Peacemaking and Democratic Peace Theory: Public Opinion as an Obstacle to Peace in Post-Conflict Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Democratic Peace Theory rests on several assumptions. Structural variants assume that, in all states, the public is more peaceful than its leaders and that, in democratic states, institutional checks and balances restrain bellicose leaders. Normative variants assume that democratic peoples and their leaders share norms encouraging the peaceful resolution of disputes with other democracies and respect for the wishes of other free peoples. These assumptions are challenged, however, by the experience of post-conflict peacemaking by democratic states. When negotiating peace, public opinion tends to be more bellicose than its leaders, even when the former enemy has become either democratic or quasi-democratic. This paper examines the post-war peace processes between France and the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949–1954 and between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since 1992. It argues that the logic of democratic peace theory might apply to states with no past history of war, but not to states which have recently been to war.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".