Liberal internationalism: peace, war and democracyJournal of Cold War Studies 2. In , Kenneth Waltz published his influential study Man, the State, and War , which analyzed three "images"--human nature, state structure, and the international system--that underlie explanations of the origins of war. Michael Doyle exploits the same typology to assess the relevance and implications of three paradigms--realism, liberalism, and socialism--for conceptions of war and peace. His comparative analysis, which consumes almost four hundred pages, includes case studies that probe the empirical utility of propositions derived from the three paradigms. The analysis as a whole provides the framework for final sections that compare what these paradigms have to say about important normative questions and what they predict about the shape of the post-Cold War world.
Michael W. Doyle
Peace and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, it has often been said. In making these claims the President joined a long list of liberal theorists and propagandists and echoed an old argument: the aggressive instincts of authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling parties make for war. Liberal states, founded on such individual rights as equality before the law, free speech and other civil liberties, private property, and elected representation are fundamentally against war, this argument asserts. When citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible. Furthermore, citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed only under conditions of peace. Thus, the very existence of liberal states, such as the United States, the European Union and others, makes for peace. And so peace and democracy are two sides of the same coin.