Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

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 MacMILLAN, J.
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?

Reviews

Beyond the Separate Democratic Peace

JOHN MacMILLAN

School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment, Keele University j.r.macmillan{at}keele.ac.uk

This article argues that the balance of evidence and argument supports a shift from the conventional `separate democratic peace' position that liberal states are peace prone only in relations with other liberal states to the view that they are also more peace prone in relations with non-liberal states than usually thought. The article reviews a range of recent empirical studies that either support or are consistent with this turn and also critiques a number of existing democratic peace theories. Those theories that maintain the view that democracies are peace prone in general are criticized for failing to differentiate the circumstances in which liberal states do and do not go to war. Those theories supporting the predominant `separate' democratic peace position are criticized for failing to explain why liberal states should be peace prone only in relations with other liberal states. The force of this argument challenges scholars to re-specify the extent (and limitations) of liberal state peace proneness and to develop a theoretical explanation of this broader but more complex relationship between liberal states and peace.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, 233-243 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343303040002006


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
Conflict Management and Peace ScienceHome page
S. L. Quackenbush and M. Rudy
Evaluating the Monadic Democratic Peace
Conflict Management and Peace Science, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 268 - 285.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
European Journal of International RelationsHome page
B. M. Russett
Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses
European Journal of International Relations, March 1, 2009; 15(1): 9 - 36.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
T. Daubler
Debate: War and Post-Communist Democratization: Dealing with Old Comrade Endogeneity
Journal of Peace Research, January 1, 2006; 43(1): 83 - 89.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
J. De Rivera
Assessing the Basis for a Culture of Peace in Contemporary Societies
Journal of Peace Research, September 1, 2004; 41(5): 531 - 548.
[Abstract] [PDF]