy and Peace in the Global Revolution". users.sussex.ac.uk. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  52. "BBC News | Europe | Milosevic: Serbia's fallen strongman". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  53. Cohen, Lenard J. (March 2001). "Post-Milosevic Serbia". Current History. 100 (644): 99–108. doi:10.1525/curh.2001.100.644.99. JSTOR 45318583.
  54. Hall, Gregory O. (June 1999). "The Politics of Autocracy: Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic". East European Quarterly. XXXIII (2): 233–49 – via ProQuest.
  55. Sadkovich, James J. (2010). "Forging Consensus: How Franjo Tuđman Became an Authoritarian Nationalist". Review of Croatian History. VI (1): 7–35. ISSN 1845-4380.
  56. Levitski, Steven; Way, Lucan (April 2002). "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 51–65. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026. S2CID 6711009.
  57. "Alija Izetbegović, Muslim Who Led Bosnia, Dies at 78", The New York Times, 20 October 2003
  58. Bezruchenko, Viktor (2022). The Civil War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95). Raphael Israeli. p. 93. ISBN 9781682357125.
  59. Solingen, Etel (1998). Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy. Princeton University Press. pp. 96. ISBN 0691058806.
  60. Webb, A. J. (2009). "Reality or Rhetoric: The Democratic Peace Theory". SSRN 2169672.
Portal: Categories: