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.
Benoit, Kenneth , 1996. `Democracies Really Are More Pacific (in General)', Journal of Conflict Resolution40(4): 636-657.
3.
Bremer, Stuart A. , 1992. `Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965', Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 309-341.
4.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & David Lalman, 1992. War and Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce ; James Morrow, Randolph Siverson & Alastair Smith, 1999. `An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace', American Political Science Review93(4): 791-807.
6.
Chan, Steve , 1997. `In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise', Mershon International Studies Review41(2): 59-91.
7.
Doyle, Michael W. , 1983. `Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs', Part I, Philosophy and Public Affairs12(3): 205-235.
8.
Elman, Miriam F. , ed., 1997. Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Fearon, James D. , 1994a. `Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes', American Political Science Review88(3): 577-592.
10.
Fearon, James D. , 1994b. `Signalling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model', Journal of Conflict Resolution38(2): 236-269.
11.
Fearon, James D. , 1995. `Rationalist Explanations for War', International Organization49(3): 379-414.
12.
Fearon, James D. , 1997. `Signalling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands Versus Sinking Costs', Journal of Conflict Resolution41(1): 68-90.
13.
Fitzsimons, David. M. , 1995. `Tom Paine's New World Order: Idealistic Internationalism in the Ideology of Early American Foreign Relations', Diplomatic History19(4): 569-582.
14.
Gartzke, Eric , 1998. `Kant We All Just Get Along? Opportunity, Willingness and the Origins of the Democratic Peace', American Journal of Political Science42(1): 1-27.
15.
Gaubatz, Kurt Taylor , 1999. Elections and War: The Electoral Incentive in the Democratic Politics of War and Peace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
Gelpi, Christopher F. & Michael Griesdorf, 2001. `Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crises, 1918-94', American Political Science Review95(3): 633-647.
17.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter & Håvard Hegre, 1997. `Peace and Democracy: Three Levels of Analysis', Journal of Conflict Resolution41(2): 283-310.
18.
Goemans, Hein E. , 2000. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
Henderson, Errol A. , 2002. Democracy and War: The End of an Illusion?Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
20.
Keohane, Dan , 2000. Security in British Politics, 1945-99. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
21.
Lemke, Douglas & William Reed, 1996. `Regime Types and Status Quo Evaluations: Power Transition Theory and the Democratic Peace', International Interactions22(2): 143-164.
22.
MacMillan, John , 1996. `Democracies Don't Fight: A Case of the Wrong Research Agenda?', Review of International Studies22(3): 275-299.
23.
MacMillan, John , 1998. On Liberal Peace: Democracy, War and the International Order. London: Tauris.
24.
MacMillan, John , 2002. `A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State Peace', in Eivind Hovden & Edward Keene, eds, The Globalization of Liberalism. London: Palgrave (57-72).
25.
Maoz, Zeev & Nasrin Abdolali, 1989. `Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976', Journal of Conflict Resolution33(1): 3-35.
26.
Maoz, Zeev & Bruce Russett, 1993. `Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace', American Political Science Review87(3): 624-638.
27.
Oren, Ido , 1995. `The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace', International Security20(2): 147-184.
28.
Owen, John M. , 1994. `How Liberalism Produces Peace', International Security19(2): 87-125.
29.
Owen, John M. , 1997. Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
30.
Peceny, Mark , 1997. `A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War', Journal of Peace Research34(4): 415-430.
31.
Ray, James L. , 1995. Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
32.
Reiss, Hans , ed., 1991 [1970]. Kant: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Reiter, Dan & Allan C. Stam, 2002. Democracies and War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Rioux, Jean-Sebastien , 1998. `A Crisis-Based Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition', Canadian Journal of Political Science31(2): 263-283.
35.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas , 1995. `Democratic Peace - Warlike Democracies? A Social-Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument', European Journal of International Relations1(4): 491-518.
36.
Robinson, Eric W. , 2001a. `Reading and Mis-reading the Ancient Evidence for the Democratic Peace', Journal of Peace Research38(5): 593-608.
37.
Robinson, Eric W. , 2001b. `Response to Spencer Weart', Journal of Peace Research38(5): 615-617.
38.
Rousseau, David ; Christopher Gelpi, Dan Reiter & Paul Huth, 1996. `Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-1988', American Political Science Review90(3): 512-533.
39.
Rummel, Rudolph , 1979. Understanding Conflict and War, Vol. 4. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
Rummel, Rudolph , 1983. `Libertarianism and International Violence', Journal of Conflict Resolution27(1): 27-71.
41.
Rummel, Rudolph , 1997. Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
42.
Russett, Bruce , 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
Russett, Bruce & John Oneal, 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.
44.
Russett, Bruce & Harvey Starr, 2000. `From Democratic Peace to Kantian Peace: Democracy and Conflict in the International System', in Manus I. Midlarsky, ed., Handbook of War Studies II. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (92-128).
45.
Schapiro, Jacob , 1963. Condorcet and the Rise of Liberalism. New York: Octagon.
46.
Schultz, Kenneth A. , 2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Snyder, Jack , 2000. From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. New York: Norton.
48.
Weart, Spencer R. , 1998. Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
Weart, Spencer R. , 2001. `Remarks on the Ancient Evidence for the Democratic Peace', Journal of Peace Research38(5): 609-613.
