Estudios internacionales

American Political Science Association
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038953 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusteddigital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloadedfrom 86.23.87.185 on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:27:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Political Science Review

Vol. 99, No. 3

August 2005

ThreePillars of the LiberalPeace
MICHAEL

W. DOYLE

Columbia University

Rosato (2003) finds the logic of the "democratic peace" flawed in his "The Flawed Logic
Sebastian
of Democratic Peace Theory," and he cites mywork and other studies as examples of the flawed
logic. Some of the logic he describes is flawed, and it may characterize some of the literature in
the wide field of "democratic peace," but it is not the logic underlying the core of liberal peace theory.
Indeed, the persuasive core of the logic underlying the theory of liberal democratic peace is missing from
Rosato's account. Republicanrepresentation, an ideological commitment to fundamental human rights,
and transnational interdependence are the threepillars of the explanation. The logic underlying the peace
among liberal states rests on a simple and straightforward proposition that connects those three causal
mechanisms as they operate together and only together, and not separately as Sebastian Rosato claims.
I

explain thepersuasive

core of the logic underly-

ing the theory of liberal democratic peace logic
in three places. The two-part essay "Kant, Liberal
Legacies and Foreign Affairs" published in Philosophy and Public Affairs (1983) showed how Immanuel
Kant's (1970) 1795 essay, "Perpetual Peace," could be
constructed as a coherent explanation of two important regularities in world politics-the tendenciesof
liberal states simultaneously to be peace-prone in their
relations with each other and war-prone in their relations with nonliberal states. Republican representation, an ideological commitment to fundamental human rights, and transnational interdependence are the
three causal mechanisms of the explanation. These are
Kant's three "definitive articles"-the constitutional,
international andcosmopolitan laws-of the hypothetical peace treaty he asks states to sign. The first part of
the two-part essay focuses on the liberal peace and its
Kantian sources. The second part of the two-part essay
focuses on exposing the dangers of liberal imperialism,
liberal aggression and liberal appeasement (Rosato
1996 cites the reprints of the two articles in Debating the
Democratic Peace). I alsoaddressed these themes in the
American Political Science Review in December 1986
and distinguished Kantian "liberal internationalism"
from "liberal pacifism" and "liberal imperialism." In
1997, in Ways of War and Peace, I distinguished liberalism from the two other major traditions of international
thought, Realism and Marxism.
All three have one consistent and key argument: "No
one ofthese constitutional, international or cosmopolitan sources is alone sufficient, but together (and only
where together) they plausibly connect the characteristics of liberal polities and economies with sustained
liberal peace" ([1983a, 1983b] 1996, 27). I repeat the
same sentence as the summary of the argument-"No
single constitutional,

international

... " in the Amer-

ican Political...