Evaluate the view that global order is significantly affected by the nature of government in different types of states (30)

For 1: Democracies uphold rule of law & human rights

Democracies have checks and balances, free media, independent judiciaries and legitimate governments

Tend to support rules-based global order:

• Backing international law

• Joining IGOs (UN, WTO)

• Supporting human rights courts (ICC, ICJ)

Democracies:

• EU and UK = strong ICC/UN supporters because it promotes peace and security and ensures accountability

Autocracies:

• Russia recently outlawed Human Rights Watch – criminalising cooperation with it amid reports of war crimes in Ukraine and repression of dissent

• North Korea continues its record of human-rights abuses: torture, forced labour, arbitrary imprisonment, suppression of basic freedoms

• South Africa vs Israel in the ICJ – both democracies deferring to international law

Against 1: Realist/Rule Breaking Democracies

• In practice, democracies often flout international law when their interests demand it

• Regime type does not guarantee consistent adherence to global legal order

• Democracies shown a willingness to bypass/reject international legal mechanisms when these conflict with personal interests e.g. USA refused join ICC in fear of being subject to politically motivated prosecutions of military & officials - violates national sov

• Many democratic states have initiated wars or interventions that bypass international norms E.g. the War on Terror to eliminate Al-Qaeda after 9/11 (killed 3,000) the war killed 432,000 civilians according to Brown University

• Also had various interventions post-Cold War such as US involvement in Somalia as part of a UN humanitarian mission

• Undermines idea that democracy reliably leads to support for global rule of law or human rights frameworks. Regime type alone is insufficient – states behave according to perceived interests, not always normatively

For 2: Democracies and peace/conflict reduction

• Immanuel Kant’s Democratic Peace Theory - democracies unlikely to wage war against one another - supports global stability and order

• Study by War Prevention Initiative - when two autocratic leaders interact, about 70% of interactions result in war. In contrast, only 2.5% of interactions between democratic leaders lead to war

• Logic: democracies – due to shared norms, transparency, free debate and subject to public/civil society pressure – prefer diplomacy, negotiation and conflict-resolution rather than resort to force

• If more states are democratic, the global risk of inter-state war (especially between democracies) falls; this reduces unpredictability and strengthens a stable global order

 

Against 2: War/Conflict is not exclusive to autocracies

• Even when democracies wage wars; global conflict has increased recently – regime type does not prevent war, especially given structural pressures

• Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) - 2024 saw 61 active state-based conflicts = highest number recorded since data began in 1946

• In 2023 global conflict-related fatalities rose to 170,700 - highest since 2019

• Recent wars include Russia vs Ukraine (major democratic states supplying support), civil wars (e.g. in Myanmar, Sudan) showing global instability affects & involves mix of regime types

• Democracies engage in interventions or military action when it suits them (e.g. coalition wars, overseas interventions)

• Global order is being undermined by all kinds of states under systemic pressures (security dilemmas, alliances, power politics). Regime type alone cannot prevent conflict – structural factors drive war as much as, or more than political system

For 3: Economic interdependence & global institutions via democracies

• Democracies foster global economic interdependence and institutional cooperation, which builds more stable, interconnected global order

• Democracies often promote free markets, trade liberalisation, membership in international economic bodies, and multilateral cooperation. This builds interdependence which raises the cost of interstate hostility (the “trade-as-peace argument)

• As democracies proliferate, the networks of trade and institutions expand – allowing shared norms, transparency, cooperation, and predictable policies

• A world with more democracies is more likely to see stable cooperation, trade-driven mutual dependence, and shared institutions – all of which strengthen global order

Against 3: Autocracies engage in trade and global economic integration

• Autocratic or semi-autocratic states are very active in global trade and large-scale economic engagement; thus economic order and interdependence are not the monopoly of democracies.

• China – though autocratic – has pursued global economic integration aggressively, including via projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), enabling massive trade links and infrastructure ties across continents.

• Many trade blocs and agreements (involving both democracies and autocracies) show that trade and cooperation are not limited to democratic clubs: economic interest often trumps regime type when mutual benefit is at stake 

• Autocratic regimes frequently engage with global markets, foreign investment, supply-chains, and trade – reflecting that economic rationality and self-interest drive global economic cooperation, not political ideology or regime type.

• The existence of strong global trade and economic interdependence – fundamental to global order – does not depend solely on regime type. Autocracies can and do participate heavily.