Fernando Magallanes Mato

How useful is liberalism as a framework for analysing war?

War is one of the key topics with which disciplines such as International
Relations or Political Science deal. Therefore, during the last decades, scholars have
engaged in numerous debates concerning this phenomenon of war and the different
frameworks that can be used to study it. One of them is liberalism, whose relation with
war is analysed in this essay. The main claim of the liberal theory affirms that liberal
democracies, by definition, do not wage war against each other and, according to some
authors, this assertion is accepted by most scholars and [it] has nearly become a
truism1. However, in this essay, it will be offered an argument against this claim and it
will be argued that both the concepts of liberal democracies and war are such
controversial and subjective that the former assertion turns out to be a complete fallacy.
As a result, it is impossible to categorically defend a correlation between liberal
democracy and peace. To begin with, it will be offered to the reader a brief
definition of the main concepts that will be handled. These definitions
are supposed to be as much neutral and objective as possible.
Nevertheless, in the first paragraph of the main body, the principal
argument of the essay will be explained and the controversies linked
to the previously mentioned definitions will be analysed. In the
following paragraphs, a collection of arguments will be presented in
order to support this essays main thesis. Finally, the essay will
conclude with an overview of these ideas and a general reflection on
the whole topic.

1 Owen,

John. 1994. How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace, International

Security 19(2): 87.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

As it was already mentioned, before presenting and supporting

the main thesis, it will be provided an explanation of the fundamental
concepts with which this essay will deal, even though later on some
critiques to these universally accepted definitions will be presented.
Firstly, regarding liberalism as the main theory with which this essay
is concerned, it can be claimed that it opposes realism in the sense
that it sees International Relations and world politics as slowly
evolving towards a gradually more peaceful status quo, whereas
realist scholars insist on a timeless perception of the world. 2 Liberals
support their theory arguing that this positive evolution towards
peace and stability can only be possible by establishing democratic
regimes.

However,

as

Kenneth

Waltz

ironically

specifies,

only

democracies of the right kind (i. e., liberal ones) are peaceful in
relation to one another3. As it will be put forward afterwards, it is
precisely that assumption that there is only one universally accepted
concept of democracy that denies the whole liberal theory due to the
lack of agreement on its basic concepts.

First of all, regarding liberalism as a framework for studying war,

it can be claimed that the supporters of the Democratic Peace Theory
(which defends the idea that democracies by nature do not go to war with one
another4) base their arguments in Kants philosophy. The German author asserted that
2 Goldstein, Joshua. 2011. International Relations. Longman: 85.
3 Waltz, Kenneth. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security
25(1): 7.
4 Pugh, Jeff. 2005. Democratic Peace Theory: a review and evaluation. CEMPROC: 2.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

republican political systems (i. e. democratic) are less likely to wage war against each
other. For this reason, the more democratic states, the more the probabilities of
achieving perpetual peace5. Furthermore, liberals often turn to the Correlates of War
project of the University of Michigan, which affirms that, since 1815, no major conflict
has taken place between liberal democracies6. However, both Kant and the University of
Michigan scholars take for granted that there is only one universal and objective
definition of democracy and war that has remained unaltered throughout history.
Nevertheless, by carrying out a closer analysis, we realise that the 19 th centurys idea of
democracy has nothing to do with the current one. For instance, universal suffrage,
gender and race equality, freedom of speech, etc., are some of the basic rights that today
we inherently associate with democracy; nonetheless, these were completely
unconceivable for a democrat of the United Kingdom or France in the early 19 th
century. Furthermore, nowadays, a country which does not recognize womens right to
vote (for instance Bahrain, where women were denied the right to vote until 2002 7)
would never be recognised by the international community as a democracy. However,
liberalism does consider the British regime in 1850 a democracy, even though the
womens situation was the same as in the above-mentioned example of Bahrain8.

This instance leads to rethink the concept of democracy throughout history and analyse
how the definition of this system of government has acquired different perceptions
5 Kant, Immanuel. 2006. Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace
and history. Yale University Press.
6 Hegre, Hvard. 2001. Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political
Change, and Civil War, 18161992. American Political Science Association, pp 33-48.
7 Darwish, Adel. 2002. Bahrains women vote for first time. The Telegraph.
8 Mehta, Uday Sigh. 1999. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century
Brotish Liberal Thought. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Chapter 4, Liberalism,
Empire and Territory.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

depending on the historic stage. Furthermore, even today, there are still numerous
contradictory explanations on how democracy should work. In lieu of providing an
exhaustive account of different self-denominated democratic regimes, which is not
the goal of this essay, just some explanatory examples will be offered: probably,
liberalism would never consider countries like North Korea or the former East Germany
as democracies given their obvious lack of freedom and rights. Nevertheless, we
ought to bear in mind that these countries official names are, to the surprise of liberal
scholars, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea9 and German Democratic Republic10
respectively. As a result, we face a dilemma: are these states democracies or not? Which
concept of democracy, ours or theirs, is the right one? If we were to accept these
countries as democracies, then the Democratic Peace Theory would fail, since North
Korea, for instance, can be described as a belligerent state with aggressive policies
towards South Korea, which is considered a democracy by liberalism. However, if we
do not recognise the DPRK as democracy, then we are assuming that there are more
definitions of democracy apart from ours and that we are selecting the examples that are
convenient for us in order to prove the equation democracy=peace.

Now that we have analysed the polemic nature of the concept of

democracy, we move to another controversial idea: war. Some
authors have claimed that it is the liberal ideas shared by
democracies that prevent them of waging war against each other 11.
9 North Korea. 2014. In Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from
http//.britannica.com (24/11/15).
10 German Democratic Republic. 2015. In Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved
from http//.britannica.com (24/11/15).
11 Owen, John. 1994. How Liberalism produces Democratic Peace. International
Security 19(2): 87-125.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

Nonetheless, as we have seen in the previous paragraph, there is no

universal consensus among scholars on what does liberal ideas are,
since different states (self-) defined as democracies are quite likely
to fight against others. What is more, now we have to tackle the issue
of war, which just like democracy is such a problematic and even
subjective concept that no agreement has been reached to provide a
universal definition for it. First of all, war is not always as it is thought
to be, therefore, plenty of violent phenomena that have taken place
along history were considered war or not depending on the person
asked. In this respect, nowadays, several acts of war are being
camouflaged by denominations such as humanitarian intervention 12.
By proclaiming precisely Owens shared democratic values (tolerance,
freedom, human rights), numerous military operations (i. e. what we
would normally call war) have been carried out by democracies, for
example, the 2001 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 intervention in Libya.
Nevertheless, given the still Western-centred nature of International
Relations as a field, liberals would never include these two examples
in their list of wars, since they consider them justified so as to
preserve democratic values in those places where these are not
respected13. As a result, it can be claimed that the perception of war
outside Europe and North America, where liberalism as a theory of
International Relations is produced, differs completely from the one
that is used in the Democratic Peace Theory. As David Chandler says:
12 Chandler, David. 2000. International Justice. New Left Review 6: 55-66.
13 MacMillan, John. 1996. Democracies Dont Fight: A Case of the Wrong Research
Agenda? Review of International Studies 22(3), pp. 279-280.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

In the Middle East, in Africa and the Balkans, the exercise of international
justice signifies a return to the Westphalian system of open great-power
domination over states which are too weak to prevent external claims
against them.14

In the above-quoted fragment, Chandler criticises the ambiguity

of the concept of International Justice, which is sometimes
manipulated for the benefit of the interests of a particular state.
Nevertheless, at first sight, due to the apparent defence of universally
accepted principles put up by some institutions (Chandler offers the
example of The Hague War Crimes Tribunal15), it is very difficult to
raise an argument against it, especially if you are one of the accused.
All in all, what can be inferred from this is that the concept of war
turns out to be extremely simplified in the Democratic Peace Theory. If
all the examples of violence exerted by democratic states are
analysed, we find out that there is no possible way to label them in
the same category and, furthermore, what is sometimes considered
war is not necessarily perceived as war in other places and vice
versa. As a result, the simplistic assumption that democracy prevents
countries from going to war lacks a solid foundation on what does war
consist on.

14 Chandler, David. 2000. International Justice, New Left Review 6, p. 66.

15 Chandler, David. 2000. International Justice, New Left Review 6, p. 63.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

To conclude, as it can be inferred from the previous paragraphs, there

are a number of arguments against the basic claim of liberal theory
when it comes to the analysis of war (i. e. that democracies produce
peace). This essay has focused on the ambiguity and subjectivity of
the core concepts of liberalism to deny its validity. By reading and
studying the main liberal scholars and supporters of the Democratic
Peace Theory, it seems that their basic ideas (actually the ones on
which their whole arguments are based) are, to some extent, taken
for granted, in other words, they are used as if everybody were in
agreement with their definition. Liberals talk about democracy and
war and, at the same time, they expect others to share the same
mental idea of these terms as they do. Nevertheless, it is precisely at
this point where they commit an egregious mistake, since they fail to
understand that war, for instance, is not perceived in the same way
by a 19th century Englishman, a current French citizen and a Syrian. In
the same way, as it was previously mentioned, there is no point in
defending an enduring and timeless notion of democracy given the
fact that this one has profoundly changed during the last two
centuries. Nevertheless, and by way of conclusion, the fact that
liberalism has proved not to be accurate in their analysis of
democracy and the prevention of war does not mean that there is no
way

to

achieve

Kants

perpetual

peace.

Until

now,

liberal

democracies have acted pursuing their own interests (political,

economic, etc.) in lieu of the whole humanitys welfare. It is precisely
this lack of empathy and solidarity with the rest of the planet that has

Fernando Magallanes Mato

prevented the international community from accomplishing a peaceful

and enduring status quo. Although the concepts of democracy and
peace have constantly been distorted for the benefit of a limited
number of people, the world has still the opportunity to reinvent these
ideas and make them represent what they really mean. Only by doing
this, humanity will reach real and democratic perpetual peace.

Bibliography

Fernando Magallanes Mato

Chandler, David. 2000. International Justice. New Left Review 6: 55-66.

Darwish, Adel. 2002. Bahrains women vote for first time. The Telegraph.

North

Korea.

2014.

In

Encyclopaedia

Britannica

Online.

Retrieved

from

http//.britannica.com (24/11/15).

German Democratic Republic. 2015. In Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved

from http//.britannica.com (24/11/15).

Goldstein, Joshua. 2011. International Relations. Longman: 85.

Hegre, Hvard. 2001. Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change,
and Civil War, 18161992. American Political Science Association, pp 33-48.

Kant, Immanuel. 2006. Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace
and history. Yale University Press.

MacMillan, John. 1996. Democracies Dont Fight: A Case of the Wrong Research
Agenda? Review of International Studies 22(3), pp. 275-299.

Mehta, Uday Sigh. 1999. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century

Brotish Liberal Thought. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Chapter 4, Liberalism,
Empire and Territory.

Fernando Magallanes Mato

Owen, John. 1994. How Liberalism produces Democratic Peace. International

Security 19(2): 87-125.

Pugh, Jeff. 2005. Democratic Peace Theory: a review and evaluation. CEMPROC: 2.

Waltz, Kenneth. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security
25(1): 7.