| Revision as of 20:41, 16 June 2010 editOpenFuture (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,245 edits →Near-Wars between democracies: "Near-wars"?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:43, 16 June 2010 edit undoOpenFuture (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,245 edits Reverted vandalism.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Merge|Democratic peace theory|discuss=Talk:List of wars between democracies#Move proposal|date=June 2010}} | |||
| {{technical|section=|date=April 2009}} | |||
| {{Expert-subject|date=April 2009}} | |||
| This is a partial list of military conflicts which, according to opponents of the ], constitute exceptions to the claim that, "Democracies do not make war on each other." The argument of DPT critics is that even one exception is sufficient to disprove the theory, and they believe they have provided at least one exception. That is, the critics maintain that the size of the "list of wars between democracies" is greater than zero. | |||
| {{Expand|date=August 2009}} | |||
| {{POV|date=August 2009}} | |||
| Due to widely varying definitions of the classifications "democracy" and "war", there is substantial debate in the literature regarding criteria for inclusion in this list (for more information, see the debate over ], which asserts that democracies tend not to go to war with one another<ref>Versions by ], ], and ] deny that this ever happens; other forms assert strong correlations between democracy and mutual peace. {{citation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=22jupg3FqdYC|page=85|title=An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis|author=Thomas Heine Nielsen}}</ref>). Inclusion of each item in this list should thus be understood as indicating that it is the subject of debate, rather than as an authoritative statement as to its correct classification. For each item, a brief overview is offered as well as arguments for and against its inclusion, as appropriate. | |||
| ==Tribal/ancient== | |||
| ===Tribal conflicts=== | |||
| An example of this type of conflict was frequent raids on and eventual destruction of most of the ] by the ]. Both tribes had some democratic elements but they were not liberal democratic states but rather tribes formed by extended ] groups. The historian ] argues that the most important difference was the lack of control of personal raids against non-kinship groups which eventually escalated into ]s and wars.<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. 253-254. | |||
| ==Early ]== | |||
| ===Wars involving the ]=== | ===Wars involving the ]=== | ||
| <!-- This section is unclear, as it does not indicate the names of the two "democratic" countries. Also, there was "maneuvering" which sheds doubt on whether the Athenian decision to initiate the war was a democratic one. --> | |||
| Most notable of these was the ], ]-], during which over 1000 were killed in battle. Many of the ] in ] had democratic political systems. One researcher, Bruce Russet, finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs. | |||
| Most notable of these was the ], ]-], Many of the ] in ] had democratic political systems. One researcher, ], finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs. | |||
| Athens, like other Greek democracies, 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 | | 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> | |||
| accessdate=2006-07-28}}</ref> Metics and immigrants had the right to own property (but not land except through a special permission), limited but considerable legal rights and protections, and freedom of speech.<ref name="GREECE2">{{cite paper | author=Hunter, Virginia| title=Introduction: Status Distinctions in Athenian Law| url=http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-924011-6.pdf | work=Oxford University Press| format = PDF | | |||
| accessdate=2006-07-28}}</ref> Female citizen had no political rights and were required to have a male "legal guardian", but could be appointed to religious offices and were guaranteed legal and property rights.<ref name="GREECE3">{{cite web | author=Martin, Thomas R. | title=An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander | url=http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009%3Achapter%3D9%3Asection%3D3| work=Chicago University | accessdate=2006-07-28}}</ref> Only slaves had little or no rights, and limited legal protection against being beaten or killed (even if according to ]<ref name="GREECE1">{{cite web | author=Xenophon | title=The polity of Athenian and Lacedaemonian, chapter 1 | url=http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/historical/PolityofAtheniansandLacedaemonians/chap2.html | work=World Wide School | accessdate=2006-07-28}}</ref> they had many privileges with respect to slaves in other countries in ancient times), but the same applies to slaves in the early United States. | |||
| The researcher James Lee Ray argues that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies. The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting ] and ]. At most half, and probably less, of the adult males in Athens could vote. He argues that in classical times the modern concept of ] or ] did not exist. Decisions in these ancient city states were formed mainly either by leaders selected by ] or by ]. Both methods are very different from decisions made by leaders selected by elections. | The researcher ] argues that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies. The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting ] and ]. At most half, and probably less, of the adult males in Athens could vote. He argues that in classical times the modern concept of ] or ] did not exist. Decisions in these ancient city states were formed mainly either by leaders selected by ] or by ]. Both methods are very different from decisions made by leaders selected by elections. | ||
| ===Wars involving the ]=== | ===Wars involving the ]=== | ||
| In particular, the ], ]-], with over 1000 deaths in battle. The leaders in both ] and ] were elected. However, both states usually considered oligarchies. The Roman Republic had large numbers of non-voting slaves, former slaves, Italian allies, and foreigners. Roman citizens had different political rights based on heredity and wealth. The ] had considerable power and was dominated by noble families. See also the discussion in '']'' regarding whether there is enough information about Carthage to determine the exact form of government there at the start of each of these wars.<ref name="McManus"></ref><ref name="UNRV"></ref><ref name="Kondrat"></ref><ref name="Pennell"></ref> "In practice, however, the constitution became an oligarchy."<ref name="Gowen"></ref> | In particular, the ], ]-], with over 1000 deaths in battle. The leaders in both ] and ] were elected. However, both states are usually considered oligarchies. The Roman Republic had large numbers of non-voting slaves, former slaves, Italian allies, and foreigners. Roman citizens had different political rights based on heredity and wealth. The ] had considerable power and was dominated by noble families. See also the discussion in '']'' regarding whether there is enough information about Carthage to determine the exact form of government there at the start of each of these wars.<ref name="McManus"></ref><ref name="UNRV"></ref><ref name="Kondrat"></ref><ref name="Pennell"></ref> | ||
| ==]== | |||
| ===] War=== | |||
| Conflict in ]. A majority of males had the right to vote in most Cantons on both sides. The fact that the Catholic cantons refused to comply with the decisions of the ] (federal parliament) simply means that from that point on they refuse to accept the federal authority and consider themselves as individual states with their own parliament: it's the start of the civil war. Less than 1000 battle deaths: fewer than a hundred. Democracy was less than 3 years old in ] which was the leading Protestant ]. The Catholic Cantons restricted the suffrage to Catholic men and in many also to a group that descended from the original inhabitants. The Protestants and liberals attempted a rebellion in Catholic ] but were defeated. Some fled what they called a Catholic "reign of terror". Lucerne announced that ] would be responsible for the higher education system. This was perceived by Protestants and liberals as evidence that Lucerne was now a regime under the thumb of the autocratic Pope. A private expedition of volunteers tried to "liberate" Lucerne but failed. The perceptions of nondemocracy was strengthened when the Catholic Cantons refused to comply with the majority of the ] and turned for aid to foreign Catholic powers like the ].<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 26-27, 309-310. ] had once gained independence from autocratic Habsburg rulers and had also later fought several wars with them. | |||
| ===] vs. ]=== | |||
| Fought in ], at which time the leaders of both states had been democratically elected. ] receives a +6 in the Polity scale (democratic).<ref name="PIVP"/> The ] was too brief to be rated, but it approved a quite advanced constitution,<ref name=ROMANA1>{{cite web | title=Costituzione della Repubblica Romana, 1849 | url=http://www.ossimoro.it/p41.htm | work=(in Italian) | accessdate=2006-07-28}}</ref> which introduced universal suffrage, freedom of religion and, for the first time in the world, abolished the ]. President ] was elected in a landslide victory with around 75% of votes. In the 1849 elections, the conservatives won a majority of popular vote and had over 200 seats more than the opposition. Both electoral results were unambiguous and undisputed. In France there was indeed an institutional conflict between the Legislative, represented by the Constitutional Assembly, which approved the expeditionary force believing it was a "peacekeeping" mission, and the Executive, represented by Prime Minister ] and President ], who ordered hostile action towards the Roman Republic and essentially authorized General Oudinot to take its own decision regarding a possible occupation of Rome ("Occupy Civitavecchia even if you find armed resistance, but only enter Rome if there is danger of an imminent counter-revolution"), but the conflict was later resolved, since hostilities were interrupted by a ceasefire and negotiations when a direct deliberation of the Assembly ordered the Executive to do so, and were only restarted when a new Assembly was elected, with a large conservative majority. As the new Assembly was installed Napoleon ordered reinforcements to Rome and put it under siege. The left opposition then asked impeachment of the President for violating the constitution which prohibited all wars, but the majority rejected the impeachment and approved "restoration of the Pope at all costs", thus effectively legitimating the ongoing attack.<ref name="France0"> {{cite web | title=HISTOIRE DE FRANCE - IIe RÉPUBLIQUE| work=quid.fr (in French) | url=http://www.quid.fr/2006/Histoire_De_France/Iie_Republique_25_2_18487_11_1852/1| accessdate=July 27, 2006}}</ref><ref name="France1"> {{cite web | title=La Révolution de 1848 | work=L'Encyclopédie de l'Agorà (in French) | url=http://agora.qc.ca/reftext.nsf/Documents/Napoleon_III--Biographie_de_Napoleon_III__La_Revolution_de_1848_par_Alexandre_Debidour| author=Alexandre Debidour | accessdate=July 26, 2006}}</ref><ref name="France2"> {{cite web | title=Assemblée Législative 1849-1851. Victor Hugo, Actes et Paroles| work=Wikisource (in French) | url=http://fr.wikisource.org/Assembl%C3%A9e_L%C3%A9gislative_1849-1851| accessdate=July 26, 2006}}</ref><ref name="FRANCE3">{{cite book | author=Gallois, Léonard | title=Histoire de la Révolution de 1848 | publisher=Naud et Gourju | year=1850}}</ref><ref name="FRANCE4">{{cite book | author=Ledru-Rollin, Alexandre A.| title=Le 13 juin | publisher=Bureau du Nouveau monde | year=1849}}</ref> However, less than 3 years had passed since the first democratic elections in both states. After the first elections in France, during the ] of 1848 military troops killed more than a thousand radicals in Paris and drove into exile thousands more. The French President ] (] from 1852 on) needed support from the conservative Catholics and the military. They feared the Roman Republic where the leaders boasted that they would make the city a center for radicals and a revolution that would spread across Europe. During the 1849 Assembly elections Napoleon covertly instructed local officials to campaign for the conservatives. In Rome, the Pope had promised to ] those that took part in the Roman elections and government, leaving only inexperienced and uncompromising radicals in the Roman government during the few months it existed. The Roman assembly shouted its defiance of the French, despite the several hostile armies from outright autocracies marching on Rome and the protection against which was one of the stated purposes of the French expedition. Many of the French army officers and diplomats on the scene, who had made their careers under the old Monarchy, distrusted democracy. After the negotiations failed during the ceasefire, Napoleon could still not order an outright attack according to the constitution and he did not dare a direct vote on the matter in the Assembly. However, he sent the army forward with ambiguous instructions and the army commanders, knowing what he wanted, attacked and conquered Rome. The news of the assault and conquest caused violent uprisings in France. The critics called the military repression of these "the Roman expedition into the interior". Napoleon's troops repressed in blood protests organized by his internal opponents while his troops conquered Rome. Again thousands of French radicals were jailed or driven into exile.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 156-160, 310-311. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-], with more than 210,000 battle deaths. | |||
| The southern states which left the ] to form the ] operated under their existing constitutions, and the new Confederacy's government and constitution were modelled after the Union's. Although both the Union and the Confederate governments fell short of present-day standards of democracy (e.g.,only male property owners could vote, women had few if any rights, civil liberties were limited), these were still both democratic republics. | |||
| Regarding the objection that there were no competitive presidential elections, the delegates from the six states at the ] in February ] informally discussed several possible presidential candidates before naming ] provisional president. Only the final votes, from approving documents to electing officers, were to be unanimous in order to impress the Union and the border states.<ref name="AmHer">{{cite web | title=Creating the Anti-United States | work=American Heritage | url=http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060204-civil-war-jefferson-davis-montgomery-secession-secessionists-confederates-confederate-states-of-america.shtml | accessdate=March 4, 2006}}</ref> | |||
| The ] was less than 3 months old at the start of the war. The confederacy was created primarily to continue the suppression of the black ] population. Wealthy planters played on racial fears in order to avoid criticism from poor whites. ] were censored and imprisoned even before ] was elected and he was not on the ballot in most parts of the South. Although probably it arrested suspects at about the same rate as the Union arrested Confederate loyalists.<ref>Neely 11, 16.</ref> In the ] Confederate presidential election, on November 6, there was no choice of candidates. Only in some districts were there two candidates for the ].<ref name="RAY95">{{cite book | author=Ray, James Lee | title=Democracy and International Conflict | publisher=University of South Carolina Press | year=1995 | id=ISBN 1-57003-041-3 }}</ref> p. 110-111.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 114-119, 311. | |||
| ===] vs. ]=== | |||
| Fought in ], both states had democratic constitutions at the time. However, Ecuadorian president ] headed an autocratic regime. Furthermore, the regime in Colombia was quite new: Colombia had gained a new constitution after a revolution the same year as the war.<ref name="RUSSETT93">{{cite book | author=Russett, Bruce | title=Grasping the Democratic Peace | publisher=Princeton University Press | year=1993 | id=ISBN 0-691-03346-3 }}</ref> p. 18. | |||
| ===] vs. ]=== | |||
| Conflict in ], with more than 1000 battle deaths. The leaders of both the Paris Commune and the Third French Republic were elected by all adult males. Less than 3 years had passed since the first elections after the end of the ]. The French National Assembly was elected on February 8, 1871, monarchists gaining the majority, but the 500,000 French POWs could not participate, the German militay influenced the election in the large parts of France that was under German occupation, and soon after the election several popular left-wing newspapers were banned. The first hostilities occurred before the Paris Municipal election, when the National Assembly tried to disarm the Paris militia of its cannons. In February 1870 (during the Empire before the war) there were 485,569 registered voters in Paris, fewer than half of whom (229,167) participated in the 1871 Municipal election on March 26. Around 300,000 had participated in the election to the National Assembly, 1.5 months earlier, and critics argued that those critical to the Commune had fled or did not participate in the Municipal election.<ref> The Paris Commune. David A. Shafer. 2005. p. 56-59, 68-69</ref> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-] between ] and ], the leaders of both countries had been elected at the time of this war. However, only one man in fifty could vote in Peru.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 67. In Chile, male literate suffrage was introduced in 1874.<ref name="CHILE1">{{cite web | title=A Country Study: Chile | url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cltoc.html| work=Federal Research division, Library of Congress| accessdate=July 24, 2006}}</ref> Chile's voting turnout in the 1876 elections represented only 7.8% of voting age population.<ref name="CHILE3">{{cite paper | author=Navia, Patricio | title=A Shrinking Electorate in post-Pinochet Chile | date=2000 | url=http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/Lasa2000/Navia2.PDF | format=] | accessdate= 2006-07-24}}</ref> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-]. The leaders of both the ] and ] had been elected, though Britain was not a liberal democracy before the ]. The new Boer state was less than 3 years old and the black population was excluded from the franchise. There were less than 1000 battle deaths.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 307-308. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought in ]. By this time, the US was an established democracy. In ], male universal suffrage was introduced in 1890 and the constitution in theory protected many civil liberties. Spain receives a score of 6 out of 10 for democracy in the Polity data set which in this data set is categorized as "democratic".<ref name="GOWA99">{{cite book | author=Gowa, Joanne | title=Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace | publisher=Princeton University Press | year=1999 | id=ISBN 0-691-00256-8 }}</ref> p. 50.<ref name="PIVP"/> However, politics was dominated by the ] system, in which corrupt officials manipulated the elections in multiple ways to alternatively give a majority of seats to either of the two dominant parties, conservative or liberal, which had agreed to this compromise. This pattern can be clearly seen in the election results.<ref>http://es.wikipedia.org/Elecciones_durante_la_restauraci%C3%B3n_borb%C3%B3nica_en_Espa%C3%B1a</ref> Dissidents could be jailed. Results were often published in the press before the elections. One quarter of the members of the ] were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions. The monarchy retained important powers, like appointing the ministry. A military ] was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations.<ref name="RAY95"/> p. 111-115.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 141-2, 204-205, 311.<ref name="RUSSETT93"/> p. 19. According to ] Spain was non democratic in this period.<ref name="Fukuyama92">{{cite book | author=Fukuyama, Francis | title=The End of History and the Last Man | publisher=Free Press | year=1992 | id=ISBN 0-02-910975-2 }}</ref> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]–]. The ] in the Philippines had created a democratic constitution, and the US was an established democracy. However, the Philippine regime was less than 3 years old. There were never any democratic elections.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}} One group proclaimed ], who was suspected of killing two of his main political rivals, to be president with dictatorial powers without any elections. US president ] stated that it would be immoral to withdraw and leave the Filipinos to fight one another or be occupied by a European power or Japan.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 207-210, 308-309. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]–]. The leaders on both sides had been chosen in free and fair elections. Great Britain was a democratic state. ], one of the two Boer states, receives a 7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy in the polity scale, which means it is considered to be at least partly democratic.<ref name="PIVP">{{cite web | title=Polity IV Project | url=http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/| accessdate=March 4, 2006}}</ref> However, only males from the minority white population had the right to vote in the Boer states. White ] were excluded from the franchise in ].<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 124-128, 308.<ref name="Britannica11">{{cite encyclopedia | ency=Encyclopedia Britannica| edition=11 | year=1911 | article=Orange Free State and Transvaal}}</ref> According to ], no African state was democratic in this period, or long after.<ref name="VANHANEN84">{{cite book | author=Vanhanen, Tatu | title=The Emergence of Democracy: A Comparative Study of 119 States, 1850-1979 | publisher=Societas Scientiarum Fennica | year=1984 | id=ISBN 951-653-122-9 }}</ref> | |||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-]. The German ] was elected by all adult males and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war. However, the German ] retained most of the power. All the appointments to the bureaucracy, the armed forces, and the diplomatic forces were made at his sole discretion. It was common knowledge that the army strongly supported him and would arrest his opponents if he so desired. Open criticisms could and were punished as ]. The German ] in ] ignored a ], explaining that he served at the discretion of the Kaiser alone. The Reichstag was not consulted regarding the declaration of war, but only informed after the fact that its support was required to approve the allocation of funds for the defense against the Tsarist Russia.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 142-145, 191-195, 311-312. | |||
| For comparison, with the United Kingdom which is often considered a liberal democracy at this time but only approximately 60% of British men could vote. The argument that British Monarch and the ] were not democratically elected ignores that the House of Lords and the Monarchy had lost most real power during the previous century. The ] limited the powers of the House of Lords to reject bills, less than three years before the outbreak of war. However, under the British constitution, Parliament was not consulted about the declaration of war, the appointment of senior officers or members of the bureaucracy—all such powers residing with the Crown and exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} | |||
| In France, the ] was at the time a moderately stable parliamentary democracy. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-]. The Irish parliament which declared independence, the ], was formed by the majority of the ]s elected in Irish constituencies in the ]. Regarding the representativity of the secessionist parliament, it must be noted that in 25 seats the ] candidate was uncontested by opponent parties, so no elections were held. One study estimates the true support for the Sinn Féin in these elections to have been at least 53%.<ref> {{cite web | title=The Irish Election of 1918| work=Social & Political archive, Northern Ireland| url=http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm| accessdate=July 20, 2006}}</ref> | |||
| However, the Irish state was less than 3 years old. The initial violence involved rebels acting on their own outside democratic control or approval. Later democratic control of the ] was doubtful and immediately after the war one part of the IRA tried to overthrow the government in the ].<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 312. Spencer Weart says that Ireland might be considered an anocracy on the grounds that many of those fighting against the British were "steeped in a romantic and undemocratic tradition of lawless violence".<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 312. The President of the Irish government-in-hiding claimed responsibility for the IRA's actions, but this was forced by belligerent local chiefs.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 312. | |||
| The Irish government had a plan, "]" to bomb BBC premises in ] in 1969 and to annex the Catholic towns of Derry and Newry from the UK in the aftermath. However, this attack on the UK was never carried out.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6814997.ece</ref> | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Fought in ], with about 1000 estimated battle deaths. |
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 ]). | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Conflict between ], ], and ]. The Weimar Republic, a liberal democracy, had been established in 1919. Areas of Germany were occupied by French military forces to demand reparations. French and Belgians encountered some popular passive resistance. German government financed passive resistance to the occupation and would probably have resisted militarily if it had the material capacity. | |||
| ] suggests that this example poses a challenge to democratic peace theory. | |||
| No direct military confrontation and few casualties. France and Belgium were likely aware of Germany's inability to resist. | |||
| ===Continuation War=== | |||
| The ] was fought from ]-] as a sub-conflict within ], primarily between ] and ]. In 1941, however the ], an established democracy, declared war on ], also an established democracy. Direct military engagements between the two nations were relatively limited, consisting mainly of air force raids on German operations in Finland and air escorts for Soviet troops and bombers. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-]. The first national assemblies in both states were formed by members of the elected ]. Both states were less than 3 years old at the time, with a poorly functioning democracy in ]. Neither nations' national assembly had been chosen on the basis of universal suffrage.<ref name="RAY95"/> p. 120. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought from ]-]. More than 1000 battle deaths on the Syria-Israel side.<ref name=COWAR/> In ], president ] had been democratically elected in 1943, in an election described by international observers as "the fairest under French mandate",<ref name="THOMPSON99">{{cite book | author=Thompson, Elizabeth. | title=Colonial Citizens: Republican Rights, Paternal Privilege, and Gender in French Syria and Lebanon | publisher=Columbia University Press | year=1999 | id=ISBN 0-231-10660-2 |url=http://www.ciaonet.org/book/the01/ | edition=(online version requires free instant subscription) }}</ref> p. 249. , although with universal male suffrage only. Syria receives a +5 in the Polity scale,<ref name=PIVP/> meaning "partly democratic". Also, Lebanon sent troops to aid the Arab side and its president had been elected with universal male suffrage too. The United Kingdom was officially neutral but gave some unofficial support to the Arab side. | |||
| The war commenced within days of Israeli independence, with the new state yet to have a democratic election. In Syria, the two stage electoral process of list selection virtually assured the exclusion of opposition parties; furthermore, due mostly to perceived political corruption, the election turnout was only 31% of eligible voters, which combined with only males being eligible makes for an extremely poor electoral base. Lebanon was also only formally democratic, and even more so than Syria. Only one quarter of the members of the parliament were members of a political party, most being relatives or clients of politic bosses. Less than 1000 battle deaths between Lebanon and Israel: 129 Israelis and probably at least as many Lebanese. The only direct combat action involving the UK was when Israel shot down five Royal Air force Spitfires on a reconnaissance mission.<ref name="THOMPSON99"/> p. 248-250.<ref name="RAY95"/> p. 120.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 313-314 | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| In ], Prime Minister ] was democratically elected in Iran. Britain and the US were established democracies. Ex US president Bill Clinton recently stated that deposing Mossadegh, who was "an elected parliamentary democrat", was a grave mistake which "got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the '50s".<ref> {{cite web | title=Who Should Apologize to Whom?| work=Arab News | url=http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=59952&d=5&m=3&y=2005 | accessdate=April 22, 2007}}</ref> British and US supported ]. No battle between armies from different nations. Less than 1000 deaths in the coup | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought in ]. President ] was democratically elected in Guatemala. The US was an established democracy. United States supported ]. No battle between armies from different nations. Less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought in ], two of the participants in this war were democracies. ] was an established democracy, while ]'s democracy, on the other hand, was poorly functioning. The contact between these two nations consisted of Lebanon sending jets into ] at beginning of the war. However, while the overall war saw more than 20,000 deaths in battle, there were none specifically between Lebanon and Israel.<ref name="RAY95"/> p. 120.<ref name="RUSSETT93"/> p. 18. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Conflict in ], with more than 1000 battle deaths.<ref name=COWAR/> The leaders in Turkey were democratically elected. Pre-war Turkey receives a +9 in the polity scale (full democracy); pre-war (and pre-coup) Cyprus receives a +7 (democracy). There was a ] in Cyprus 5 days before the invasion but it only lasted 8 days, after which the democratic constitution was restored, while hostilities continued for almost a month. Since the elected President ] had fled to London, and did not feel confident to return for security reasons and for internationally securing the Cypriot case,<ref name="Cyprus1"> {{cite web | title=Makarios' Interview with Oriana Fallaci| url=http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios%20-%20interview%20with%20fallaci.htm| accessdate=July 26, 2006}}</ref> the president of the chamber of deputies ] was appointed as temporary acting president for 5 months following the constitutional provisions.<ref name="Cyprus2"> {{cite web | title=The Cyprus conflict| author=Keith Kyle | url=http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative%20-%20part%204.htm| accessdate=July 26, 2006}}</ref> Reportedly, Klerides still consulted Makarios on most important matters,<ref name="Cyprus1"/><ref name="Cyprus3"> {{cite web | title=Country Studies: Cyprus| work=Library of Congress | url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cytoc.html | accessdate=July 25, 2006}}</ref> and Makarios publicly thanked Klerides for the task he had performed during these months. From here on, Cyprus starts being rated +10 on the Polity scale (high democracy).<ref name="PIVP"/> | |||
| Less than 1000 battle deaths after the formal return to democracy: a few hundred. The war started after a bloody coup d'état in Cyprus and when Cyprus thus was a nondemocracy. Both the later formally democratic regime in Cyprus and that in Turkey was less than 3 years old. The new Cyprus cabinet retained many of the coup leaders and there was a temporary, not elected president during the rest of the war.<ref name="RAY95"/> p. 120-121.<ref name="WEART98"/> 314-315.<ref name="Cyprus3"/> | |||
| ===] War=== | |||
| Conflict from ]-]. The ] in ] won the ] election which many external observers described as fair and free. 75% of the registered voters participated. The ], supported by the United States, also with an elected government, tried to overthrow the elected government. | |||
| The United States did not become directly militarily involved in Nicaragua and no battle between armies took place. | |||
| The conflict started while Nicaragua was ruled by the non-elected ]. Several opposition parties ], arguing that the Sandinistas were manipulating the electoral process and their domination of government organs, mass organizations groups, and much of the media created a climate of intimidation. After the election several civil liberties were suspended. The US stopped all military aid to the Contras in 1987, within 3 years of the election.<ref> {{cite web | title=Country Studies: Nicaragua:The Sandinista Years| work=Library of Congress | url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/nitoc.html | accessdate=February 4, 2007}}</ref> | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| War fought in ] between ] and ]. 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".<ref name="PIVP"/> 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"/> p. 70, 316. | 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. 70, 316. | ||
| ===The ]=== | |||
| The series of conflicts within ] from ]-] involved several democracies at certain times. ], a proponent of democratic peace theory, accepts that the leaders of both ] and ] held free elections in 1991, but believes that their governments still had "authoritarian ways" and excludes them from the definition of "democracies".<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WEART.CHAP.HTM</ref> | |||
| From ] to ], ], the leader of ], won several elections. The ] nations participating in ] were democratic. At time of ], Milosevic's party was in a coalition with two others, after having won less than half the seats in the Serbian parliament.<ref>http://www.parties-and-elections.de/serbia2.html http://www.parties-and-elections.de/montenegro2.html http://mediafilter.org/Monitor/Mon.43.html http://rulers.org/1996-11.html http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/media_clark1.</ref> The government had invited the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe into Serbia to judge on 1996 election fraud, and had accepted its rulings even though they went against Milosevic's party.<ref> LeBor, Adam, "Milosevic: a biography", Bloomsbury, London, 2003.</ref> Milosevic had made election of Yugoslav president into a ballot by the whole electorate rather than just by the legislature.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/822194.stm.</ref> | |||
| As the opposition to Milosevic in Serbia in this period was often composed of extreme nationalists (such as the ] that organized the ], the ] and the ]), it is hard to decide what restrictions on the opposition were legitimate. Many human rights groups, including Amnesty International, believe that neo-fascist groups should have special restrictions on their activity. The fact that the vast majority of convictions under the Law on Information were for the opposition may not necessarily demonstrate undemocratic exercise of power. | |||
| Kostunica, who replaced Milosevic, was a member of the Democratic Party of Serbia, which had split from the ] on the grounds that the latter was insufficiently nationalistic. | |||
| Regarding the media supporting ], that would depend on how the word is defined. Serbian state media was certainly patriotic and derogatory towards other Balkan nations, but this was always done in traditional language of anti-fascism; the Croats were often referred to as "the Ustasha forces". Defenders of Milosevic claim that his speeches were anti-racist and anti-nationalist, and that the Western media has often misrepresented their content.<ref>http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/speech-interview.htm</ref> | |||
| ] and Leif Wenar both believe that the war in Kosovo is a serious problem for the theory.<ref> Singer, Peter, "One World", Second Edition, Yale University Press, 2004 p. 136, 218.</ref> Slobodan Milosevic had won three elections - twice as President of Serbia and once as President of Yugoslavia - and it is clear that he had widespread support in the country during this period. Singer admits that Yugoslavia still had limits to its openness and freedom, but these limits were not thought to be more extensive than those found in several Western countries that are considered to be "democracies". | |||
| Serbia did not fulfill the criteria for a liberal democracy. Frequent and arbitrary changes of election laws and districts occurred, even retroactively after elections. Press freedom greatly restricted. Slobodan Milosevic's regime controlled the state ] and ] broadcasts. Electoral manipulation including: massive double voting, "voting" of persons being permanently absent or deceased, the pressure on employees by the management of ";socially owned companies", organized planting of already prepared voting ballots into the polling boxes, forging of electoral records and election board records, alteration of the election results made by electoral commissions, the large-scale annulment of the election results by courts rulings, and changing the number of participating voters in order to fulfill the legal requirements for the validity of the elections.<ref name="Nedovic"> {{cite paper | author=Nedovic, Slobodanka, et al.| title=Guide Through Electoral Controversies in Serbia| date=2000 | version=Centar Za Slobodne Izobre I Demoratiju| url=http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN017176.pdf}}</ref> | |||
| Regarding the general nationalism, the state controlled media supported this and there were often wars, explaining why also the opposition parties appealed to patriotic feelings. When Milosevic was finally ousted, he was replaced by a candidate having broad support from numerous political parties in the ]. | |||
| In addition, the ] and the ] would be excluded as both sides were less than 3 years old. Also, Croatia was not a liberal democracy for similar reasons as those mentioned for Serbia.<ref name="WEART98"/> p. 316-318. | |||
| The Polity scale gives Yugoslavia under Milosevic a score of 0 out 10 for democracy and -5 to -7 for combined democracy/autocracy.<ref name="PIVP"/> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Fought in ], both Peruvian President ] and the Ecuadorian President were democratically elected. However, Fujimori had made an ] in ] and took on dictatorial powers.<ref name="World94"> {{cite web | title=World Report 1994 : Peru| work=Human Rights Watch | url=http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/WR95/AMERICAS-10.htm#P544_199582 | accessdate=March 27, 2006}}</ref> In addition, this brief and localized military conflict involved less than 1000 deaths in battle. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| A war in ] between India and Pakistan, with more than 1000 battle deaths.According to Page Fortna<ref name="PAGEFOR">{{cite book | author=Page Fortna, Virginia | title=Peace Time: Cease-Fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace | |||
| | publisher=Princeton University Press| year=2004 | page=111 | id=ISBN 0-691-11512-5 }}</ref> and Muppidi<ref name="Muppidi01">{{cite conference | author=Muppidi, Himadeep | title=State Identity and Interstate Practices: the limits to Democratic Peace in South Asia | booktitle=Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate | publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers | pages=45-66 |id=ISBN 1-55587-955-1 | year=2001}}</ref>, this is the most straightforward exception to democratic peace. India was an established democracy and Pakistan had returned to democracy in 1988,<ref name="HUNTINGTON91"/> having only civilian governments since then. The Sharif government of Pakistan receives a Polity rating of +7 (democratic) on a scale from +10 to -10 for combined democracy/autocracy,<ref name="PIVP"/> comparable to the level of democracy on this scale of Great Britain in 1900 (considered democratic by all major authors). India is rated +9. Pakistan Prime Minister ] was democratically elected with a large majority. He was able to pass ] because he had enough seats in the parliament to do so, according to the constitution itself. Regarding civil rights and freedom of press violations, it must be considered that war or its immediate danger have often led to restrictive measures even in more democratic states (see, for example, ], ], ]). Although it is impossible to tell which actions by the Sharif government were taken for such reasons, it is worth noting that the human rights report for 1998 (before the war)<ref name="World98">{{cite web | title=World Report 1998 : Pakistan | work=Human Rights Watch | url=http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/asia/pakistan.html| accessdate=July 17, 2006}}</ref> is significantly less negative than the 1999 report (the year of the war, which started in May. There was also a military coup in October, to make things worse, but coming late in the year, is only briefly treated in the first paragraphs).<ref name="World99">{{cite web | title=World Report 1999 : Pakistan | work=Human Rights Watch | url=http://www.hrw.org/wr2k/Asia-07.htm#TopOfPage| accessdate=February 14, 2006}}</ref> Regarding Freedom House, it rates Pakistan as "partly free" (so, not a liberal democracy in its view), but does not dispute it being an electoral democracy.<ref name="FH99">{{cite paper | author=Freedom House| title=Freedom in the world Survey, 1998-99}}</ref> | |||
| ] did not consider Pakistan to be a liberal democracy during the 1990s.<ref></ref> Nawaz Sharif's government suppressed opposition-led demonstrations, arrested opposition activists, curtailed civil liberties, and persecuted independent ]s and ]. The judiciary at first tried to check Sharif's actions, but later gave up. His supporters stormed the ] and he forced the Chief Justice out of office. He also passed ] removing the legal possibilities to dismiss him from office before the end of his term and stating that party leaders could dismiss any of their legislators if they failed to vote as they were told.<ref name="World99" /><ref name="NewsWeekly">{{cite web | title=Pakistan: Feudalism: root cause of Pakistan’s malaise | work=News Weekly | url=http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2000mar25_pfrcopm.html| accessdate=February 14, 2006}}</ref><ref name="Wayman">{{cite paper | author=Wayman, Frank| title=Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992| date=2002 | version=Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002 | url=http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/wayman.html}}</ref> There is no evidence that these restrictions increased just before the war or that Sharif's government was preparing for a war. Even if these actions were preparations for a war, that would not make them more democratic. | |||
| Nawaz Sharif has stated that he was unaware of the invasion, and it was an urgent phone call from ], his counterpart in India, that informed him about the situation. He has attributed the invasion plan on Chief of Army Staff and later dictator ] and "just two or three of his cronies"<ref> {{cite news | title = Vajpayee call woke Sharif up to Kargil - Gunning for Pervez | work = The Telegraph, Calcutta, India | date = May 29, 2006 | url = http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060529/asp/nation/story_6282970.asp}}</ref> If correct, then the Pakistani military invaded India without informing the elected Pakistani government. This would still argue against the overall theory, however, as it would mean that even in established democracies invasions could be carried out without consent from the government, even if the government was democratic. | |||
| ==21st Century== | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| An Intifada taking place in ]. Israel proper has been widely regarded as having a stable democracy since independence. ] was elected president of Palestine in 1996. Since 2005, an elected ] government. But new elections were postponed in 1998. The Infifada started in 2000. Arafat's regime ignored many civil liberties and ruled autocratically.<ref name="FreedomHouseIsraeli"> {{cite web | title=Country Report 2002 : Israeli-Occupied Territories| work=Freedom House | url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2002&country=2548 | accessdate=March 4, 2006}}</ref> Elections in 2005 and 2006 following Arafat's death but the new regime is less than 3 years old. The Palestinian Authority Administered Areas is not a liberal democratic according to ] in its 2006 report (for 2005). The Economist's ] classified Palestine as a "flawed democracy" in 2006<ref>http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf</ref> and as a "hybrid regime" in 2008.<ref>http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf</ref> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| A conflict fought in ], with more than 1000 deaths, including civilians. ] is an established democracy and ] has had a democratic system since its independence. The ] has been described as free, credible, fair, well managed and peaceful by United Nations observers and its Security Council. The electoral law was accepted by all major parties, although there is also agreement that it needs to be reformed.<ref>{{cite web | title=United Nations Security council, document 2005/673 | work=United Nations | url=http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/2005/673 | accessdate=August 10, 2006}}</ref> Allocation of parliamentary seats according to faith is in accordance with the principals of ] as advocated by ]. Less than 1000 military deaths. Lebanon is not a liberal democracy according to Freedom House in its 2006 report (for the year 2005). The last available Polity ranking for the year 2003 states "Foreign occupation". ] controlled much of the politics in Lebanon until the ] in ] and regime after that is less than 3 years old. The ] after the Cedar Revolution has been described as "free but not fair" by the newspaper Washington Post. The different religious groups are allocated parliamentary seats not proportionate to the number of voters. The whole public sector is similarly divided. Everyone from the President and the Speaker of Parliament down to police and college professors are chosen according to the individual's faith.<ref></ref> | |||
| Israel battled the organization ], which exerted control over the southern part of Lebanon, and not the Lebanese army. The UN notes that "a group engaged in the democratic political process of opinion formation and decision-making cannot simultaneously possess an autonomous armed operational capacity outside the authority of the State. More broadly, the existence of armed groups defying the control of the legitimate Government, which by definition is vested with a monopoly on the use of force throughout its territory, is incompatible with the restoration and full respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of the country." | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| The war had its immediate roots in an earlier conflict that started in 1989 when Ossetian and Georgian homes were attacked by each other. By 1992 it is estimated there were 1,000 wartime casualties, 100 missing persons, and an innumerable amount of damaged or destroyed homes and infrastructure. | |||
| However, in 2004, violence began once again when Georgia tried to clamp down on Russian activity in South Ossetia.<ref>http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/ossetia.htm</ref> It then spread to a war within ] proper fought in ], with tensions currently remaining. Georgia, ], ] and ] have all had democratically elected governments for more than 5 years. Polity IV Project ranks both Georgia and Russia as 7, fully democratic, on their scale of -10 to +10.<ref> and at the Polity IV Project website.</ref> As both received a +7, meaning that both countries are classified as democratic. | |||
| Freedom House ranks Russia as "not free" and states "Russia does not have a democratic political system" while Georgia is rated as partly free.<ref>{{cite web | title=Country Report 2008 : Russia | work=Freedom House | url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2008&country=7475&pf | accessdate=August 18, 2008}}</ref> | |||
| It had less than 1000 battle deaths although the numbers of civilian casualties is in dispute. | |||
| ==Ongoing== | |||
| {{Update|section|June 2009|date=August 2009}} | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| A conflict within Pakistan fought ]. In ], many decisions in tribal life are made by a ] of elders. Pakistan had returned to democracy in 1988. However, Freedom House lists Pakistan as "Not Free".<ref name="FreedomHousePakistan"> {{cite web | title=Country Report 2005 : Pakistan | work=Freedom House | url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=6807&year=2005 | accessdate=March 4, 2006}}</ref> Waziristan may not be a liberal democratic state but rather tribes having some similarity to the earlier mentioned Iroquois and Hurons. | |||
| == |
==References== | ||
| {{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 20:43, 16 June 2010
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged with Democratic peace theory. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2010. |
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (April 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (April 2009) |
This is a partial list of military conflicts which, according to opponents of the Democratic peace theory, constitute exceptions to the claim that, "Democracies do not make war on each other." The argument of DPT critics is that even one exception is sufficient to disprove the theory, and they believe they have provided at least one exception. That is, the critics maintain that the size of the "list of wars between democracies" is greater than zero.
Due to widely varying definitions of the classifications "democracy" and "war", there is substantial debate in the literature regarding criteria for inclusion in this list (for more information, see the debate over democratic peace theory, which asserts that democracies tend not to go to war with one another). Inclusion of each item in this list should thus be understood as indicating that it is the subject of debate, rather than as an authoritative statement as to its correct classification. For each item, a brief overview is offered as well as arguments for and against its inclusion, as appropriate.
Early Democracy
Wars involving the Athenian democracy
Most notable of these was the Sicilian Expedition, 415 BC-413 BC, Many of the city-states in Ancient Greece had democratic political systems. One researcher, Bruce Russet, finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs.
Athens, like other Greek democracies, was a direct democracy in which decisions on war and peace were taken by an Assembly 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. Athenian citizens had properly formalized rights, including political, legal, property rights and freedom of speech.
The researcher James Lee Ray argues that these states had little resemblance to modern liberal democracies. The city states in Ancient Greece had large numbers of non-voting slaves and metics. At most half, and probably less, of the adult males in Athens could vote. He argues that in classical times the modern concept of liberties or natural rights did not exist. Decisions in these ancient city states were formed mainly either by leaders selected by allotment or by direct democracy. Both methods are very different from decisions made by leaders selected by elections.
Wars involving the Roman Republic
In particular, the Punic Wars, 264 BC-146 BC, with over 1000 deaths in battle. The leaders in both Rome and Carthage were elected. However, both states are usually considered oligarchies. The Roman Republic had large numbers of non-voting slaves, former slaves, Italian allies, and foreigners. Roman citizens had different political rights based on heredity and wealth. The Roman Senate had considerable power and was dominated by noble families. See also the discussion in Never at War regarding whether there is enough information about Carthage to determine the exact form of government there at the start of each of these wars.
20th Century
Polish-Lithuanian War
Fought in 1920, 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. 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 Polish-Lithuanian War).
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 "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. p. 70, 316.
References
- Versions by Spencer Weart, James Lee Ray, and R. J. Rummell deny that this ever happens; other forms assert strong correlations between democracy and mutual peace. Thomas Heine Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, p. 85
- Oxford Classical Dictionary, "Democracy, Athenian". M.I. Finley Democracy, Ancient and Modern, 1973, p. 18 (quote; and cited by Ray),
- Blackwell, Christopher. "Athenian Democracy: a brief overview" (PDF). Dēmos: classical Athenian Democracy. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
- McManus, Barbara F. Social Classes in the Late Republic
- UNRV, Roman Slavery
- kondrat/Rome Government
- Pennell, Robert F. Ancient Rome
- ^ "Polity IV Project". Retrieved March 4, 2006.
- Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.