Traversing the Romance of a Liberal International Order: The Democratic Peace Thesis and the Regional Security Problematique in South Asia

Abstract

The democratic peace hypothesis, which is embedded in the neo-Kantian romance of liberal cosmopolitan idealism, was framed in the spatiotemporal context of the Cold War bipolarity. Michael Doyle, who is one of its proponents, invoked the Kantian philosophical abstraction of ‘the perpetual peace’ by providing an intellectual defence and moral high ground for the values of the Liberal Capitalist world. In the post–Cold War setting, Francis Fukuyama re-casted the hypothesis and portrayed the triumph of liberal international order as ‘the end of history’. He attempted to reframe the democratic peace thesis, not only to celebrate liberal values as the normative exemplar for ordering a post–Cold War international system but also to provide an intellectual defence for the newly emerging space for American leadership in a post-hegemonic international system. This intellectual defence of the ethical supremacy of liberal idealism in the world, shaped by the leadership of the USA, was entrenched in the epistemological Imperialism of the West. Besides, it also reflected an exclusionary idea of the history of international relations that was heavily grounded in the chronology of the post-Westphalia international order. Situating ourselves in this framework, this article is an attempt to critique the epistemic foundations of the democratic peace hypothesis, by deconstructing its assertions in the geostrategic context of the regional security architecture in South Asia. The article criticizes the democratic peace thesis, using an analysis of the Kargil conflict (1999) between India and Pakistan, and by placing ourselves in the epistemological framework of the historical turn in international relations.

Keywords

The democratic peace hypothesis the liberal theory of international relations liberal cosmopolitanism Republican liberalism the historical turn in international relations South Asian regional security architecture

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bajpai

(2011). Pakistan’s future: Muddle along. In Cohen

S. P.

(Ed.), The future of Pakistan (pp. 71–82). Oxford University Press.

Barkawi

Laffey

(2001). Introduction: The international relations of democracy, liberalism, and war. In Barkawi

Laffey

(Eds.), Democracy, liberalism and war: Rethinking the democratic peace debate (pp. 7–41). Lynne Reinner Publications.

Bell

(2001). International relations: The dawn of a historiographical turn. British Journal of Politics & International Relations , 3(1), 115–126.

Belle

Douglas

(2000). Press, freedom and global politics . Praegar Publishers.

Bernstein

(1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics and praxis . Blackwell.

Biddle

Long

(2004). Democracy and military effectiveness: A deeper look. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 46(3), 525–546.

Buzan

Little

(2000). International systems and world history: Remaking the study of International Relations . Oxford University Press.

Calhoun

(1995).Critical theory. Basil Blackwell.

Carr

E. H.

(1939). The twenty years crisis 1919–1939: An introduction to the study of International Relations . Palgrave.

10.

Chernoff

(2008). International relations, paleontology, and scientific progress: Parallels between democratic peace studies and the meteor impact extinction hypothesis. International Studies Perspectives , 9(1), 90–98.

11.

Cox

(1986). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. In Keohane

R. O.

(Ed.), Neorealism and Its critiques (pp. 204–254). Columbia University Press.

12.

Cummings

(1991). Trilateralism and the new world order. World Policy Journal , 8(2), 195–222.

13.

Deudney

Ikenberry

(1999). The nature and sources of a liberal international order. Review of International Studies , 25(2), 179–196.

14.

Doyle

(1986). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review , 80(4), 1151–1161.

15.

Elman

M. F. (Eds.)

, (2001). Bridges and boundaries: Historians, political scientists and the study of international relations . MIT Press.

16.

Fukuyama

(1992). The end of history and the last man . Free Press.

17.

Ganguly

(1995). Indo-Pakistani nuclear issues: Stability/Instability paradox. The Study of Conflict and Terrorism , 18(4), 325–338.

18.

Ganguly

(2001). Conflict unending . Oxford University Press.

19.

Ganguly

(2010). Pakistan: Neither state nor nation. In Bertrand

Laliberte

(Ed.), Multination States in Asia: Accommodation or resistance (pp. 81–102). Cambridge University Press.

20.

Gilpin

(1983). War and change in world politics . Cambridge University Press.

21.

Gleditsch

N. P.

Hegre

(1997). Peace and democracy: Three levels of analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 41(2), 283–310.

22.

Halliday

(1994). Rethinking international relations . Macmillan.

23.

Hayes

(2009). Identity and securitization in the democratic peace: The United States and the divergence of responses to India’s and Iran’s nuclear programs. International Studies Quarterly , 53(4), 977–999.

24.

Hobden

(1998). Historical sociology and International relations: Breaking down boundaries . Routledge.

25.

Hobden

Hobson

J. M.

(Eds.). (2002). Historical sociology of international relations . Cambridge University Press.

26.

Isacoff

(2002). On the historical imagination of international relations: The case for a Deweyan reconstruction. Millennium: Journal of International Studies , 31(3), 603–626.

27.

Jalal

(2014). The struggle for Pakistan: A Muslim homeland and global oolitics . The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

28.

Kant

(1991). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. In Reiss

(Eds.) (translated H. Nisbet), Political writings (2nd ed, pp. 93–130). Cambridge University Press.

29.

Kumar

(2007). Theories of deterrence and nuclear deterrence in the subcontinent. In Sridharan

(Ed.), The India Pakistan nuclear relationship: Theories of deterrence and international relations (pp. 239–265). Routledge.

30.

Machiavelli

(1674). Machiavelli’s discourses upon the first decade of T. Livius (translated Edward Dacres). Charles Harper and John Amery.

31.

Markey

(2007). A false choice in Pakistan. Foreign Affairs , 86(4), 85–102.

32.

Moravcsik

(1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization , 51(4), 513–553.

33.

Morgenthau

H. J.

(1967). Politics among nations . Knopf.

34.

Newman

K. J.

(1959). Pakistan’s preventative autocracy and its causes. Pacific Affairs , 32(1), 18–33.

35.

Puchala

(2003). History and theory in international relations . Routledge.

36.

Roberts

(2006). History, theory and the narrative turn in IR. Review of International Studies , 32(4), 703–714.

37.

Ruggie

J. G.

(1998). Constructing the world polity: Essays on international institutionalization . Routledge.

38.

Schmitt

(1996). The concept of the political . University of Chicago Press.

39.

Shaikh

(2009). Making sense of Pakistan. Columbia University Press.

40.

Shapcott

(2000). Solidarism and after: Global governance, international security and the normative ‘Turn’ in international relations. Pacifica Review , 12(1), 147–165.

41.

Sidhu

W. P. S.

(2007). Operation Vijay and Operation Parakram: The victory of theory. In Sridharan

(Ed.), India Pakistan Nuclear Relationship: Theories of deterrence and international relations (pp. 208–238). Routledge.

42.

Smith

T. W.

(1999). History and international relations . Routledge.

43.

Subrahmanyam

(2000). Underestimating India (Mumbai edition). The Times of India (p. 12), 15 May.

44.

Talbot

(2000). Inventing the Nation: India and Pakistan . Oxford University Press.

45.

Teschke

(2003). The myth of 1648. Class, geopolitics and the making of modern international relations . London, UK: Verso.

46.

Therborn

(2007). After dialectics: Radical social theory in a Post-Communist World. New Left Review , 43, 63–114.

47.

Thompson

W. R.

(1996). Democracy and peace: Putting the horse before the cart. International Organisation , 50(1), 141–174.

48.

Vaughan-Williams

(2005). International relations and the ‘Problem of History’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies , 34(1), 115–136.

49.

Walt

S. M.

(1998). International relations: One world many theories (Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge, pp. 29–32 and 34–46). Spring.

50.

Ward

M. D.

Siverson

R. M.

Cao

(2007). Disputes, democracies and dependencies: A reexamination of the Kantian Peace. American Journal of Political Science , 51(3), 583–601.

51.

White

(1973). Interpretation in history. New Literary History , 4(2), 281–314.

52.

White

(1975). Metahistory: Historical imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe . Johns Hopkins University Press.

53.

White

(1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Critical Enquiry , 1, 5–27.

54.

Wilcox

W. A.

(1958). Pakistan’s Coup d’etat of 1958. Pacific Affairs , 38(2), 142–163.