Anna Geis

Spotting the ‘Enemy’? Democracies and the Challenge of the ‘Other’

The bulk of mainstream democratic peace research is implicitly founded on an idealizing model of Western democracy inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment: state actors and citizens are assumed to be rational people governed by the imperatives of reason, compromise and settlement, and capable of moral learning. Critical students of democratic peace have thus pointed out that its orthodox position embraces a faith in the moral and political superiority of democracies (MacMillan, 2004b). The scientific debate on democratic peace merely reflects a political self-image that considers the Western democratic regime type as more moral and efficient than others. Today, ‘democracy’ — a concept that was criticized and rejected by many opponents during most of historical time — has acquired the admirable status of an unquestionably desirable regime type.2 A rather optimistic view on the future development of international politics even concludes that the international system culturally selects for the democratic regime type. The global ‘victory’ of democracy especially after 1989 suggests that the norms of the liberal pacific union produce international socialization effects and pressures upon non-democracies that might eventually lead to the global spread of the norms of a Kantian peace culture (Harrison, 2004).

‘The facts cannot be denied’: legitimacy, war and the use of chemical weapons in Syria

ABSTRACTThe enduring war in Syria is the most recent case that has triggered fierce debates within the international community, including at the UN Security Council, about how to respond to massive human rights violations in conflicts. In August 2013, one outrageous incident – the use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area – (initially) seemed to push some liberal democracies towards military intervention in Syria. Although the videos showing the death of civilians spread worldwide via YouTube, the political impact of these images was mixed. Reflecting on the relation between the circulation and display of video images of suffering and their impact on US politics, we address two related questions in this article: first, how did the US administration react to the terrifying videos of people dying in Syria, people who had presumably been attacked by chemical weapons? Second, how was this incident framed in political discourse in the United States? The aim of this article is to understand the ambivalent and ...

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 Kants 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 arms 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.

From Democratic Peace to Democratic War

The “democratic peace” is not only a fancy idea of academia, most prominently advanced by the philosopher of Enlightenment Immanuel Kant in his famous essay on “Perpetual Peace” (1795), but two hundred years later, is established as a liberal research program in the U.S. International Relations discipline. The famous statement “democracies do not fight each other” seems so far to represent a real phenomenon, at least if we consider consolidated democracies. The very controversial ideational debate between Realist critics and Liberal proponents of the democratic peace argument reigning during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and questioning whether the phenomenon might be a mere statistical artifact has been settled now. In the meantime, even critics acknowledge the empirical finding that consolidated democracies do not fight each other as quite robust. This has culminated into the striking and tremendous success that the idea of the democratic peace has gained in practical politics. Since the end of the Cold War, the linking of democracy and peace has become part and parcel of official political ideology, informing the foreign policy of Western democracies. Promoting democracy has turned to be the foremost strategy to secure peace and prosperity as, for example, the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2006 makes abundantly clear. As long as democracy is promoted by peaceful means of cooperation and voluntary assistance, one might not object to such a foreign policy strategy. If regime change is to be achieved by force as in the Iraq war 2003, however, the “flip side” of the democratic peace, namely a “democratic war” becomes obvious. Unfortunately, the notion of a democratic peace lends itself to being employed as an ideological underpinning for liberal-expansionist policies. Under the guise of promoting a seemingly “universalist” idea of democracy and freedom, some of the powerful Western democracies arrogate to themselves the right to pursue a “liberal mission.” Not only do such wars by democracies pose a challenge in practical political terms; they also unsettle democratic peace theory (DP). This article briefly outlines how this theoretical challenge might lead to a shift Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 19:157–163 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online DOI: 10.1080/10402650701353570

Gradual Processes, Ambiguous Consequences: Rethinking Recognition in International Relations

‘Recognition’, or its negative counterpart, ‘misrecognition’, is relevant wherever people or their collective organizations interact—or fail to interact. Individuals and collective political actors seek recognition of certain qualities, positive characteristics, competencies, achievements, or of their status within a specific group of people, a society, a political system, or the international political realm. The addressees of this recognition-seeking behaviour vary broadly, depending on the respective situation and depending on what exactly one actor would like to see recognized by another. A child might seek recognition from her parents or from fellow children of her first colour painting; a scholar might seek recognition of her opus magnum from fellow scholars or the public. A non-governmental organization might seek recognition of its humanitarian work from governments, the UN, potential donors, or from the needy people it supports. The violent group ‘Islamic State’ might seek recognition of its self-proclaimed ‘caliphate’ from Muslim believers, Muslim leaders, or regional organizations. Even a superficial scan of the daily news shows the ubiquity of issues related to ‘recognition’ in politics and society. Yet, what a certain actor seeks recognition of and from whom, how exactly recognition comes about (or fails to come about), and how it can be ‘measured’ is not as self-evident.

Andere, Fremde, Feinde: Bedrohungskonstruktionen in der Demokratie

Unter den besonderen Leistungsmerkmalen von Demokratie als Herrschaftsform wird neben der Sicherung der inneren Freiheit, des inneren Friedens und eines gewissen Wohlstandes sowie der relativen Responsivitat und Lernfahigkeit des politischen Systems oft ein ausenpolitisch wirksames Charakteristikum genannt: Demokratien fuhren keine Kriege gegeneinander (Schmidt 1998: 182–185). Diese statistisch belegbare Verhaltensauffalligkeit von Demokratien hat in den Internationalen Beziehungen seit den 1980er Jahren ein umfangreiches, von US-Forscher/innen dominiertes Forschungsprogramm zum „demokratischen Frieden“ (DF) hervorgebracht.1 Als ideengeschichtliche Standardreferenz fur dieses „liberale“ Forschungsprogramm wird regelmasig Immanuel Kants Schrift „Zum ewigen Frieden“ (1795) bemuht.2 Erklarungen fur die Friedlichkeit von Demokratien werden in diversen institutionalistischen, okonomisch-rationalen und normativ-kulturellen Faktoren vermutet. Demnach wird jenseits von unmittelbarer Selbstverteidigung Krieg als Mittel der Politik von demokratischen Burger/innen aus eigennutzig-materiellen wie aus moralischen Grunden abgelehnt, im Laufe historischer Lernprozesse bilden sich so Praferenzen fur friedliche Mittel der Konfliktlosung heraus. Demokratische Verfahren und Institutionen sorgen schlieslich dafur, dass kriegsgeneigte Regierungen ihre Absichten nicht in die Tat umsetzen, da sie aus Furcht vor Abwahl auf die Gewaltaversion ihrer Wahler/innen Rucksicht nehmen mussen.

The Case for a New Research Agenda: Explaining Democratic Wars

Democracies fight wars. From the viewpoint of traditional realism this is a trivial observation, because democracies are states and states fight wars simply because they are states among other states, with no one to oblige them to behave otherwise. The advocates of the democratic peace proposition observe that democracies do not fight each other. They wonder why this should be the case. They look for specific reasons that lie in the nature of democracy or inter-democratic relations and may explain democratic peace. They have been so busy claiming at least this piece of territory from the realists that they have paid too little attention to the second part of the question: why is the war averseness of democracies so much lower in a mixed group of states than in any democratic group?

Mediation. Verhandlungen im öffentlichen Bereich

Mediationsverfahren gehoren zu der Familie „alternativer Konfliktregelungsverfahren“, die in den USA seit den siebziger Jahren allmahlich etabliert worden sind und auch in Deutschland spatestens seit den neunziger Jahren grosere Aufmerksamkeit erlangt haben. Mit Mediation werden besondere Kommunikationsund Verhandlungstechniken bezeichnet, Mediationsverfahren sollen der ausergerichtlichen, kostensparenden einvernehmlichen Streitbeilegung dienen. Es gibt zahlreiche unterschiedliche Ansatze zur Durchfuhrung von Mediationen (Breidenbach 1995: 137), anstelle einer Definition kann man daher nur einige Grundmerkmale benennen: vermittelnder Dritter (Mediator), freiwillige Teilnahme moglichst aller betroffenen Konfliktparteien, selbstbestimmte und an Konsens orientierte Verhandlungen der Parteien, Ergebnisoffenheit des Verfahrens (Fietkau/Weidner 1998: 15–16). Im privaten Bereich ist Mediation in Form von Wirtschafts-, Familien- und Schulmediation oder als Tater-Opfer-Ausgleich verbreiteter als im offentlichen Bereich, wo sie vorwiegend in der Kommunalpolitik als sogenannte Umweltmediation eingesetzt wird. Nur mit dieser Umweltmediation beschaftigt sich auch der vorliegende Beitrag. Die genaue Anzahl an stattgefundenen Umweltmediationen kann in der Regel nicht angegeben werden, da weder uber eine Definition Einigkeit besteht noch alle Verfahren bekannt werden. Fur Deutschland konnte die Zahl unter Zugrundelegung eines sehr weit gefassten Mediationsbegriffs nach groben Schatzungen bei mehr als hundert Verfahren liegen (vgl. Fietkau/Weidner 2001: 210).

Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik als Gegenstand der Policy- und Governance-Forschung

Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit zwei Politikfeldern, die bislang zumindest in der innenpolitisch ausgerichteten ‘klassischen’ Policy- bzw. Governance-Forschung noch relativ wenig beachtet wurden: Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Wahrend in Deutschland vielfach von „Reformstau“ und „Reformblockaden“ die Rede ist1, findet derzeit in den deutschen Streitkraften eine sehr weit reichende Reform von der Verteidigungsarmee zu einer „Armee im Einsatz“ statt. Es ist wenig verstandlich, warum dieser Reform im Vergleich zu anderen Reformbemuhungen in zivilen Politikfeldern sowohl in der Policy-Forschung als auch der allgemeinen Offentlichkeit relativ wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wird. Die Reorganisation der deutschen Verteidigungspolitik sollte nicht nur Ausenpolitikforscher/ innen interessieren, sondern starker in den Blickpunkt auch der innenpolitisch sensibilisierter Politikfeld-Forschung rucken. Dies umso mehr, als der Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Inneren immer wieder zum innenpolitischen Thema wird.

Introduction: the Theoretical Challenge of Democratic Wars

Democracies do not go to war with each other; this democratic peace hypothesis has become a commonplace not only in international relations theory but also in the mindsets of Western politicians and diplomats. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice, to name but a few, have all referred to this international virtuous cycle: promote freedom and liberty in the world, which is equivalent to promoting democracy, and we will have international peace. But the road to democracy may involve war. Thus, while the acceptance of the democratic peace proposition 30 years after the rediscovery of Immanuel Kant’s famous hypothesis in Germany (Czempiel, 1972) and more than 20 years after its revival in the United States (Doyle, 1983a, b) is on the rise, democratic peace increasingly seems to be linked to war. Obviously, there is a dark side to democratic peace, and this is the subject of the present volume.