{"title":"中东的国内民主和平","authors":"Uriel Abulof, Ogen S. Goldman","doi":"10.4119/UNIBI/IJCV.430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The democratic peace theory has two complementary variants regarding intrastate conflicts: the “democratic civil peace” thesis sees democratic regimes as pacifying internal tensions; the “anocratic war” thesis submits that due to nationalism, democratizing regimes breed internal violence. This paper statistically tests the two propositions in the context of the contemporary Middle East and North Africa (MENA). We show that a MENA democracy makes a country more prone to both the onset and incidence of civil war, even if democracy is controlled for, and that the more democratic a MENA state is, the more likely it is to experience violent intrastate strife. Interestingly, anocracies do not seem to be predisposed to civil war, either worldwide or in MENA. Looking for causality beyond correlation, we suggest that “democratizing nationalism” might be a long-term prerequisite for peace and democracy, not just an immediate hindrance. We also advise complementing current research on intrastate and interstate clashes with the study of intercommunal conflicts and the democratic features of non-state polities. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE","PeriodicalId":45781,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Conflict and Violence","volume":"9 1","pages":"72-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Domestic Democratic Peace in the Middle East\",\"authors\":\"Uriel Abulof, Ogen S. Goldman\",\"doi\":\"10.4119/UNIBI/IJCV.430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The democratic peace theory has two complementary variants regarding intrastate conflicts: the “democratic civil peace” thesis sees democratic regimes as pacifying internal tensions; the “anocratic war” thesis submits that due to nationalism, democratizing regimes breed internal violence. This paper statistically tests the two propositions in the context of the contemporary Middle East and North Africa (MENA). We show that a MENA democracy makes a country more prone to both the onset and incidence of civil war, even if democracy is controlled for, and that the more democratic a MENA state is, the more likely it is to experience violent intrastate strife. Interestingly, anocracies do not seem to be predisposed to civil war, either worldwide or in MENA. Looking for causality beyond correlation, we suggest that “democratizing nationalism” might be a long-term prerequisite for peace and democracy, not just an immediate hindrance. We also advise complementing current research on intrastate and interstate clashes with the study of intercommunal conflicts and the democratic features of non-state polities. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE\",\"PeriodicalId\":45781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Conflict and Violence\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"72-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Conflict and Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/IJCV.430\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Conflict and Violence","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/IJCV.430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
关于国内冲突,民主和平理论有两个互补的变体:“民主国内和平”理论将民主政权视为缓和国内紧张局势;“民主战争”的论点认为,由于民族主义,民主化政权滋生了内部暴力。本文在当代中东和北非(MENA)的背景下对这两个命题进行了统计检验。我们表明,即使民主受到控制,中东和北非地区的民主也会使一个国家更容易爆发内战和发生内战,而且中东和北非地区的国家越民主,就越有可能经历国内暴力冲突。有趣的是,无论是在世界范围内还是在中东和北非地区,专制国家似乎都不会倾向于内战。寻找超越相关性的因果关系,我们认为“民主化民族主义”可能是和平与民主的长期先决条件,而不仅仅是眼前的障碍。我们还建议用对族群间冲突和非国家政治的民主特征的研究来补充当前对国家内部和国家间冲突的研究。正常0假假假EN-US X-NONE HE
The democratic peace theory has two complementary variants regarding intrastate conflicts: the “democratic civil peace” thesis sees democratic regimes as pacifying internal tensions; the “anocratic war” thesis submits that due to nationalism, democratizing regimes breed internal violence. This paper statistically tests the two propositions in the context of the contemporary Middle East and North Africa (MENA). We show that a MENA democracy makes a country more prone to both the onset and incidence of civil war, even if democracy is controlled for, and that the more democratic a MENA state is, the more likely it is to experience violent intrastate strife. Interestingly, anocracies do not seem to be predisposed to civil war, either worldwide or in MENA. Looking for causality beyond correlation, we suggest that “democratizing nationalism” might be a long-term prerequisite for peace and democracy, not just an immediate hindrance. We also advise complementing current research on intrastate and interstate clashes with the study of intercommunal conflicts and the democratic features of non-state polities. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE