IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intstu/v57y2020i4p344-360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Traversing the Romance of a Liberal International Order: The Democratic Peace Thesis and the Regional Security Problematique in South Asia

Author

Listed:
  • Sanjeev Kumar H. M.

Abstract

The democratic peace hypothesis, which is embedded in the neo-Kantian romance of liberal cosmopolitan idealism, was framed in the spatiotemporal context of the Cold War bipolarity. Michael Doyle, who is one of its proponents, invoked the Kantian philosophical abstraction of ‘the perpetual peace’ by providing an intellectual defence and moral high ground for the values of the Liberal Capitalist world. In the post–Cold War setting, Francis Fukuyama re-casted the hypothesis and portrayed the triumph of liberal international order as ‘the end of history’. He attempted to reframe the democratic peace thesis, not only to celebrate liberal values as the normative exemplar for ordering a post–Cold War international system but also to provide an intellectual defence for the newly emerging space for American leadership in a post-hegemonic international system. This intellectual defence of the ethical supremacy of liberal idealism in the world, shaped by the leadership of the USA, was entrenched in the epistemological Imperialism of the West. Besides, it also reflected an exclusionary idea of the history of international relations that was heavily grounded in the chronology of the post-Westphalia international order. Situating ourselves in this framework, this article is an attempt to critique the epistemic foundations of the democratic peace hypothesis, by deconstructing its assertions in the geostrategic context of the regional security architecture in South Asia. The article criticizes the democratic peace thesis, using an analysis of the Kargil conflict (1999) between India and Pakistan, and by placing ourselves in the epistemological framework of the historical turn in international relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanjeev Kumar H. M., 2020. "Traversing the Romance of a Liberal International Order: The Democratic Peace Thesis and the Regional Security Problematique in South Asia," International Studies, , vol. 57(4), pages 344-360, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:intstu:v:57:y:2020:i:4:p:344-360
    DOI: 10.1177/0020881720962959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020881720962959
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020881720962959?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Doyle, Michael W., 1986. "Liberalism and World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1151-1169, December.
    2. Michael D. Ward & Randolph M. Siverson & Xun Cao, 2007. "Disputes, Democracies, and Dependencies: A Reexamination of the Kantian Peace," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 583-601, July.
    3. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    4. Thompson, William R., 1996. "Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 141-174, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Akos Lada, 2013. "Clash of Brothers in a Contagious World: Wars to Avoid Diffusion," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1333, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    2. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    3. William Phelan, 2008. "Open International Markets without Exclusion: Encompassing Domestic Institutions, Excludable Goods, and International Public Goods," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp245, IIIS.
    4. William Phelan, 2008. "Why do EU Member States Offer a 'Constitutional' Obedience to EU Obligations? Encompassing Domestic Institutions and Costly International Obligations," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp256, IIIS.
    5. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Scott Gates & HÃ¥vard Hegre, 1999. "Evolution in Democracy-War Dynamics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 771-792, December.
    6. Gerald L. McCallister, 2016. "Beyond Dyads: Regional Democratic Strength’s Influence on Dyadic Conflict," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 295-321, March.
    7. Syed Muhammad Saad Zaidi & Adam Saud, 2020. "Future of US-China Relations: Conflict, Competition or Cooperation?," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(7), pages 1-1, July.
    8. Michael Mousseau, 1998. "Democracy and Compromise in Militarized Interstate Conflicts, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 210-230, April.
    9. T. Clifton Morgan & Sally Howard Campbell, 1991. "Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 187-211, June.
    10. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    11. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Beth A. Simmons, 2002. "Capacity, Commitment, and Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(6), pages 829-856, December.
    13. Kelly M. Kadera & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2005. "Heeding Ray's Advice: An Exegesis on Control Variables in Systemic Democratic Peace Research," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 311-326, September.
    14. Bruce Desmarais, 2012. "Lessons in disguise: multivariate predictive mistakes in collective choice models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 719-737, June.
    15. James Lee Ray, 2005. "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 277-292, September.
    16. Matthew O. Jackson & Massimo Morelli, 2007. "Political Bias and War," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1353-1373, September.
      • Jackson, Matthew O. & Morelli, Massimo, "undated". "Political bias and war," Working Papers 1247, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    17. Vaclav Vlcek, 2023. "Who cares about the UN General Assembly? National delegations size from 1993 to 2016," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 349-360, May.
    18. Jeffry Frieden & Stefanie Walter, 2019. "Analyzing inter-state negotiations in the Eurozone crisis and beyond," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 134-151, March.
    19. Anna Michalski, 2013. "Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: The Case of Denmark's and Sweden's Relations with China," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 884-900, September.
    20. Vennesson Pascal, 2010. "Military Strategy in the Global Village," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-43, February.
    21. Matera Paulina & Matera Rafał, 2019. "Why does cooperation work or fail? The case of EU-US sanction policy against Iran," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 25(85), pages 30-62, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intstu:v:57:y:2020:i:4:p:344-360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.