Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Peace Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by TURES, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Democracies as Intervening States: A Critique of Kegley & Hermann

JOHN A. TURES

Evidence Based Research, Inc.

The Democratic Peace Proposition, which contends that no two democracies have gone to war with each other, has been challenged by scholars who claim that such an argument does not apply to lower forms of conflict. In a series of articles, Margaret Hermann and Charles Kegley argue that democracies often intervene in the internal affairs of other liberal states. But their criteria for case selection and democracy are problematic. In this study, I retest their arguments over a broader time-span, omitting cases of invited intervention, non-state entities, and occupied territories. I also employ new intervention data and a regime-type dataset which accounts for within-year regime changes. I find that liberal countries are less likely to intervene in the affairs of other free states than is expected given the democratic presence in the interstate system. The statistical rarity of such dyadic democratic intervention increases confidence in the applicability of the Democratic Peace to conflicts falling short of war.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, 227-235 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343301038002006


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
K. S. Gleditsch
Transnational Dimensions of Civil War
Journal of Peace Research, May 1, 2007; 44(3): 293 - 309.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
M. G. HERMANN and C. W. KEGLEY JR.
Democracies and Intervention: Is there a Danger Zone in the Democratic Peace?
Journal of Peace Research, March 1, 2001; 38(2): 237 - 245.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
J. A. TURES
Addressing Concerns about Applying the Democratic Peace Arguments to Interventions
Journal of Peace Research, March 1, 2001; 38(2): 247 - 249.
[PDF]