Essay examples --

The tenet of international relations study is the question of why wars occur. Political theorists have tackled this question with heated debate throughout narration and in the post-World War II era the theories of representative peace and realism have come to the forefront of international relations study. These two theories offer tell apart explanations for the reasons nations fight mavin another, and also seek to predict the likelihood of future contravention. The democratic peace scheme, which concludes that democratic regimes do not go to war with one another as a result of their democratic nature, has attained the status of a law of international relations in some circles (Owen 1994, Doyle 1983). Utilizing an absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that proponents of antiauthoritarian Peace assert two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). One is an institutional or structural belief, whereby such factors as public opinio n, or checks and balances amongst the government constrain the likelihood of war. The other, is an ideological belief, whereby the liberal values of such regimes strive for peaceful interactions and constrain conflict. Democratic Peace system would therefore discredit the realist perspectives for interstate conflict which focus upon a sovereign states strategic interest within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved status of dogma in many circles, but nevertheless has its share of critics who subscribe to the realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett. Realists challenge the relevance of the statistics on which democratic peace is founded, advocating a renewal of interest in realist international relations theory. Realists argue that world politics is dri... ... infrequent to deliver an empirical foundation for his conclusion. Likewise, the limitations determined upon the categories of war and democracy ignore that liberal states have disregarded mutual respe ct for democratic institutions and norms and authorized the use of force against another likeminded state. Doyle is cognizant of the limitations of his Democratic Peace Theory, stressing that protection of liberalisms heritage of democratization may in fact ensure the adverse consequence of stimulating illiberal practices (Doyle, 1983). The significance of a peace theory which concludes its own underlying principles may actually engender belligerent behavior is questionable. Doyles Democratic Peace Theory offers an interesting scratch point in the study of the relationship between democratic nations and conflict however, his suppositions should not to be valued as law.