The two types of methodologies explained above, when combined, actually provide a basis for belief in monadic democratic peace theory. The most well known findings from purely quantitative analyses suggest that democracies rarely, if ever, fight one another, but that overall they fight just as many wars as non-democracies. Nevertheless, many critics of democratic peace theory doubt the existence of the dyadic peace based on individual cases that contradict the quantitative literature’s finding. For example, in his article “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” Rosato uses the example of American interventions against democratic countries during the Cold War as evidence against the dyadic democratic peace. He states, “American interventions to destabilize fellow democracies in the developing world provide good evidence that democracies do not always treat each other with trust and respect when they have a conflict of interest” (Rosato 2003, 590). If there were a dyadic democratic peace, the United States would not have intervened so frequently in other democracies. However, it is actually possible to reconcile these two seemingly opposed views and in doing so support a monadic democratic peace in probabilistic terms.
"The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory" (Rosato 2003)
Rosato, Sebastian, ‘The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory’, The American Political Science Review, Vol.97, No. 4, (November, 2003)
The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory (2003)
This chapter was originally published as "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory", American Political Science Review, 97, no. 4, November 2003, pp. 585–602. It is also available as part of Among Nations: Readings in International Relations (Foreign Affairs, Pearson Custom Publication, 2006).
“The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.”