Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94

  title={Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94},
  author={Christopher Gelpi and Michael Jeffrey Griesdorf},
  journal={American Political Science Review},
  pages={633 - 647}
We attempt to explain when and why democratic states will prevail in international crises. We review several of the prominent theories about democratic political structures and derive hypotheses from each framework about crisis outcomes. These hypotheses are tested against the population of 422 international crises between 1918 and 1994. Our findings provide further evidence that the democratic peace is not a spurious result of common interests. Moreover, we also begin the difficult task of… 
Democracies in Conflict
The vast literature on the impact of democratic political institutions on foreign policy behavior has yielded some of the most important developments in our understanding of violence and war over the
Democratic Synergy and Victory in War, 1816–1992
This study investigates the question of why democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. I argue that due to the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences,
The Democratic Peace after the Cold War
Political scientists and policy‐makers agree that democratic states were less likely to engage each other in militarized disputes than were other states during the Cold War. Most among them attribute
Another Skirmish in the Battle over Democracies and War
we argued that democra-cies are particularly likely to win their wars. Democratic political institutions provideincentives for elected leaders to launch only short, winnable, low-cost wars, so
Democratic peace: Does ethnic inclusiveness reduce interstate conflict?
In this study, we argue that ethnic inclusiveness is an important democratic norm that fosters interstate peace. When two states are socialized into the notion of ethnic tolerance, they acquire the
Intergovernmental Organizations and Democratic Victory in International Crises
Research finds that intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) influence domestic public opinion on foreign policy matters. This article applies these insights to crisis bargaining, arguing that IGO
Warlike Democracies
Classical republican theories are monadic in the sense of seeing in each political regime a set of typical operating characteristics. There is disagreement as to what those characteristics are and
The Role of a Hawkish Opposition in Interstate Crises Very Preliminary.
We investigate the effect of a hawkish stance by opposition leaders in democracies in interstate crises, building an original dataset of signals of resolve using all twosided crises recorded by the
Territorial Issues, Audience Costs, and the Democratic Peace: The Importance of Issue Salience
Democratic leaders are more prone to domestic sanction following defeats, and these audience costs allow democracies to signal their intentions during public disputes. Empirical tests strongly
Democracy and War Effort
This article uses a laboratory experiment to explore how groups’ internal rules for leader selection affect how leaders select into and fight conflicts. The findings reveal that, counter to


A Tale of Two Democratic Peace Critiques
Of approximately 100 empirical democratic peace articles published in journals and papers presented at conferences over the last 10 years, none identifies a positive and statistically significant
Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War
How do domestic political institutions affect the way states interact in international crises? In the last decade we have witnessed an explosion of interest in this question, thanks largely to the
Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory
A study was conducted to examine the effects of nation-states’ political institutions on state relations. War-fighting and selection-effects explanation were compared to explain why democracies were
Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict.
The research reported here develops an explanation for the often-noted absence of international war between democratic states. This explanation is derived from a theoretical rationale centered on
Democratic Diversions
Students of international politics have often argued that state leaders initiate the use of force internationally to divert attention away from domestic problems. The author contends that these
Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace
Democratic peace theory has also come to have a real-world importance as well: Policymakers who have embraced democratic peace theory see a crucial link between America’s security and the spread of democracy, which is viewed as the antidote that will prevent future wars.
Polities and Peace
In this paper, we review the central claim of a growing literature: that is, that democratic states rarely, if ever, wage war against and are very unlikely to engage in militarized disputes with
Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition
In Democracy and International Conflict James Lee Ray defends the idea, so optimistically advanced by diplomats in the wake of the Soviet Union's demise and so hotly debated by international
War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability
We seek to answer the question, What effect does international war participation have on the ability of political leaders to survive in office? We develop a model of political reliability and derive
How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace
democracies seldom if ever go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. The ”democratic peace” has attracted attention for a number of reasons. It is “the closest thing we have to an