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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:17, 14 July 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →Nineteenth Century: remove american civil war← Previous edit Revision as of 21:19, 14 July 2010 edit undoDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits remove american civil war and all of romeNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
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. 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.


===Wars involving the ]===
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>
==Eighteenth Century== ==Eighteenth Century==
*The ], including the ] of 1780-1784.<ref>George Modelski, "Is America's Decline Inevitable?" ''The Bridge'' 19:2, pp. 11-18, (1988)</ref> *The ] of 1780-1784.<ref>George Modelski, "Is America's Decline Inevitable?" ''The Bridge'' 19:2, pp. 11-18, (1988)</ref>
*] of 1784: Pennsylvania against Connecticut and Vermont.<ref>Clark De Leon: ''Pennsylvania Curiosities'', p. 212.</ref> *] of 1784: Pennsylvania against Connecticut and Vermont.<ref>Clark De Leon: ''Pennsylvania Curiosities'', p. 212.</ref>


Revision as of 21:19, 14 July 2010

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 democratic peace theory or liberal peace, which asserts that democracies never or rarely go to war with each other. Definitions of democracy and war vary; two supporters of the theory hold, on different grounds, that there are no exceptions whatever; others hold that it is a strong correlation, and therefore find marginal exceptions to be unsurprising, and in some cases illuminating.

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.

Early Democracy

Wars involving the Greek democracies

The Peloponnesian war 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 Sicilian Expedition, 415 BC-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.

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. Athens, like most Greek democracies, elected the officials in charge of war and foreign policy.

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. James Lee Ray 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.

Eighteenth Century

Nineteenth Century

Like all instances in this article, these depend on how restrictive a definition of democracy is used; some also depend on the definition of war.

Twentieth 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).
  • Continuation War: A formal state of war between Great Britain and Finland resulting from the Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941; unlike the formal war between Australia or Canada and Finland, there was actual, if limited, conflict between the two parties.
  • Israeli War of Independence: as against Lebanon.
  • Six-Day War: The Lebanese air force intervened against Israel, both then being democratic states; the same policy set classifies Lebanon as an anocracy, its neologism for imperfect or disputable democracies. although it was called at the time "the only Arab democracy." On the other hand, R. J. Rummel claims, in discussing the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, that Israel was "only partially free" in 1967 - because of the economic policies of the Israeli Labour Party.
  • 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

  1. Spencer Weart and R. J. Rummel; James Lee Ray now holds that a theory expressed with never is "what is disparagingly called 'public relations'".
  2. See, for example, Thomas Heine Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, p. 85, also Doyle, Russert, and others below.
  3. Oxford Classical Dictionary, "Democracy, Athenian". M.I. Finley Democracy, Ancient and Modern, 1973, p. 18 (quote; and cited by Ray),
  4. Blackwell, Christopher. "Athenian Democracy: a brief overview" (PDF). Dēmos: classical Athenian Democracy. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
  5. George Modelski, "Is America's Decline Inevitable?" The Bridge 19:2, pp. 11-18, (1988)
  6. Clark De Leon: Pennsylvania Curiosities, p. 212.
  7. Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123; George Modelski, "Is America's Decline Inevitable?" The Bridge 19:2, pp. 11-18, (1988)
  8. John Mueller, "Is War Still Becoming Obsolete?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August–September 1991, p51
  9. John Mueller, "Is War Still Becoming Obsolete?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August–September 1991, p51
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. Jeanne Gowa, Ballots and Bullets: the Elusive Democratic Peace, p.50
  13. 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; 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.
  14. 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.
  15. ^ "Polity IV Project". Retrieved March 4, 2006.
  16. Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965". Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1: 50–69
  17. Gleditsch, Nils P. (1992). "Democracy and Peace". Journal of Peace Research. 29(4) (4): 369–376. doi:10.1177/0022343392029004001. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); 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, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002
  18. 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.
  19. Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): 205–235
  20. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/leb2.htm
  21. 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 (Jul., 1970), pp. 98-113
  22. 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.)
  23. Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.
Category: