The Us Helped To Negotiate A Peace Agreement In 1979 Between Israel And Brainly

    Critics have posed several significant challenges to the deductive logic and empirical foundations of the democratic peace proposal. You have argued that there is no convincing theoretical explanation for the apparent absence of war between democracies, that democracies have indeed fought against each other, that the absence of wars between democracies is not statistically significant, and that factors other than common democratic institutions or values have created democratic peace. Most studies on the democratic peace proposal have argued that democracies enjoy only a state of peace with other democracies; 57 However, several scientists argue that, by nature, democracies are less likely to go to war than other types of states.58 However, the evidence for this claim remains controversial, so it would be premature to assert that the spread of democracy will have more of an object: than to expand the democratic zone of peace. Note 58: R.J. Rummel argues, for example, that libertarian states, which tend to be more democratic than others, are less likely to use international force. Such States will cause at least fewer casualties in wars, even if they go to war as often as other types of States. See Rummel, Libertarianism and International Violence, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 27, No. 1 (March 1983), p. 27-71; and Rummel, “Democracies ARE Less Warlike Than Other Regimes”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 1, No.

    4 (December 1995), pp. 457-479. Some studies note that disputes between democracies and non-democracies are less likely to escalate into war than disputes between non-democracies, See Zeev Maoz and Nasrin Abdolai, “Regime type and International Conflict, 1817-1976,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 33, No. 1 (March 1989), pp. 3-35. To re-examine the claim that democracies are as vulnerable to war as other types of states, see James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), pp. 17-21.

    The argument: a second critique of the logic of democratic peace asserts that democracies cannot enjoy eternal peace among themselves, because it is always possible for a democratic state to become undemocratic. This possibility means that even democracies must be concerned about the potential threat of other democracies. John Mearsheimer asserts: “Liberal democracies must therefore worry about the relative power between them, which is tantamount to saying that each is incentivized to consider aggression against the other to avoid future problems.” 77 In other words, the realistic logic of anarchy, which postulates that states exist in a world of Hobbes` fear, mistrust and potential war, even applies to relations between democracies.78 On 22 January 1976, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad negotiated a ceasefire between the two parties, while it secretly began deploying Syrian troops to Lebanon under the guise of the Palestine Liberation Army in order to bring the PLO back into Syrian rule and the disintegration of Lebanon. [26] Despite this, violence continued to escalate. . . .