List of wars between democracies

Last updated

This is an incomplete list of wars between entities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government and actually practice it. Two points are required: that there has been a war, and that there are democracies on at least two opposing sides. For many of these entries, whether there has been a war, or a democracy, is a debatable question; all significant views should be given.

Contents

Definition dependence

Almost all of these depend on the definition of "democracy" (and of "war") employed. Some democracy indices, such as V-Dem Democracy indices, instead of classifying democracies give a quantitative metric without a threshold. As James Lee Ray points out, with a sufficiently restrictive definition of democracy, there will be no wars between democracies: define democracy as true universal suffrage, the right of all – including children – to vote, and there have been no democracies, and so no wars between them. The interactive model of democratic peace found in V-Dem Democracy Indices gradual influences from both democracy score and political similarity on wars and militarized interstate disputes. [1]

On the other hand, Ray lists the following as having been called wars between democracies, with broader definitions of democracy: The American Revolution including the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, the French Revolutionary Wars, the War of 1812, the Belgian Revolution, the Sonderbund War, the war of 1849 between the Roman Republic (1849–1850) and the Second French Republic, the American Civil War, the Spanish–American War, the Second Philippine War, the Second Boer War, World War I, World War II (as a whole, and also the Continuation War by itself), the 1947–1949 Palestine war, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, the Six-Day War, the Yugoslav Wars, and the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. [2] The mean democracy scores over the pairs of countries at war are on the low end and consistent with the interactive model of democratic peace. [1]

Similarly, the school of Ted Robert Gurr, founder of the Polity IV dataset, divides regimes into three classes: democracies, autocracies, and "anocracies"; the last being the sort of weak or new states which are marginal democracies or marginal autocracies; many of the wars below involve weak or marginal democracies. [3]

Antiquity

Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War included a great many conflicts among Greek city-states. The principal war was between Athens and its allies (most of them democracies) on one side, and Sparta and its allies (most of them oligarchies—although most of them held elections among a citizen body[ citation needed ]) on the other. However, the war lasted for twenty-seven years, with a brief armistice, and a great many side-conflicts occurred; and states changed from democracy to oligarchy and back again. Most notable of the wars between democracies was the Sicilian Expedition, 415–413 BC, in which Athens went to war with Syracuse. Bruce Russett finds 13 conflicts between "clear" democratic pairs (most of these being Athens and allies in the Sicilian Expedition) and 25 involving "other" democratic pairs. [4] Classicist Mogens Herman Hansen thinks one of Russett's examples unlikely, but adds several instances of wars between democracies before and after the Peloponnesian War. [5]

Second and Third Punic Wars

The democratic Constitution of the Roman Republic, before its collapse in the late 1st century BC, is amply documented; its magistrates (including the Roman Senate, which was composed of current and former magistrates) were elected by universal suffrage by adult (male) citizens; all male citizens were eligible. There was a political class of wealthy men; most successful candidates belonged to this class, and all of them were supported by a party drawn from it, but this does not distinguish Rome from other democracies—nor, indeed, from non-democratic states; freedom of speech was, however, a characteristic difference between the Republic and the later Roman Empire. [6] The Punic Wars. [7] The old constitution of Carthage, before the First Punic War, was described by Aristotle as a mixture of democracy and oligarchy; after the disastrous end of that war, about 240 BC, there was a democratic change, the direct election of a pair of executives, and the Second Punic War was fought under that constitution; there continued to be an oligarchic party. There were several further changes of party, and democratic reforms; the election of the democratic party, which favored a less passive foreign policy, in 151 BC, provoked Rome to begin the Third Punic War two years later. [8]

18th century

19th century

20th century

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy</span> Form of government

Democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state. Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government</span> System or group of people governing an organized community, often a state

A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state.

Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat. It includes most forms of monarchy and dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and feudalism. Various definitions of autocracy exist. They may restrict autocracy to cases where power is held by a single individual, or they may define autocracy in a way that includes a group of rulers who wield absolute power. The autocrat has total control over the exercise of civil liberties within the autocracy, choosing under what circumstances they may be exercised, if at all. Governments may also blend elements of autocracy and democracy, forming an anocracy. The concept of autocracy has been recognized in political philosophy since ancient times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One-party state</span> State in which only one party has the right to form the government

A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a governance structure in which only a single political party controls the ruling system. All other parties are either outlawed or only enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections. Sometimes the term "de facto one-party state" is used to describe a dominant-party system that, unlike the one-party state, allows democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power.

In politics, a regime is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc., that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. The two broad categories of regimes that appear in most literature are democratic and autocratic. However, autocratic regimes can be broken down into a subset of many different types. The key similarity between all regimes are the presence of rulers, and either formal or informal institutions.

In political science, a political system means the type of political organization that can be recognized, observed or otherwise declared by a state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratization</span> Society becoming more democratic

Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic peace theory</span> International relations theory; posits that democracies are reluctant to go to war

Proponents of democratic peace theory argue that both electoral and republican forms of democracy are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies. Different advocates of this theory suggest that several factors are responsible for motivating peace between democratic states. Individual theorists maintain "monadic" forms of this theory ; "dyadic" forms of this theory ; and "systemic" forms of this theory.

The term "illiberal democracy" describes a governing system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures". There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa</span> Overview of the role and situation of democracy in the Middle East and North Africa

The state of Democracy in Middle East and North Africa can be comparatively assessed according to various definitions of democracy. According to The Economist Group's Democracy Index 2023 study, Israel is the only democratic country in the region, qualified as a "flawed democracy". According to the V-Dem Democracy indices, the Middle Eastern and North African countries with the highest scores in 2024 are Israel, Tunisia and Iraq.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of democracy</span>

A democracy is a political system, or a system of decision-making within an institution, organization, or state, in which members have a share of power. Modern democracies are characterized by two capabilities of their citizens that differentiate them fundamentally from earlier forms of government: to intervene in society and have their sovereign held accountable to the international laws of other governments of their kind. Democratic government is commonly juxtaposed with oligarchic and monarchic systems, which are ruled by a minority and a sole monarch respectively.

<i>Never at War</i>

Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another is a book by the historian and physicist Spencer R. Weart published by Yale University Press in 1998. It examines political and military conflicts throughout human history and finds no exception to one of the claims that is made by the controversial democratic peace theory that well-established liberal democracies have never made war on one another. In addition to the democratic peace, Weart argues that there is also an oligarchic peace and provides a new explanation for both the democratic and oligarchic peace. The book is often mentioned in the academic debate and has received both praise and criticism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liberal democracy</span> Form of government

Liberal democracy, Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy is a form of government that combines the organization of a representative democracy with ideas of liberal political philosophy.

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power. The definition of "politics" from "The Free Dictionary" is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power. Politics study include political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior, and public administration, which examines the practices of governance.

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military. States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.

<i>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch</i> Book-length essay by Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant

Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch is a 1795 book authored by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In the book, Kant advances ideas that have subsequently been associated with democratic peace, commercial peace, and institutional peace.

Anocracy, or semi-democracy, is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements. Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas. Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition. Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic intervention</span>

A democratic intervention is a military intervention by external forces with the aim of assisting democratization of the country where the intervention takes place. Examples include intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democratic intervention has occurred throughout the mid-twentieth century, as evidenced in Japan and Germany after World War II, where democracies were imposed by military intervention.

The territorial peace theory finds that the stability of a country's borders has a large influence on the political climate of the country. Peace and stable borders foster a democratic and tolerant climate, while territorial conflicts with neighbor countries have far-reaching consequences for both individual-level attitudes, government policies, conflict escalation, arms races, and war.

References

  1. 1 2 Altman, D., Rojas-de-Galarreta, F., & Urdinez, F. (2021). An interactive model of democratic peace. Journal of Peace Research, 58(3), 384-398.
  2. 1 2 James Lee Ray: "Wars between democracies: Rare, or nonexistent?", International Interactions Volume 18, Issue 3 February 1993, pages 251–276; child suffrage and from Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p.88. Restricted definitions of democracy can also be constructed which define away all wars between democracies, and yet include many regimes often held to be democratic; Ray finds this more rhetorically effective than saying that full-scale international war between established democracies with wide suffrage is less likely than between other pairs of states.
  3. Ze'ev Maoz, Nasrin Abdolali, "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976", Journal of Conflict Resolution vol. 33, no. 1 (March 1986) pp. 3–35.
  4. Bruce M. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace, p. 47–71; Russett, one of the few to consider the democratic peace before 1750, thinks it likely that the norm of interdemocratic peace developed gradually through the centuries.
  5. Hansen et al.: An inventory of archaic and classical poleis (2005), p. 85 et seq.
  6. Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (1939, repr. and revised 1962), including the view on the oligarchy behind all constitutions.
  7. David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Press of America (2005), p.143, who discusses Rome and Carthage.
  8. Serge Lancel: History of Carthage (1993, Eng. tr. 1995) pp. 116–120, 411; Richard Miles "Carthage must be destroyed" (2010): 214, 318, 337
  9. Reiter, D. and Stam, A.C., Democracies at War.
  10. John Mueller, "Is War Still Becoming Obsolete?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August–September 1991, p. 51.
  11. Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965". Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1: 50–69; Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p. 123.
  12. Spiro, David E. (1994). "Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace". International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Autumn, 1994): 50–86.
  13. Gowa, Joanne (1999) Ballots and Bullets: the Elusive Democratic Peace, p. 50.
  14. Wang, Bella (2012-05-21). "Power, Domestic Politics, and the Spanish-American War". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
  15. Peceny, Mark (1997). "A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War". Journal of Peace Research. 34 (4): 415–430. doi:10.1177/0022343397034004004. ISSN   0022-3433. JSTOR   424863.
  16. McLaughin Mitchell, Sara; Vazquez, John (2013). Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research. CQ Press. p. 17. ISBN   9781483322100.
  17. Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123; on the Orange Free State as direct democracy, see also The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics 2:74; in general, see Dean V. Babst. "Elective Governments – A Force For Peace". The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9–14 (he writes of, and defines, freely elective governments, but his papers have been taken as the founding of democratic peace theory, and cited as being about democracies); Raymond Cohen, "Pacific unions: a reappraisal of the theory that 'democracies do not go to war with each other'", Review of International Studies 20 (3, 1994) 207–223.
  18. Ayhat Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913
  19. Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; pp. 210–11, 221.
  20. Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; p. 200
  21. Vanhanen calls his own methodology of ranking democracies approximate, and subject to short-term variation; others call it "unacceptable", and using "invalid" or "controversial" indicators; see Tatu Vanhanen, Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, Routledge, 2003, p. 36, 61. He primarily uses it to measure and compare long-term trends in the democracy of single countries, in which such fluctuations will cancel out.
  22. Tatu Vanhanen, Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, Routledge, 2003, p72
  23. 1 2 Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): p. 216
  24. Wright, Herbert Francis (1919). The Constitutions of the States at War, 1914-1918. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 223.
  25. 1 2 "Polity IV Project" . Retrieved March 4, 2006.
  26. Small, Melvin; Singer, David J. (1976). "The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965". Jerusalem Journal of International Relations. 1: 50–69.
  27. Wiberg, Eric (2017-08-18). U-Boats off Bermuda: Patrol Summaries and Merchant Ship Survivors Landed in Bermuda 1940-1944. Fonthill Media. p. 18.
  28. Gleditsch, Nils P. (1992). "Democracy and Peace". Journal of Peace Research. 29 (4): 369–376. doi:10.1177/0022343392029004001. JSTOR   425538. S2CID   110790206.
  29. Wayman, Frank (2002). "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 23–27, 2002
  30. Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123: "the nearest exception"; Russett notes that Singer and Small (see note on the Continuation War) do not count Israel as yet being a democracy.
  31. 1 2 Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p.120
  32. Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 129, 122, 209–210; they do not generally disaggregate the differences in regime type (democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government) in each pair of states from other differences between states, and differences between other states in the same crisis. For a briefer discussion of the emerging democracy of India and the ultimately unsuccessful democracy of the Dominion of Pakistan, see Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; pp. 241–42.
  33. Imtiaz Omar: Emergency powers and the courts in India and Pakistan, 2002, p.2
  34. Cambridge History of India, Volume IV, part 1, "Politics of India since independence", p. 61; for more discussion of the destruction of Pakistan's first democracy, see Ian Talbot, A short history of Pakistan, chapter 5, which cites the detailed history of the period; Allan McGrath, The Destruction of Pakistan's Democracy (1998). For Polity IV, see Diehl, Goertz and Saeedi, "Theoretical specifications of enduring rivalries", pp. 27–54 in T. V. Paul, The India–Pakistan Conflict; An Enduring Rivalry (2005), p. 47–48, which considers a difference of +7 the line marking full democracy.
  35. Cohen, Raymond (July 1994). "Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory That 'Democracies Do Not Go to War with Each Other'". Review of International Studies. 20 (3). Cambridge University Press: 207–223. doi:10.1017/S0260210500118030. S2CID   144275086 via JSTOR.
  36. Doyle, Michael W. (1983a). "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs". Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Vol. 12, No. 3. (Summer, 1983)): 205–235
  37. Parker T. Hart. "A New American Policy towards the Middle East". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 390, A New American Posture toward Asia (July 1970), pp. 98–113
  38. David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Press of America (2005), p.143
  39. Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight (2007), pp. 223–225; they also apply their theory that a democratizing regime tends to be belligerent to hold itself together to the military government in Greece, which was not directly involved in the war.
  40. Library of Congress Country Study: Cyprus, Chapter I
  41. Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 305–06, p. 128 ranks it as a full scale war.
  42. Virginia Page Fortna: Peace time: cease-fire agreements and the durability of peace. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2004; pp. 110–111.
  43. Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War . Yale University Press. ISBN   978-0-300-07017-0. p. 70, 316.
  44. Antić, Miljenko and Vlahovec, Jadranka (2013). "'Democratic War': Democratic Peace Theory and the War in Former Yugoslavia". Hrčak (Croatian scholarly journals). University of Zagreb.
  45. Tarzi, Shah M. (December 2007). "Democratic Peace, Illiberal Democracy and conflict behaviour". International Journal on World Peace. 24 (4): 48. JSTOR   20752801 via JSTOR.
  46. Solingen, Etel (1998). Regional Orders at Century's Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy . Princeton University Press. pp.  96. ISBN   0691058806.
  47. Webb, A. J. (2009). "Reality or Rhetoric: The Democratic Peace Theory". SSRN   2169672.