Personally, my understanding of Peace and Conflict Studies does not defer that much to that of the journal article, as I too believe that it is very important to study and research both aspects of “violence” and “conflict” in order to better implement peaceful measure and peacebuilding strategies. Interestingly, the findings presented in this article indicate that there is a clear divide among academics which stems from various factors such as gender, methodology and region. The role that gender seems to play in our understanding of Peace and Conflict Studies influences our attitude towards the practice of peace and conflict. For example, the journal article mentions that male authors were roughly twice as likely to study “conflict” and “violence”, while female authors were slightly more likely to study “peace” rather than “conflict”. Consequently, I couldn’t help but wonder if this discrepancy is somehow linked to the so-called “biological traits” of men and women (men being more assertive/aggressive while women are more nurturing/caring).  

In conclusion, I was rather disappointed to find out that a debate about the importance of studying one aspect of Peace and Conflict Studies (in this case “conflict) still divides so many academics and academic research. I strongly believe that the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies needs to focus on both analysing war and conflict and finding effective peacebuilding strategies in order to effectively help build a better and safer society. I am aware of the fact that unfortunately, achieving global peace is more of a utopia than a reality, however, that does not mean that it should discourage us from at least trying to get as close as possible to a peaceful world as we can.

Immanuel Kant’s work can be regarded as an international treaty with the aim of exploring various possibilities through which we can obtain a state of permanent peace. I would like to mention that the goal of Kant’s project, although commendable, appears to be very much unreachable, in this case, international peace. Nonetheless, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1795) strives to create a debate between other philosophers engaging with the concept of peace, practitioners who are direct participants in manners of geopolitical conflict, and policymakers who have the power to make peace a reality, at least as much as possible. Kant’s work is also important because it acknowledges contemporary intrastate conflicts along with issues of human security and global governance. 

Consequently, I believe that a look into Kant’s work on “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” is important in understanding early concepts of peace and peacebuilding strategies through a philosophical lens. Especially for Peace and Conflict research, “Perpetual Peace” is a good starting point for the development of further peace strategies, or even for improving the strategies already presented by Immanuel Kant.

             TASKS:

1.      3 – “Standing Armies shall be entirely abolished in the course of time.” (Kant, 1975 pg.4)

Kant argues that standing armies “threaten other States incessantly with War, by their appearing to be always equipped to enter upon it.” (Kant, 1795 pg. 5) He goes further to argue that military presence encourages states to “outrival each other in the number of their armed men which has no limits.” Therefore, it is obvious that Kant takes a firm stand against military presence (in this case, standing armies) and the concept of militarisation of states. 

I consider this aspect of Kant’s paper to be relevant to PACS and I also agree with its message. Studies suggest that militarism negatively affects the state due to multiple reasons: very high financial costs of maintaining a military force (Altman & Fechter, 1967 and Fisher, 1969), the potential to increase international conflict between states (Russett & Oneal, 2003 and Choi & James, 2003) and further perpetuating social inequalities while increasing the potential for violent conflict (Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom). 

Furthermore, I would agree that these arguments, together with Kant’s view on military power (standing armies) highlight the problematic nature of state militarisation which can hinder progress towards a peaceful society. Because the military has the potential to maintain and create a state of conflict within the state, Kant’s idea of abolishing standing armies could be one positive peacebuilding strategy to take into account. 

Sources:

Altman, Stuart H., and Alan E. Fechter. 1967. The supply of military personnel in the absence of a draft. American Economic Review 57 (2): 19-31

Choi, Seung-Whan, and Patrick James. “No Professional Soldiers, No Militarized Interstate Disputes?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 47, no. 6, 2003, pp. 796–816. SAGE Publications, doi:10.1177/0022002703258803. 

Fisher, Anthony C. 1969. The cost of the draft and the cost of ending the draft. American Economic Review 59 (3): 239-54

Oneal, John R., Bruce Russett, and Michael L. Berbaum. 2003. Causes of peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885-1992. International Studies Quarterly 47 (3): 371-393

Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom. Does Militarism Lead to Violence? Fact Sheet Building on the Global Study on UNSCR 1325. http://peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/Fact%20Sheet%20Militarism.pdf.  Accessed 30 Oct. 2021. 

2.  “Democracy, in the proper sense of the word, is necessarily a despotism” (…) “But the Democratic Constitution, on the contrary, makes such a spirit impossible; because under it everyone wishes to be master.” (Kant, 1975 pg. 15)

The quote presented above indicates that Immanuel Kant was rather sceptical about the concept of democracy based solely on majoritarian rule as he argued this "establishes an Executive power in which All resolve about, and, it may be, also against, any One who is not in accord with it; and consequently the All who thus resolve are really not all; which is a contradiction of the Universal Will with itself and with liberty" (Kant, 1974 pg 15). Therefore, it would be unlikely that Kant would call himself a democrat if the concept of democracy is to be understood as the rule of the people in nowadays society.

As a result, I find myself disagreeing with this statement from Kant's work. Democracy is meant to empower individuals and give them the opportunity to contribute to changes in their society through such means as voting, freedom of speech, equal rights, etc. If Kant sees Democracy as “despotism” essentially he loses the meaning of democracy which can be basically summed up to the "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people (Council of Europe).

This does not necessarily mean that “everyone wishes to be master”, as Kant explained in his essay. But rather, everyone has the power (in some capacity) to be able to influence the state they are part of. Consequently, if we take our modern definition of democracy (as the rule of popular will) and apply it to the “Democratic Peace” theory instead of Kant’s vision of “democracy”, then I would be inclined to agree with the “democratic peace” being a good perspective for future peacebuilding strategies.

Source:

Council of Europe . “Democracy.” Manual For Human Rights Education With Young People , https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy. Accessed 30 Oct. 2021


3.  Democratic Peace

Definition/Explanation: “Democratic peace is the proposition that democracies are more peaceful in their foreign relations.” (Reiter, 2012)

The "Democratic Peace" theory has various possible empirical and theoretical explanations. For example, from an empirical standpoint, some scholars argue that democratic states are more peaceful when it comes to their relations with all other states in the system (also known as "monadic" democratic peace) (Reiter, 2012). Other scholars propose that democratic states are peaceful only when it comes to their relationship with other democracies ("dyadic" democratic peace) (Elman, 1997). Furthermore, some academics argue that the existence of multiple democratic states within a geographical region or the international system, facilitates a more peaceful region or international system ("systemic" democratic peace) (Reiter, 2012). Of note, it is also important to acknowledge the fact that other individuals seem to deny the existence of the relationship between democracy and peace.

Further studies highlight the fact that democratic structures provide their citizens leverage over government decisions. Therefore, as war and conflict are seen as unsuitable and unattractive options for the government and its citizens, this makes it less likely for a democratic leader to be able to initiate a conflict (war) with another democracy. (Owen, 1994; Russett, 2009). This concept is also regarded as the "structural explanation" for the Democratic Peace theory.

Another equally important aspect to consider when discussing the theory of "Democratic Peace" is the normative explanation. Supporters of this perspective argue that liberal values are the best explanation for the peace that exists between democratic states (Elman, 1997). Consequently, it can be said that politically democratic cultures encourage peaceful means of conflict resolution which is extended internationally to other democratic states; as leaders of democracies hold a reasonable expectation that conflict will be resolved peacefully (Elman, 1997).   

Sources:

Elman, M.F (1997) The Need for a Qualitative Test of the Democratic Peace Theory, in: Elman, M.D, Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer, Cambridge, MA, 1-58

Reiter, D. (2012) Democratic Peace Theory". In obo in Political Science. 30 Oct. 2021. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0014.xml

Russett, Bruce M. (2009) “Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 15, no. 1,  pp. 9–36. SAGE Publications, doi:10.1177/1354066108100051.

Owen, John M. (1994) “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” International Security, vol. 19, no. 2,  p. 87. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2539197. 

How is "Democratic Peace" related to Kant's “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1975)? It it a convincing theory?

Immanuel Kant's work a “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1795) provides the first modern formulation of the "Democratic Peace" theory. As mentioned above, Kant's text provides a philosophical view into the link between democratic states and peace, which is the basis for the "Democratic Peace" theory.

I find the theory to be quite convincing when it comes to explaining the relationship of democracies and peacebuilding. By considering all the various definitions for the "Democratic Peace" theory, it can be argued that politically democratic states have a much better chance of upholding peace both intrastate and on an international level.

However, I must also add that there needs to be a combination of the two structural and normative explanations of the “democratic peace” theory. More specifically, in line with Kant's theory of perpetual peace, I believe that the support and strengthening of international organisations along with economic interdependence will result in stronger international peace.


Criticism of the "Democratic Peace" Theory

Some criticism regarding this theory is focused on methodology. For instance, Spiro (1994) argues that the subjectivity of the definitions adopted within empirical studies makes it likely to affect the results; thus proving difficult to validate the theory with absolute certainty. Further criticism comes from scholars who do not question the empirical findings but bring forward arguments in order to explain the causal relationship between peace and democracy instead (Farber & Gowa, 1995).

Interestingly, scholars such as Layne (1995, p. 38) argue that while "democratic peace theory identifies a correlation between domestic structure and the absence of war between democracies, it fails to establish a causal link" (Russett et al., 1995). In addition, it is also argued that many advocates for the "Democratic peace" theory seem to overemphasize the importance of democracy. More specifically, it is being argued that these proponents do not see all the elements that build up towards a peaceful state, and hence these have to be applied together at the same time. According to Oneal and Russett (1999), perpetual peace does not only result from democracy but also from international organisations, and trade cooperations between states.


Sources:

Farber, Henry S., and Gowa, Joanne (1995). “Polities and Peace.” International Security, vol. 20, no. 2, p. 123. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2539231.

Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce (1999). “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992.” World Pol., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–37. Cambridge University Press (CUP), doi:10.1017/s0043887100020013

Russett, Bruce, et al. (1995) “The Democratic Peace.” International Security, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 164. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2539124

Spiro, David E. (1994) “The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace.” International Security, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 50. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2539196

An important aspect of the text (which made me think about the situation happening in the USA with regards to the Native American population) was the emphasis on the drastic differences in living conditions between the settler population and the indigenous people. Fanon argues that “the settler's town is a well-fed town, an easygoing town; its belly is always full of good things. The settlers' town is a town of white people, of foreigners.”, in contrast with “The native town is a hungry town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. The native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town wallowing in the mire.” (1963, pg. 38). I immediately linked Fanon’s argument with the two most prevalent Native American tribes (the Havasupai and the Hualapai) who currently reside on reservations at the Grand Canyon. These people, having suffered the consequences of colonisation, do not benefit from all the opportunities of the white American citizen in our modern society. While living in these reservations, a majority of natives earn a living by selling souvenirs depicting their traditions, values, culture to tourists visiting the Grand Canyon. As such, I would like to argue that in these circumstances, the white population ends up commodifying the native population’s culture and beliefs, without bothering to learn the struggle of living as an indigenous people in a post-colonial world.

Consequently, I would like to mention that although somewhat controversial, Frantz Fanon’s consideration of violence as a legitimate means of decolonisation is definitely understandable. In a colonial world where violence has been used extensively, it is expected that the indigenous population would resort to violent means one way or another in their fight for freedom. However, it is important to note that violence should never be the first option in conflict situations, as it more often than not, ends in more destruction and worse results for all parties involved.