Citation

Ripsman NM. Democr. Secur. 2007; 3(1): 89-113.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/17419160701199300

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Democratic Peace Theory rests on several assumptions. Structural variants assume that, in all states, the public is more peaceful than its leaders and that, in democratic states, institutional checks and balances restrain bellicose leaders. Normative variants assume that democratic peoples and their leaders share norms encouraging the peaceful resolution of disputes with other democracies and respect for the wishes of other free peoples. These assumptions are challenged, however, by the experience of post-conflict peacemaking by democratic states. When negotiating peace, public opinion tends to be more bellicose than its leaders, even when the former enemy has become either democratic or quasi-democratic. This paper examines the post-war peace processes between France and the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949–1954 and between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since 1992. It argues that the logic of democratic peace theory might apply to states with no past history of war, but not to states which have recently been to war.