Editing World peace (section)

==Theories==
{{Main|Peace and conflict studies}}

Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed. Several of these are listed below.

[[File:The Soviet Union 1991 CPA 6375 stamp (13th standard issue of Soviet Union. 12th issue. World peace. Globe and palm branch) 1200dpi.jpg|thumb|234x234px|A 1984 [[Postage stamps and postal history of Russia|USSR stamp]] illustrating the Earth behind a [[Palm branch|palm frond]]. The title reads: "Мир Народам Земли!" ("Peace to all the Peoples of the World!").]]

===Capitalism peace theory===
{{Main|Capitalist peace}}

Capitalist, or commercial peace, forms one of the three planks of [[Kantianism|Kantian]] peace, together with [[democratic peace theory]] and institutionalist arguments for peace. Although the evidence is inconclusive, various scholars have argued for capitalist peace.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Gartzke |first1=Erik |last2=Zhang |first2=Jiakun Jack |date=2015 |title=Trade and War |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199981755-e-27 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160521081154/http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com:80/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199981755-e-27 |archive-date=2016-05-21 |website=The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade |language=en |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.27 |isbn=978-0-19-998175-5}}</ref> For instance, in her essay "The Roots of War", [[Ayn Rand]] held that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones and that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history—a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world—from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of [[World War I]] in 1914, with the exceptions of the [[Franco-Prussian War]] (1870), the [[Spanish–American War]] (1898), the [[Crimean War]] (1853–1856), the [[Boer Wars]] (1880–1881, 1899–1902), and the [[American Civil War]] (1861–1865).{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

===Cobdenism===
Proponents of [[Cobdenism]] claim that by removing tariffs and creating international [[free trade]], wars would become impossible because free trade prevents a nation from becoming [[self-sufficient]], which is a requirement for long wars.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

However, free trade does not prevent a nation from establishing some sort of emergency plan to become temporarily self-sufficient in case of war or that a nation could simply acquire what it needs from a different nation. A good example of this is [[World War I]], during which both Britain and Germany became partially self-sufficient. This is particularly important because Germany had no plan for creating a [[war economy]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

===Democratic peace theory===
Proponents of [[democratic peace theory]], developed mainly in the 1960s but relying in part on eighteenth century [[Kantianism|Kantian]] theory, and frequently espoused by Western politicians, claim that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies never or rarely wage war against each other.<ref>{{Citation |title=Does democracy cause peace? |journal=Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. |date=1998 |first1=James Lee |last1=Ray  |volume=1 |pages=27–46 |url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080217032515/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm |place=US |publisher=M Tholyoke International Relations |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.27 |archive-date=17 February 2008 }}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Smith |title=Politics |url=http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/smith/dempeace.PDF |contribution=Democracy & peace |place=USA |publisher=New York University}}.</ref><ref>{{cite conference |author=Müller, Harald and Jonas Wolff |date=September 2004 |title=Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back |url=https://www.academia.edu/2486355 |access-date=31 July 2013 |book-title=5th Pan-European International Relations ConferenceThe Hague}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Owen |first=John M IV |title=Fareview essay |date=1 November 2005 |url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101fareviewessay84611/john-m-owen-iv/iraq-and-the-democratic-peace.html |work=ForeignAffairs.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051221155722/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101fareviewessay84611/john-m-owen-iv/iraq-and-the-democratic-peace.html |id=Iraq and the democratic peace |archive-date=21 December 2005 }}.</ref> However, several [[List of wars between democracies|wars between democracies]] have taken place, historically, such as the [[Kargil War]] and the [[Cenepa War]]. Relevant issues of debate include whether sufficient data is available to statistically prove the theory and whether peace results in democracy ([[territorial peace theory]]) or vice versa.

===Economic norms theory===
Michael Mousseau's [[Michael Mousseau|economic norms theory]] links economic conditions with institutions of governance and conflict, distinguishing personal [[clientelism|clientelist]] economies from impersonal market-oriented ones, identifying the latter with permanent peace within and between nations.<ref name="Mousseau 2009">{{Citation |last=Mousseau |first=Michael |title=International Security |date=Spring 2009 |volume=33 |number=4 |pages=52–86 |contribution=The Social Market Roots of Democratic Peace}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Mousseau |first=Michael |title=International Security |date=Winter 2002–2003 |volume=27 |number=3 |pages=5–29 |author-mask=8 |contribution=Market Civilization and its Clash with Terror}}.</ref>

Throughout most of human history, societies have been based on personal relations: individuals in groups know each other and exchange favours. Today in most lower-income societies hierarchies of groups distribute wealth based on personal relationships among group leaders, a process often linked with clientelism and corruption. [[Michael Mousseau]] argues that in this kind of socio-economy conflict is always present, latent or overt, because individuals depend on their groups for physical and economic security and are thus loyal to their groups rather than their states, and because groups are in a constant state of conflict over access to state coffers. Through processes of [[bounded rationality]], people are conditioned towards strong in-group identities and are easily swayed to fear outsiders, psychological predispositions that make possible sectarian violence, genocide, and terrorism.<ref name="Mousseau 2003">{{Citation |last=Mousseau |first=Michael |title=The Nexus of Market Society, Liberal Preferences, and Democratic Peace: Interdisciplinary Theory and Evidence |journal=International Studies Quarterly |volume=47 |number=4 |pages=483–510 |year=2003 |author-mask=8 |citeseerx=10.1.1.321.7034 |doi=10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00276.x}}.</ref>

Market-oriented socio-economics are integrated not with personal ties but the impersonal force of the market where most individuals are economically dependent on trusting strangers in contracts enforced by the state. This creates loyalty to a state that enforces the rule of law and contracts impartially and reliably and provides equal protection in the freedom to contract – that is, liberal democracy. Wars cannot happen within or between nations with market-integrated economies because war requires the harming of others, and in these kinds of economies, everyone is always economically better off when others in the market are also better off, not worse off. Rather than fight, citizens in market-oriented socio-economies care deeply about everyone's rights and welfare, so they demand economic growth at home and economic cooperation and human rights abroad. Nations with market-oriented socio-economies tend to agree on [[list of global issues|global issues]]<ref name="Mousseau 2003" /> and not a single fatality has occurred in any dispute between them.<ref name="Mousseau 2009" />

Economic norms theory should not be confused with classical liberal theory. The latter assumes that markets are natural and that freer markets promote wealth.<ref>[[Milton Friedman|Friedman, Milton]]. 1970. ''[[Capitalism and Freedom]]''. Chicago: University of Chicago.</ref> In contrast, Economic norms theory shows how market-contracting is a learned norm, and state spending, regulation, and redistribution are necessary to ensure that almost everyone can participate in the "social market" economy, which is in everyone's interests.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

===Marxism: World peace via world revolution===

According to the [[dialectical materialist]] theory of [[Karl Marx]], humanity under [[capitalism]] is divided into just two classes: the [[proletariat]]—who do not possess the means of production, and the [[bourgeoisie]]—who do possess the means of production. Once the [[communist revolution]] occurs and consequently abolishes the private propriety of the means of production, humanity will not be divided and the tension created between these two classes will cease.<ref>{{Citation |last=Trotsky |first=Leon |title=War and the International |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1914/war/ |year=1914 |publisher=Marxists}}.</ref>

===Deterrence===
{{See also|Pax Atomica}}
[[Mutual assured destruction]] (MAD) is a [[doctrine]] of military strategy based on rational [[Deterrence theory|deterrence]] in which a full-scale use of [[nuclear weapons]] by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both belligerents.<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/strategy-mutual-assured-destruction.htm | publisher = Nuclear files | title = Strategy | contribution = Mutual Assured Destruction}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Col. Alan J | last = Parrington | publisher = Air Force | place = US | url = http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html | contribution = Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, Strategic Doctrine in Question | title = Airpower Journal | date = Winter 1997  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150620055606/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html | archive-date = 20 June 2015 }}.</ref> Proponents of the policy of MAD, which as a term was coined in 1962 during the [[Cold War]], attributed this to the increase in the lethality of war to the point where it no longer offers the possibility of a net gain for either side (a form of [[Nash equilibrium]]), thereby making wars pointless.{{Citation needed|date=August 2023}}

===Peace through strength===
The term [[Peace through strength]] is traced back to the Roman Emperor [[Hadrian]] (reigned CE 117 – 138), but the concept is older. In the Indian epic ''[[Ramayana]]'' (7th to 4th centuries BCE) Lord Rama is quoted as saying "Bhay Bin Hoye na Preet", meaning once prayers for peace fail, one may need to instill fear to bring peace. In 1943, at the peak of [[World War II]], the founder of the [[Paneuropean Union]], [[Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi]], argued that after the war the United States (U.S.) was bound to take "command of the skies" to ensure the lasting world peace:
{{blockquote|
But the inauguration of such a glorious century of peace demands from us abandonment of old conceptions of peace. The new Angel of Peace must no longer be pictured as a charming but helpless lady with an olive branch in her hand, but like the Goddess of Justice with a balance in her left and a sword in her right; or like the Archangel Michael, with a fiery sword and wings of steel, fighting the devil to restore and protect the peace of heaven.<ref>''Crusade for Pan-Europe'', (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943), p 299, 305.</ref>}}
In fact, near the entrance to the headquarters of the U.S. [[Strategic Air Command]] at [[Offutt Air Force Base]] stands a large sign with a SAC emblem and its motto: "Peace is our profession."<ref>Cited in [[Thomas S. Power]], ''Design for Survival'', (New York: Coward McCann, 1964), p 139.</ref> The motto "was a staggering paradox that was also completely accurate".<ref>Phillip S. Meilinger, ''Bomber: The Formation and Early History of Strategic Air Command'', (Alabama: Air University Press, 2012), p XVIII.</ref> One SAC Bomber—[[Convair B-36 Peacemaker|Convair B-36]]—is called ''Peacemaker'' and one inter-continental missile-[[LGM-118 Peacekeeper|LGM-118]]-''Peacekeeper''.

In 2016, former U.S. Secretary of Defense [[Ash Carter]] envisaged that the re-balance to the Asia-Pacific will make the region "peaceful" through "strength":

{{blockquote|
You, and your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines will solidify the rebalance, you will make this network work, and you will help the Asia-Pacific... realize a principled and peaceful and prosperous future.  And play the role only America can play... You'll do so with strength.<ref>{{cite web| title="The Future of the Rebalance: Enabling Security in the Vital & Dynamic Asia-Pacific", Secretary of Defense Speech, September 29, 2016, Washington: Department of Defense|url= https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/959937/remarks-on-the-future-of-the-rebalance-enabling-security-in-the-vital-dynamic-a/}}</ref>|sign=|source=}}

Introduction to US National Security and Defense Strategies of 2018 states: The US force posture combined with the allies will "preserve peace through strength". The document proceeds to detail what "achieving peace through strength requires".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America |url=https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180119180945/https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=19 January 2018 |access-date=2019-11-22}}</ref>

=== Territorial peace theory ===
Proponents of the [[territorial peace theory]] claim that countries with stable borders are likely to develop democracy, while wars and territorial threats foster authoritarian attitudes and a disregard for democracy.<ref name="HutchisonStarr2017">{{cite book |last1=Hutchison |first1=Marc L. |title=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics |last2=Starr |first2=Daniel G. |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-022863-7 |editor1-last=Thompson |editor1-first=William R. |chapter=The Territorial Peace: Theory, Evidence, and Implications|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.285 }}</ref> Increasing attention has been paid to the theory since the early 2000s, and it has increasingly informed [[democratic peace theory]] and been espoused in the cause of [[peacebuilding]] and [[international relations]]. Proponents of democratic peace theory counter argue that stable borders resulting from dispute arbitration or negotiation rather than force via autocracy are more likely to be obtained by democratic states. Efforts are underway to synthesize the two theories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Owsiak |first=Andrew P. |date=2019 |title=Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894216650635 |journal=Conflict Management and Peace Science |language=en |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=63–87 |doi=10.1177/0738894216650635 |s2cid=156163897 |issn=0738-8942}}</ref>