War is defined as a condition of organized, frequently protracted confrontation between states, parties, or

individuals that involves the use of force and violence to accomplish goals or settle conflicts (Merriam-
Webster, n.d.).

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the US declared themselves to be supporters of
the DPT, with former US President Bill Clinton stating that "supporting the democratic development in
the rest of the world is the best way to maintain peace as war would not happen among the democratic
countries." His heir, US President George W. Bush from the Republican Party, also expressed his trust in
the DPT in his inaugural address, saying that the liberal power is the best.
Supporters contend that democratic countries should be under public scrutiny, avoiding dictatorial rule to
prevent wars. In 1976, researchers Melvin Small and J. David Singer observed that wars among demo-
cratic states were rare, barring a couple of exceptions. Subsequent scholars, such as Maoz & Abdolali
(1989), broadened this study to encompass minor conflicts. Further investigations, including one by Rus-
sett, confirmed a consistent link between democracy and peace, even when accounting for other variables.
This solidified the theory’s standing in the realm of social science. In 1997, Professor John Oneal and
Russett identified instances of limited wars among democratic nations post-World War II.

Additionally, theorists like Mousseau (2005) and Oneal (2003) argued that market-driven economies fos-
tered democracy and peace. Developed democracies engaging in substantial trade and foreign investment
relied on each other’s stability, discouraging any call for war due to its potential to disrupt markets.
In addition to the empirical data, supporters of the Democratic Peace Theory also put forth arguments re-
garding constitutional and group limitations, the gradual nature of mobilization, absence of sudden at-
tacks, and the transparency of information.
United States and Canada: A visible indicator of the peaceful coexistence between these democratic
neighbors is the lack of military barriers along the US-Canada border. Despite the historical struggle of
the War of 1812, the democratic foundations of both countries, along with their mutual reliance on one
another economically and diplomatically, have sustained a period of lasting peace.
Australia and New Zealand: The two nations' long history of cooperation and shared adherence to demo-
cratic values serve as testament to their absence of major wars.
Although these countries are close together geographically, there have been no conflicts as a result of the
constructive cooperation and shared democratic values between them.
Sweden and Norway: The peaceful cohabitation of these two democratic neighbors is evidence of the ef-
fectiveness of complementary political systems in preserving peace. The democratic discussions' success
and the lack of violent conflict are demonstrated by the peaceful split of Sweden and Norway in 1905.
India and Japan: As democratic countries, India and Japan continue to engage in economic and diplomatic
relations that show a commitment to peaceful coexistence.
Despite previous hostilities, democratic values and common financial concerns have consistently worked
to prevent armed wars between these Asian nations.
Chile and Argentina: Their penchant for peaceful resolutions is demonstrated by their use of international
mediation and diplomatic channels to resolve territorial issues. The Beagle controversy was successfully
settled in the late 20th century, demonstrating the need of democratic negotiation above using force.
Ghana and Ivory Coast: The diplomatic resolution of the dispute over Ghana and Ivory Coast's maritime
border highlights the value of peaceful negotiations and the commitment of democratic nations to avoid
armed conflict. A naval battle between Ghana and Ivory Coast was brought on by the disputed waters in
the Gulf of Guinea, which were sought after for their oil riches. However, both democratic countries
chose to resolve the dispute through international arbitration and consultation, demonstrating their demo-
cratic commitment to averting military conflict. This incident shows the effectiveness of shared demo-
cratic values in promoting diplomatic cooperation and averting violent conflicts.