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.[1][2]
In particular, the territorial peace theory seeks to explain why countries with stable borders are likely to develop democracy while countries with insecure borders tend to be autocratic.[1][2]
The connection between peace and democracy has long been recognized, but theorists disagree about the direction of causality. The democratic peace theory posits that democracy causes peace, while the territorial peace theory makes the opposite claim that peace causes democracy.[3]
Since the early 2000s, there has been increasing scientific support for the territorial peace theory and criticism of the democratic peace theory.[2] The territorial peace theory is addressing several weaknesses of the democratic peace theory. In particular, the democratic peace theory is contradicted by the historical observation that countries generally become democratic only after they have established peace with their neighbor countries.
Direction of causality
Democracies
Autocracies
The causal connection between peace and democracy is a subject of continued debate. Does peace cause democracy or does democracy cause peace? Is the causality going both ways in a self-amplifying cycle? Or is some third factor causing both peace and democracy?[3]
Historical studies show that countries become democratic only after their borders have been settled. It is very rare that democracy is established before territorial borders have been stabilized, and the few historical cases of democracy before peace have not been stable. This is strong evidence that a causal arrow goes from peace to democracy.[5][6] In fact, statistical studies show that democracy cannot account for peace between neighbor countries, but peace can account for joint democracy.[6]
Territorial conflicts have a remarkable effect on the attitudes and values of the population. Threats against the territorial borders of a country are observed to provoke a rallying effect in support of the leader and to foster a range of attitudes and behaviors that are antithetical to key democratic values, such as nationalism, authoritarianism, intolerance, and decreased political trust. Such reactions are likely to prevent democratization in countries with unstable borders.[7][8][2]
Another indication that the direction of causality goes from peace to democracy is obtained by the use of environment features as an instrumental variable. A rugged terrain is known to increase the likelihood of civil conflict. An observed positive correlation between rugged terrain, intolerance, and lack of democratic values is interpreted as an indication that conflict impedes democracy because the reverse causation from autocracy to rugged terrain can be excluded.[8]
One reason why democratic countries handle disputes with their neighbors more peacefully than non-democratic countries is that they have dispensed with the disputes most likely to involve the use of military force prior to becoming democratic, rather than because of their institutions or norms as the democratic peace theory supposes. In 75% of the country dyads examined in a study, border settlement occurred at least 35 years before that dyad became jointly democratic for the first time.[9]
A possible causality in the opposite direction, from democracy to peace, can be established if we make a distinction between negative peace and positive peace. Negative peace is the absence of war between neighbor countries. Positive peace is an active mutual recognition and cooperation and absence of threats. Positive peace results from high-quality democracy. Transitions from negative peace to positive peace often occur when new governments come to power, and more commonly in democratic states.[10]
Some theorists argue that the correlation between peace and democracy can be explained by a third factor causing both peace and democracy. The capitalist peace theory argues that economic development and markets and interdependence are the true causes of peace, and that democracy is uncorrelated with peace when these factors are accounted for.[11] Another factor during the Cold war was the dominance of the USA that fostered peace between democracies in the so-called Pax Americana.[11][12]
Another possibility is a circular causation so that peace, economic interdependence, democracy, and international organization all mutually reinforce each other in a positive feedback loop.[11] Peace and democracy tend to spread regionally so that clusters of democracies at peace with each other form in areas where borders have been settled and where countries have no reason to threaten each other's borders.[13][2]
Theoretical explanations
There are several theories seeking to explain why peace comes before democracy. These theories may all supplement each other.
Military explanation. A country with unstable borders needs to build up a large military capability in order to defend its territory against possible attacks from neighbor countries. A large standing army can not only be used for defense against external enemies but also for suppressing internal dissidents. This will enable the leaders to augment their position and repress any rebellion or demands for redistribution of wealth and democratization.[1][3]
Defense explanation. Individuals in a country with unstable borders will fear displacement from their territory. They depend on a strong state leadership to provide for their protection and security. This creates a rallying effect and support for a strong and authoritarian leader. It has been observed that the citizens in this situation often pay lip service to the ideology of democracy while in fact they support an authoritarian leader.[14][3]
Psychological explanation. Several psychological studies show that territorial conflicts lead to increased nationalism and intolerance of outgroups, while other kinds of threats have little or no such effect.[15][7] This intolerance is connected with a less democratic attitude, less support for negotiatedcompromise with the enemy, less concern about government corruption, and also less tolerance towards other outgroups unrelated to the conflict.[16][17] This effect is increasing with the degree of attachment to the contested territory.[17]
Evolutionary explanation. The psychological effects of territorial threats have an evolutionary explanation according to regality theory. Humans have evolved a psychological flexibility that make them desire a strong leader, strict discipline, intolerance, xenophobia, and a hierarchical social organization if their social group is threatened by conflict with another group. The opposite tendencies are seen in case of peace and collective security where people desire an egalitarian, democratic, and tolerant society. The construction of a hierarchical society with a strong leader in case of conflicts with neighbor groups benefits the citizens by increasing the social cohesion, suppressing free riding, and improving the capacity for collective action in war and violent conflict. This evolved response pattern explains why territorial conflicts, war, and terror have stronger psychological effects than other kinds of conflict, and why such conflicts lead to authoritarian attitudes and disregard for democracy.[18]
Reversal to autocracy
While the late 20'th century has seen large waves of democratization in many parts of the world, we have also seen trends of backlash and decrease in democratic freedoms, especially in the early 2000s.[19] Historical studies of countries that have become less democratic show that these countries are often led by popular leaders who consolidate their power with general support by the population. While the population still supported democracy in principle, they actually desired a more powerful leader and voted for an authoritarian populist. This situation is typically preceded by some external threat – real or imagined – against the country. This observation fits with the theories, explained above, that territorial threats lead to increased authoritarianism and decreased support for democracy.[14][16]
The threat that makes the population accept a centralization of power and a less democratic system is sometimes deliberately fabricated. There are many historical examples of political leaders who engage in psychological manipulation of their own population through fearmongering, exaggeration of dangers, or even creation of false flag attacks in order to augment their own power. In other cases, the threats are fabricated by foreign powers who engage in psychological warfare and a strategy of tension in order to facilitate an authoritarian coup.[18][16]
Criticism
Proponents of the democratic peace theory – the theory that democracy causes peace – argue that democracies are likely to use mediation or binding arbitration rather than military force to resolve interstate disputes. Democracies are less likely than autocracies to initiate wars that they are not certain of winning. Studies show that the popularity of the government is decreasing if war casualties are high, as the democratic peace theory predicts.[11] Another study found that the risk of violent conflicts is decreasing when the degree of accountability of a government is increasing.[20] Furthermore, citizens of democracies are significantly less likely to support the use of force against democracies than against autocracies.[11]
Critics further argue that if the territorial peace theory assumes that leaders suppress democracy because they believe that democracy impedes the ability of their state to fight wars, then this in fact confirms that democracies are more peaceful.[11]
Some researchers have even argued that war may lead to a regime change which may pave the way for democratization.[21]
Democratic peace researchers have found that the statistical correlation between peace and democracy remains significant when the correlation is controlled for the effect of border stability,[22] while a rebuttal argues that this applies to non-neighbor states, while the statistics still supports the territorial peace theory for states with shared borders.[23]
Time series analyses show that rivalizing states which are both democratic are less likely to escalate a rivalry to violent conflict. The pacifying effect of joint democracy is increasing over time after both states have transitioned to democracy.[24] These effects of democracy extend beyond war. Democratic dyads are also less likely than non-democratic dyads to threaten, display, or use force against one another.[25]
The territorial peace theory does not explain the observations by the interactive model of democratic peace, which finds influences in the data from both political similarity and democracy.[26]
Synthesis of democratic peace and territorial peace theories
The territorial peace peace theory refers to neighbor countries because they have a shared border that they may fight over. Statistical studies support territorial peace rather than democratic peace when studying only country pairs with shared borders. Joint democracy does not significantly increase peace between neighbor countries until after they have settled their borders.[23]
The situation is different for countries with no shared border. Borders will rarely be an issue between non-neighbor countries. But democracy may improve peaceful relations between countries even if they have no shared border. Democratic countries are more likely to engage in peaceful negotiations and less likely to use threats or force against each other because of shared norms and because voters will often replace warmaking politicians.[25]
This effect of democracy works also for neighbor countries after they have settled their borders. Joint democracy for countries that are already at peace with each other decreases the likelihood of new conflicts, and reduces the severity of militarized disputes and crises if they occur. Therefore, the democratic peace theory is useful for conflicts between countries with no shared border and for countries that are already at peace with each other, while the territorial peace theory is the most relevant theory for neighbor countries with unstable borders. The appearance of joint democracy has no significant pacifying effect in the absence of settled borders.[25]
Democratic leaders are less likely than autocrats to initiate a violent conflict, but after a military confrontation has started, there is little difference between the actions of democratic and autocratic leaders. The peaceful effect of democracy is to some extent offset by the observation that democratic leaders are less likely to retreat in case of military crisis because their popularity will decrease when they lose face.[27]
Political applications
The territorial peace theory has important implications for international relations, global politics, and peace building. If peace and stable borders are preconditions for democracy, then any interventionist peace policy should focus first and foremost on the settlement of territorial conflicts rather than trying to impose democracy on conflict-filled countries.[25]
There have been many attempts to impose democracy on troubled countries with explicit reference to the democratic peace theory. The stated purpose of such interventions was to create peace through democracy.[8] For example, the involvement of the US in World War I, World War II, as well as the Iraq War, were all based on the belief that democracy causes peace.[11][28][25]
Interventionist attempts to install democracy by military means have almost invariably failed.[29][30] The territorial peace theory predicts that military interventions are likely to lead to less democracy, not more, even if the interventions aim at establishing democracy.[8]
In several cases, the democratic peace theory has been used as a justification for initiating a war, rather than the true motive. See the chapter on justification for initiating war under democratic peace theory.
While UNmandates that call for democratic elections after a civil war may be normatively appealing, they are unlikely to be successful. In fact, it has been argued that early elections after civil wars are increasing the likelihood of future conflict because they may lead to suppression of the interests of minority groups.[8]
A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state . The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. The term is a calque of Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. The dictator maintains control by influencing and appeasing the inner circle and repressing any opposition, which may include rival political parties, armed resistance, or disloyal members of the dictator's inner circle. Dictatorships can be formed by a military coup that overthrows the previous government through force or they can be formed by a self-coup in which elected leaders make their rule permanent. Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian, and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies.
Peace means societal friendship and harmony in the absence of hostility and violence. In a social sense, peace is commonly used to mean a lack of conflict and freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.
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 a single individual, or they may also apply autocracy to 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.
A state's foreign policy or external policy is its objectives and activities in relation to its interactions with other states, unions, and other political entities, whether bilaterally or through multilateral platforms. The Encyclopædia Britannica notes that a government's foreign policy may be influenced by "domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs."
Democratization, or democratisation, is the democratic transition to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.
Rudolph Joseph Rummel was an American political scientist and professor at the Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. He spent his career studying data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Contrasting genocide, Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government, such as the genocide of indigenous peoples and colonialism, Nazi Germany, the Stalinist purges, Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, and other authoritarian, totalitarian, or undemocratic regimes, coming to the conclusion that democratic regimes result in the least democides.
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 resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, is the phenomenon of countries with an abundance of natural resources having less economic growth, less democracy, or worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for and exceptions to the adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.
Militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) are conflicts between states that do not involve a full-scale war. These include any conflicts in which one or more states threaten, display, or use force against one or more other states. They can vary in intensity from threats of force to actual combat short of war. A MID is composed of a sequence of related militarized incidents, all but the first being an outgrowth of or response to a previous militarized incident. An initiator of a war need not necessarily be the same as the initiator of a preceding MID, since a MID can be started by a show of force, whereas the initiator of a war begins the actual combat. Under this definition, over 2400 MIDs have been identified from 1816 to 2014 in the Correlates of War project.
Democracy promotion, also referred to as democracy building, can be domestic policy to increase the quality of already existing democracy or a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international organizations that seek to support the spread of democracy as a system of government. Among the reasons for supporting democracy include the belief that countries with a democratic system of governance are less likely to go to war, are likely to be economically better off and socially more harmonious. In democracy building, the process includes the building and strengthening of democracy, in particular the consolidation of democratic institutions, including courts of law, police forces, and constitutions. Some critics have argued that the United States has used democracy promotion to justify military intervention abroad.
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy, civil liberties, 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.
A coup d'état, or simply a coup, is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership. A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.
The capitalist peace, or capitalist peace theory, or commercial peace, posits that market openness contributes to more peaceful behavior among states, and that developed market-oriented economies are less likely to engage in conflict with one another. Along with the democratic peace theory and institutionalist arguments for peace, the commercial peace forms part of the Kantian tripod for peace. Prominent mechanisms for the commercial peace revolve around how capitalism, trade interdependence, and capital interdependence raise the costs of warfare, incentivize groups to lobby against war, make it harder for leaders to go to war, and reduce the economic benefits of conquest.
The Steps To War explanation is a theory of international relations based on the issue paradigm that empirically establishes the war-proneness of territorial issues and the use of power politics practices. The framework is established by Paul D. Senese and John A. Vasquez in the 2008 book The Steps to War: An Empirical Study, though many of key insights, such as the role of alliances, arms races, and territory in promoting escalation of disputes to war, have been elaborated in previous works. The Steps To War explanation makes two major contributions to the war literature. First, it shows that not all disputes are equally likely to escalate to war. In particular, it presents a theoretical and empirical case for the war-proneness of territorial disputes Second, the theory demonstrates that the very power politics practices that political realists claim prevent war increase its probability of occurring.
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.
An audience cost, in international relations theory, is the domestic political cost that leaders incur from their constituency if they escalate a foreign policy crisis and are then seen as backing down. It is considered to be one of the potential mechanisms for democratic peace theory. It is associated with rational choice scholarship in international relations.
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.
Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary and repressive. This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especially freedom of expression. Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization.
Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.
References
1 2 3 Gibler, Douglas M. (2012). The Territorial Peace: Borders, State Development, and International Conflict. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-107-01621-7.
1 2 3 4 Gibler, Douglas M.; Miller, Steven V. (2021). "The Territorial Peace: Current and Future Research". In McLaughlin, Sara; Vasquez, John A. (eds.). What do we know about War? (3ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp.158–170.
↑ Roser, Max (15 March 2013). "Democracy". Our World in Data. Retrieved 16 January 2021.
↑ Gibler, Douglas M.; Owsiak, Andrew (2017). "Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919-2001". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 62 (9): 1847–1875. doi:10.1177/0022002717708599. S2CID158036471.
1 2 Gibler, Douglas M.; Hutchison, Marc L.; Miller, Steven V. (2012). "Individual identity attachments and international conflict: The importance of territorial threat". Comparative Political Studies. 45 (12): 1655–1683. doi:10.1177/0010414012463899. S2CID154788507.
1 2 3 4 5 Hutchison, Marc L. (2014). "Tolerating threat? The independent effects of civil conflict on domestic political tolerance". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 58 (5): 796–824. doi:10.1177/0022002713478566. S2CID146427711.
↑ Owsiak, Andrew P.; Diehl, Paul F.; Goertz, Gary (2021). "The Peace Puzzle: Understanding Transitions to Peace". In Vasquez, John A; Mitchell, Sara (eds.). What Do We Know about War? (3ed.). Rowman and Littlefield. pp.171–196.
↑ Mousseau, Michael (2021). "The liberal peace". In McLaughlin, Sara; Vasquez, John A. (eds.). What do we know about War? (3ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp.141–157.
↑ Gibler, Douglas M.; Tir, Jaroslav (2014). "Territorial peace and democratic clustering". The Journal of Politics. 76 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1017/S0022381613001059.
1 2 Miller, Steven V. (2017). "Individual-level expectations of executive authority under territorial threat". Conflict Management and Peace Science. 34 (5): 526–545. doi:10.1177/0738894215600384. S2CID146232409.
↑ Tir, Jaroslav; Singh, Shane P (2015). "Get off my lawn: Territorial civil wars and subsequent social intolerance in the public". Journal of Peace Research. 52 (4): 478–491. doi:10.1177/0022343315571008. S2CID146639998.
1 2 Justwan, Florian; Fisher, Sarah K. (2021). "Territorial claims, territorial attachment, and political tolerance: evidence from India". Politics, Groups, and Identities. 9 (1): 190–207. doi:10.1080/21565503.2018.1528164. S2CID158640607.
1 2 Fog, Agner (2017). Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture. Open Book Publishers. ISBN978-1-78374-405-3.
1 2 Gibler, Douglas M. (2014). "Contiguous states, stable borders, and the peace between democracies". International Studies Quarterly. 58 (1): 126–129. doi:10.1111/isqu.12105.
↑ Hensel, Paul R.; Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F. (2000). "The democratic peace and rivalries". The Journal of Politics. 62 (4): 1173–1188. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00052. S2CID154641833.
1 2 3 4 5 Owsiak, Andrew P. (2019). "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments". Conflict Management and Peace Science. 36 (1): 63–87. doi:10.1177/0738894216650635. S2CID156163897.
↑ Huth, Paul K.; Allee, Todd L. (2002). The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press.
↑ Russett, Bruce (2005). "Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace". International Studies Perspectives. 6 (4): 395–408. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00217.x.
↑ Keen, David (2006). Endless war? Hidden functions of the" War on Terror". Pluto Press.
↑ Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de; Downs, George W. (2006). "Intervention and Democracy". International Organization. 60 (3): 627–649. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060206. S2CID15273917.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Politicsportal 
