Why do democracies win wars? This is a critical question in the study of international relations, as a traditional view--expressed most famously by Alexis de Tocqueville--has been that democracies are inferior in crafting foreign policy and fighting wars. In Democracies at War, the first major study of its kind, Dan Reiter and Allan Stam come to a very different conclusion. Democracies tend to win the wars they fight--specifically, about eighty percent of the time. Complementing their wide-ranging case-study analysis, the authors apply innovative statistical tests and new hypotheses. In unusually clear prose, they pinpoint two reasons for democracies' success at war. First, as elected leaders understand that losing a war can spell domestic political backlash, democracies start only those wars they are likely to win. Secondly, the emphasis on individuality within democratic societies means that their soldiers fight with greater initiative and superior leadership. Surprisingly, Reiter and Stam find that it is neither economic muscle nor bandwagoning between democratic powers that enables democracies to win wars. They also show that, given societal consent, democracies are willing to initiate wars of empire or genocide. On the whole, they find, democracies' dependence on public consent makes for more, rather than less, effective foreign policy. Taking a fresh approach to a question that has long merited such a study, this book yields crucial insights on security policy, the causes of war, and the interplay between domestic politics and international relations.

Though many of the longest and most devastating internal armed conflicts have been fought within the boundaries of democratic states, these countries employ some of the highest numbers of human rights prosecutions. What conditions prompt this outcome and what explains the variable patterns of prosecutions in democracies at war? Prosecutions may be enabled by existing democratic norms and institutions, but given their role in a violent conflict, democratic governments may go to great lengths to avoid judicial accountability. Through qualitative and quantitative research of four cases, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Spain and Colombia, this book argues that emergency and anti-terrorism laws issued during the conflict created barriers to the investigation and prosecution of state human rights violations. The extent to which state actors were held accountable was shaped by citizens, NGOs and political actors who challenged or upheld impunity provisions within emergency legislation.

Liberal democracies have always accepted the need to go to war, despite the fact that war can undermine liberal values. Wars may be won or lost, not only on the battlefield, but in the perceptions of the publics who pay for them. Presentation is therefore increasingly important. Starting with the First World War, the first major war fought by liberal democracies after the emergence on mass media, Liberal Democracies at War explores the relationship between representations of liberal violence and the ways in which the liberal state understands 'rights' in war. Experts in the field explore crucial questions such as: · How have the violences of war perpetrated in their names been communicated to publics of liberal democracies? · How have representations of conflict changed over time? · How far have the victims of liberal wars been able to insert their stories into the record?

Numerous democratic nations have been singled out by NGOs for brutality in their modus operandi, for paying inadequate attention to civilian protection or for torture of prisoners. This book deals with the difficulties faced when conducting asymmetric warfare in populated areas without violating humanitarian law.

Over the course of the twentieth century, democracies demonstrated an uncanny ability to win wars when their survival was at stake. As this book makes clear, this success cannot be explained merely by superior military equipment or a particular geographical advantage. Instead, it is argued that the legal frameworks imbedded in democratic societies offered them a fundamental advantage over their more politically restricted rivals. For democracies fight wars aided by codes of behaviour shaped by their laws, customs and treaties that reflect the wider values of their society. This means that voters and the public can influence the decision to wage and sustain war. Thus, a precarious balance between government, parliament and military leadership is the backbone of any democracy at war, and the key to success or failure. Beginning with the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings of Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius, this book traces the rise of legal concepts of war between states. It argues that the ideas and theories set out by the likes of Gentili and Grotius were to provide the bedrock of western democratic thinking in wartime. The book then moves on to look in detail at the two World Wars of the twentieth century and how legal thinking adapted itself to the realities of industrial and total war. In particular it focuses upon the impact of differing political ideologies on the conduct of war, and how combatant nations were frequently forced to challenge core beliefs and values in order to win. Through a combination of history and legal philosophy, this book contributes to a better understanding of democratic government when it is most severely tested at war. The ideas and concepts addressed will resonate, both with those studying the past, and current events.

By their nature, democracies clearly have greater constraints than autocratic regimes on their freedom of action as they have to meet constitutional, legal and moral criteria in their use of force. This collection analyses a number of case studies showing how democracies have won small wars.

This argument is supported by a discussion of conceptual, methodological and epistemological problems of democratic peace. The volume concludes with a presentation of policy recommendations and a short summary in German."--BOOK JACKET.

The 2nd edition of Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict provides timely and useful information about antagonism and reconciliation in all contexts of public and personal life. Building on the highly-regarded 1st edition (1999), and publishing at a time of seemingly inexorably increasing conflict and violent behaviour the world over, the Encyclopedia is an essential reference for students and scholars working in the field of peace and conflict resolution studies, and for those seeking to explore alternatives to violence and share visions and strategies for social justice and social change. Covering topics as diverse as Arms Control, Peace Movements, Child Abuse, Folklore, Terrorism and Political Assassinations, the Encyclopedia comprehensively addresses an extensive information area in 225 multi-disciplinary, cross-referenced and authoritatively authored articles. In his Preface to the 1st edition, Editor-in-Chief Lester Kurtz wrote: "The problem of violence poses such a monumental challenge at the end of the 20th century that it is surprising we have addressed it so inadequately. We have not made much progress in learning how to cooperate with one another more effectively or how to conduct our conflicts more peacefully. Instead, we have increased the lethality of our combat through revolutions in weapons technology and military training. The Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict is designed to help us to take stock of our knowledge concerning these crucial phenomena." Ten years on, the need for an authoritative and cross-disciplinary approach to the great issues of violence and peace seems greater than ever. More than 200 authoritative multidisciplinary articles in a 3-volume set Many brand-new articles alongside revised and updated content from the First Edition Article outline and glossary of key terms at the beginning of each article Entries arranged alphabetically for easy access Articles written by more than 200 eminent contributors from around the world

The only introduction to cover the full spectrum of political systems, from democracy to dictatorship and the growing number of systems that fall between, equipping readers to think critically about democracy's future trajectory.

"The specific question we explore is: What are the special roles and responsibilities of democracies in preventing deadly conflict, not only between themselves, but also among other states in the international system? As David Hamburg has observed, the established democracies "are likely to take the lead in formulating international norms of conduct with respect to intergroup relations, the proliferation of highly lethal weaponry, economic development in poorer nations, human rights, and the growth of democratic institutions. . The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a prime example of the ability of the established democracies to work together. . ." Hamburg then goes on to ask provocatively: "Could a similar alliance, involving a wider coalition of democracies, be organized to ensure security on a worldwide basis, fuel economic growth with fairness, protect cultural diversity, and foster democratic values?"2 We focus here on the particular roles and responsibilities of democracies not to diminish the significance of other essential actors. Rather, recognizing that democracies wield great power, we explore their commensurate obligation to assume great responsibilities. At the outset, it may be useful."--Page 2.