从民主和平到民主独特性:对和平与冲突研究中的民主例外论的批判

A. Geis, W. Wagner
{"title":"从民主和平到民主独特性:对和平与冲突研究中的民主例外论的批判","authors":"A. Geis, W. Wagner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1313700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last two decades or so, there has been a democratic turn in peace and conflict research, i.e. the peculiar impact of democratic politics on a wide range of security issues has attracted more and more attention. Many of these studies are inspired by Immanuel Kant's famous essay on Perpetual Peace. In this article, we present a critical discussion of the democratic distinctiveness programme that emerged from the Democratic Peace debate and soon spread to cover, among other issues, institutionalized cooperation, trade relations, and arms control. As our review makes clear, research so far has been based on an overly naive reading of a Kantian peace. In particular, the manifold forms of violence that democracies have exerted, have been treated either as a challenge to the Democratic Peace proposition or as an undemocratic contaminant and pre-democratic relict. In contrast, we argue that forms of democratic violence should no longer be kept at arm's length from the democratic distinctiveness programme but instead should be elevated to a main field of study. While we acknowledge the benefits of this expanding research programme, we also address a number of normative pitfalls implied in this scholarship such as lending legitimacy to highly questionable foreign policy practices by Western democracies. We conclude with suggestions for a somewhat more self-reflective and critical research agenda of a democratically turned peace and conflict studies. IR research in this field might benefit from drawing on the Frankfurt school tradition and from incorporating insights from democratic theory and empirical studies on the crisis of democracy.","PeriodicalId":118088,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: International Affairs Issues (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Democratic Peace to Democratic Distinctiveness: A Critique of Democratic Exceptionalism in Peace and Conflict Studies\",\"authors\":\"A. Geis, W. Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1313700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last two decades or so, there has been a democratic turn in peace and conflict research, i.e. the peculiar impact of democratic politics on a wide range of security issues has attracted more and more attention. Many of these studies are inspired by Immanuel Kant's famous essay on Perpetual Peace. In this article, we present a critical discussion of the democratic distinctiveness programme that emerged from the Democratic Peace debate and soon spread to cover, among other issues, institutionalized cooperation, trade relations, and arms control. As our review makes clear, research so far has been based on an overly naive reading of a Kantian peace. In particular, the manifold forms of violence that democracies have exerted, have been treated either as a challenge to the Democratic Peace proposition or as an undemocratic contaminant and pre-democratic relict. In contrast, we argue that forms of democratic violence should no longer be kept at arm's length from the democratic distinctiveness programme but instead should be elevated to a main field of study. While we acknowledge the benefits of this expanding research programme, we also address a number of normative pitfalls implied in this scholarship such as lending legitimacy to highly questionable foreign policy practices by Western democracies. We conclude with suggestions for a somewhat more self-reflective and critical research agenda of a democratically turned peace and conflict studies. IR research in this field might benefit from drawing on the Frankfurt school tradition and from incorporating insights from democratic theory and empirical studies on the crisis of democracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":118088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: International Affairs Issues (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: International Affairs Issues (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1313700\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: International Affairs Issues (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1313700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

在过去的二十多年里,和平与冲突研究出现了民主转向,即民主政治对广泛安全问题的特殊影响越来越受到关注。这些研究中的许多都受到了伊曼努尔·康德的著名论文《永久和平》的启发。在本文中,我们对民主和平辩论中出现的民主独特性方案进行了批判性讨论,该方案很快扩展到包括制度化合作、贸易关系和军备控制等问题。正如我们的评论所表明的那样,迄今为止的研究都是基于对康德式和平过于天真的解读。特别是,民主国家所施加的各种形式的暴力,要么被视为对民主和平主张的挑战,要么被视为不民主的污染和民主前的残余。相反,我们认为民主暴力的形式不应再与民主独特性方案保持一定的距离,而应提升为一个主要的研究领域。虽然我们承认这一不断扩大的研究计划的好处,但我们也解决了这一奖学金中隐含的一些规范陷阱,例如为西方民主国家高度可疑的外交政策实践提供合法性。最后,我们对民主转向的和平与冲突研究提出了更多自我反思和批判性研究议程的建议。这一领域的国际关系研究可以借鉴法兰克福学派的传统,并结合民主理论和对民主危机的实证研究的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Democratic Peace to Democratic Distinctiveness: A Critique of Democratic Exceptionalism in Peace and Conflict Studies
Over the last two decades or so, there has been a democratic turn in peace and conflict research, i.e. the peculiar impact of democratic politics on a wide range of security issues has attracted more and more attention. Many of these studies are inspired by Immanuel Kant's famous essay on Perpetual Peace. In this article, we present a critical discussion of the democratic distinctiveness programme that emerged from the Democratic Peace debate and soon spread to cover, among other issues, institutionalized cooperation, trade relations, and arms control. As our review makes clear, research so far has been based on an overly naive reading of a Kantian peace. In particular, the manifold forms of violence that democracies have exerted, have been treated either as a challenge to the Democratic Peace proposition or as an undemocratic contaminant and pre-democratic relict. In contrast, we argue that forms of democratic violence should no longer be kept at arm's length from the democratic distinctiveness programme but instead should be elevated to a main field of study. While we acknowledge the benefits of this expanding research programme, we also address a number of normative pitfalls implied in this scholarship such as lending legitimacy to highly questionable foreign policy practices by Western democracies. We conclude with suggestions for a somewhat more self-reflective and critical research agenda of a democratically turned peace and conflict studies. IR research in this field might benefit from drawing on the Frankfurt school tradition and from incorporating insights from democratic theory and empirical studies on the crisis of democracy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital Governance: Theory, Policy and Practice The Republic of North Macedonian Foreign Policy in the Context of Regional Security Policy in the Balkans The African Continental Free Trade Area in a Decaying Multilateral Trading System: Questioning the Relevance of the Enabling Clause Interest Rate Parity with Credit Risk: Implications for Carry Trades Detecting Sanctions Risk in Conduit Countries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1