Citation

Bachteler T. J. Peace Res. 1997; 34(3): 315-323.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343397034003006

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article challenges the findings of Russett and Antholis (1993) in two areas: First, the general picture they draw needs to be revised because the conflicting behaviour among the democracies of the Athenian Alliance is not representative of a zone of (democratic) peace. The relative absence of war between the democracies of the Delian League seems more to be the result of hegemonic Athens than an effect of shared democratic norms. The introduction of democratic polities in allied cities can be conceived as an effective means among others of dominating them, because without the support of Athens democratic elites were unable to retain power through the internal disturbances which were typical of the democracies outside Athens. Second, the clashes between Athens and Syracuse in 415-413 BC cannot be regarded as having been a war between stable democracies. Disrupted by internal violence, Syracuse could not have been perceived as a stable democracy by Athens. Since Athens is clearly identified as the aggressor in this conflict and information was sufficient between the two opponents, a social-constructivist approach appears to be superior to normative and structural approaches in this instance.