Diplomacy and Democracy

The major current conflicts—in the Middle East, between Israel and Gaza, and in Eastern Europe, between Russia and Ukraine—as well as the "tariff war" initiated by the United States and the resulting economic uncertainties, among other ongoing phenomena, call for internationally negotiated solutions. What could be hindering the functioning of traditional mechanisms for mediation, arbitration, or good diplomatic offices? Why aren't the systems of the United Nations, the WTO, and other organizations established since the end of World War II being invoked to find solutions? Is it becoming tricky, or nearly impossible, for global diplomacy to achieve more and better results when countries become less democratic?

To try to answer this question, let us first recall that diplomacy has existed since the dawn of humanity, as even prehistoric tribes sent messengers seeking agreements to establish truces and alliances or define hunting grounds. In turn, democracy, in some form, has existed since Ancient Greece, if not earlier. Democracy and diplomacy have therefore coexisted in parallel without any dependence or apparent correlation between them, since, throughout history, autocratic countries (the majority) and the (few) incipient democracies sent diplomats and established agreements, essentially bilateral.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PEACE

The examination of the relationship between international trade and peace preceded the examination of the possible connection between democracy and diplomacy. Kant (1795) referred to international trade as a civilizing force, promoting interdependence among peoples and discouraging conflict, as wars would be detrimental to their economic interests: "The spirit of commerce (...) sooner or later takes hold of all peoples and cannot coexist with war; and therefore, sooner or later, it operates as a force against war."

In a way, Kant expanded on the idea that Montesquieu (1748) had put forward a few years earlier: that trade moderates customs, making them gentler (mœurs douces); it reduces violence and conflict, as people see more advantage in exchange than in plunder; and promotes peace between states by creating common interests and economic interdependence: "Wherever there are gentle customs, there is commerce; and wherever there is commerce, there are gentle customs."

Montesquieu, inspired by the English political system, and Kant both addressed democracy. Despite having lived under autocratic regimes, they demonstrated an interest in the topic, as the former proposed the separation of powers as a way to prevent abuses and guarantee political freedom, and the latter, legality and citizen participation in legislation, as well as defending constitutional republics based on reason and law. Both were fundamental in the formation of modern political thought, which influenced constitutionalism, liberalism, and representative democracy. Their connection between international trade relations and peace was pioneering, especially since diplomacy always seemed to act after, not before, conflicts.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIPLOMACY AND PEACE

There seems to be no doubt about the diplomatic advances immediately following the end of major armed conflicts. Thus, after the Thirty Years' War, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) emerged as the concept of sovereign nations, whose observance would avoid countless controversies, especially religious ones. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna (1815) initiated the Concert of Europe, which preserved peace on that continent for almost a century. The end of World War I (1918) led to the creation of the League of Nations. In the wake of the conflict, in the following decade, international law began to incorporate the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), which prohibited war. At the end of World War II, several diplomatic initiatives led to the creation of the system that now exists, with the creation of the UN, the World Bank, and the IMF, as well as several other international organizations since then.

Following this logic of diplomatic advancement at the end of each major conflict, the next question concerns the diplomatic consequences of the end of the Cold War. Today seen as hasty (because it was never realized), this notorious statement became famous when it was declared, in an article published in 1989:

What we are perhaps witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a specific period in postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of humanity's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (author's emphasis).

Whether the end of the Cold War is counted from the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) or the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), what is clear is that there was, in fact, a brief period (until the beginning or middle of the following decade) when a rare Security Council decision was reached. Then, throughout the decade, several multilateral agreements were negotiated and concluded, as exemplified below.

The Security Council decision concerned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when not a single permanent member vetoed Resolution 660, which condemned the invasion and demanded the withdrawal of Iraqi troops. This had not happened since Resolution 82 of 1950, which had mandated the same for the North Korean troops that had invaded South Korea.

Regarding multilateral agreements, these would occur in several areas. In peace and security, the first significant example was the conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Agreement (1992); this was followed by the approval of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1994); the indefinite extension of the NPT decided during the Review and Extension Conference (1995); the approval of the Mine Ban Treaty (1997); and the conclusion of the Mine Ban Treaty (1997). In the environmental area, the Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro (1992), when agreements on biodiversity and climate change were signed; and the Kyoto Protocol was approved (1997), to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. In the trade area, the Marrakesh Agreement (1994) concluded the Uruguay Round and determined the creation of the WTO (1995), which included a coercive dispute settlement system. Regarding human rights issues, the creation of the International Criminal Court by the Rome Statute (1998) stands out, considered an important advance in enabling the prosecution of crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Despite so many important achievements, those involved in diplomacy in the 1990s failed to realize they were living in a golden age during which multilateral agreements, some previously unthinkable, became feasible with relative ease, as the examples above indicate. Before examining the relationship, if any, between these diplomatic achievements and the level of democracy in the world at that time, it is worth examining the diplomatic challenges and democracy indices in that period immediately following the end of the Cold War.

THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S

Democracy indices in the world in the 1990s showed positive progress: the number of democratic countries jumped from 40 in 1974 to 76 in 1990. How and why did this happen? Some data could explain these improvements. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, fifteen republics emerged as independent states on the international stage. Many countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia held party elections—South American countries—which had undergone transitions from military rule in the previous decade, consolidated democracy. In South Africa, apartheid ended democratically in 1994.

According to data from Freedom House and Reporters Without Frontières, the decade saw a significant improvement in indicators on issues inherent to democracy, such as press freedom, judicial independence, and elections. Regarding freedom of the press and freedom of expression during the 1990s, these indicators were boosted by processes of redemocratization and political liberalization. Regarding judicial independence, the decade marked a positive shift, with the strengthening of autonomous judiciaries in new democracies. Finally, indicators of electoral and liberal democracy, according to V-Dem and Polity Project IV, point to a significant historical transformation: the 1990s saw the peak of the third wave of democratization (V-Dem Institute 2023). The data, therefore, seem to indicate that diplomatic advancement in the aforementioned decade coincided with the expansion of democracy worldwide.

The theory of the democratic peace

It would not be a mere coincidence that, in the 1990s, some authors developed the so-called democratic peace theory, the idea that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other as a result of cultural and political perceptions (Russett & Antholis 1992). Under Russett's leadership, they identified mechanisms such as shared norms, institutional transparency, and internal political costs that would encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes. They argued that diplomacy between democracies would be facilitated by internal structures that fostered mutual trust (Russett et al. 1993). They presented a quantitative study of conflicts between democracies (Oneal & Russett, 1999). Another author, Gartzek, proposed an alternative to the democratic peace: it is not democracy per se, but liberal capitalism and economic integration that reduce conflicts. He argued that economically free and integrated countries have more to lose from wars, opting for diplomatic solutions. In short, Russett and colleagues emphasized democracy as the primary cause of peace, while Gartzke gave greater weight to economic liberalization.

According to proponents of democratic peace theory, the institutional and normative mechanisms of democracies explain this tendency, such as checks and balances that hinder the autocratic actions of heads of government (parliaments, an independent judiciary, the press, public opinion, and civil society). Democracies share values ​​such as peaceful dispute resolution and human rights. They tend to trust each other more and expect predictable behavior from other democratic governments. Free media and civil society act as checks: they expose the costs of war and question its legitimacy. Leaders fear losing elections if they become involved in unpopular conflicts. Democratic governments operate with greater transparency, which helps avoid misunderstandings and fosters trust between nations. Democracies often maintain trade and investment with each other, reduce military costs, and cooperate peacefully. Furthermore, they tend to form and maintain alliances, often stable and lasting compared to those of autocratic regimes.

Other authors have also addressed this topic. Samuel P. Huntington (1991) examined the implications of democratization for international relations; Spencer R. Weart (1998), after examining political and military conflicts, claimed to have found no exception to the claim that well-established liberal democracies had never gone to war with each other; Kenneth A. Schultz (2001) argued that political competition in democracies affected decision-making in international crises, often leading to successful diplomatic outcomes; and Michael W. Doyle (2024) conducted an in-depth analysis of the theory of the democratic peace, its continuity, and the factors that contributed to peaceful relations between democracies.

The gradual deterioration of democracy since 2000

Since the mid-2000s, the democratic trend has undergone a reversal. A widespread democratic decline has been observed, marked by the degradation of free elections, the erosion of civil and political rights, and the consolidation of competitive autocratic regimes (Levitsky & Way 2010). The decline in press freedom rates has been attributed to the rise of digital authoritarianism, state repression, and the capture of media outlets by political and economic elites (Freedom House 2023; Reporters Sans Frontières 2023). There has also been stagnation or even decline in judicial independence in various contexts, notably those where processes of concentration of power and attacks on the institutional autonomy of the Judiciary have occurred (V-Dem Institute 2023). A decline has also been observed in several regions, characterized by the weakening of the rule of law, the instrumentalization of oversight institutions, and increased impunity (World Justice Project 2023). The apparent waning of attachment to democracy was a phenomenon that would soon be the subject of examination by several authors in recent years. For example, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (2012; 2019) analyzed democratic institutions and their role in the stability and development of nations; James Kloppenberg (2016) studied the moral and intellectual origins of democracy as self-government based on deliberation, equality, and tolerance; and Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018 and 2023) examined the challenges faced by modern democracies, especially in contexts of increasing polarization and democratic backsliding. They proposed institutional and political reforms to strengthen democracies and prevent the rise of authoritarianism.

However, there was no shortage of opinions opposing the correlation between democracy and peace, such as an entry in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (Reiter 2017), which suggested that the correlation between democracy and peace may be spurious, influenced by other factors such as national interests or the balance of power. One article criticized the theory by arguing that promoting democracy can sometimes lead to greater destabilization and conflict, particularly in postcolonial contexts (Zachariades 2018).

THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL DIPLOMACY

The challenges of global diplomacy have been attributed to difficulties in adapting its methods and practices to globalization (particularly technological developments), the increase in the number of countries, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations, and the expansion of multilaterally addressed issues (Mello Barreto 2024). Indeed, the anti-globalization movement would affect diplomatic negotiations, as became clear in 1999, when the WTO ministerial meeting held in Seattle had to be suspended due to the inability of local authorities to contain protests and urban disorder. Despite this landmark event, the WTO Doha Round was launched in 2001, albeit with many difficulties between the parties. However, from then on, ministerial meetings would be inconclusive or canceled.

Currently, the international system, with its universal vocation, created at the end of World War II, faces unprecedented challenges. Diplomacy has been facing perhaps more acute challenges amid uncertainty and heightened unpredictability: in matters of peace and security, due to conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe; in environmental issues, given the lack of support for climate change by the current administration of the world's largest economy; in international trade, faced with a WTO lacking enforcement, due to the United States' stance, which has not only opposed the approval of judges to the Appellate Body but also recently violated the fundamental rule of the GATT—non-discrimination—by unilaterally raising tariffs.

The international system, in place since the creation of the UN, has perhaps not been exposed to such a challenging test, as multilateral diplomacy, more transparent and inclusive than bilateral diplomacy, has been ignored, sidelined, or clearly dismissed and threatened. For critics of the UN, it is easy to point out the number of unresolved conflicts within the current system. They easily list the regional or internal conflicts that have occurred since the end of World War II, especially in developing countries.

For advocates of the multilateral system, it is difficult to enumerate the conflicts that were prevented through diplomacy, since they did not arise thanks to means such as preventive diplomacy (as Dag Hammarskjöld called it); the actions of peacekeeping forces and UN mediation; arbitration tribunals; decisions and opinions of the International Court of Justice (more diverse in its composition than its predecessor); economic and technical cooperation by specialized agencies; and the exponential increase in world trade. They can, however, remember that the multilateral system has acted in many areas, mitigated global crises, and, above all, prevented the occurrence of a third world conflict over the last eight decades.

CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

The ideas discussed in this article indicate that when levels of democracy decline, countries may face challenges in maintaining effective diplomacy for at least three reasons. The first is that institutional checks and balances erode, resulting in reduced accountability, which can lead to erratic foreign policies and a loss of credibility. The second is the increased risk of conflict, as autocratic regimes tend to adopt more aggressive foreign policies. Finally, declining democracies may become isolated in the international community, reducing diplomatic engagement.

What can be done to revive multilateral diplomacy in the face of these difficulties, so that global diplomacy can achieve results in a less democratic international environment? To address these challenges, three measures seem necessary. The first would be to invest in professional diplomacy and maintain open channels of communication with other nations. The second would be to actively participate in international organizations to maintain diplomatic ties and exert influence. Moreover, the third would be to support non-governmental organizations and independent media to foster a more informed and engaged citizenry. As a peaceful and democratic country, Brazil is in a position to strengthen its actions in this regard with the aim of, together with other democratic countries, fostering an international climate more favorable to peace and security, respect for the environment and human rights, and the promotion of cooperation, trade, and investment.

Considering the long and fruitful history of global diplomacy, there is reason to hope that these difficult times for negotiations will pass and that the good and tried practice of this universal art will once again prevail, as it has always done. After all, as the 18th-century Swiss jurist Vattel noted, even the least scrupulous sovereigns would like to be remembered as just, equitable, and peace-loving (Vattel 1758 apud Hathaway & Shapiro 2017).

References

Acemoglu, Daron & James A. Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown Publishing.

Acemoglu, Daron & James A. Robinson. 2019. The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty. London: Penguin Press.

Doyle, Michael W. 2024. "Why They Do not Fight: The Surprising Endurance of the Democratic Peace." Foreign Affairs, 18 de junho de 2024. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/why-they-dont-fight-doyle.

Freedom House. 2023. Freedom in the World 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/FIW_World_2023_DigtalPDF.pdf. 

Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. "The End of History?” The National Interest 16: 3-18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kant, Emmanuel. 1795.  “Apêndice I. Sobre a discrepância entre a moral e a política em relação à paz perpétua". In A paz perpétua.

Kloppenberg, James. 2016. Toward Democracy: The Struggle for Self-Rule in European and American Thought. Oxford: University Press.

Levitsky, Steven & Lucan A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781353.

Levitsky, Steven & Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. Como as democracias morrem. São Paulo: Zahar.

Levitsky, Steven & Daniel Ziblatt. 2023. Como salvar a democracia. São Paulo: Zahar.

Mello Barreto, Fernando de. 2024. Diplomacia: tradições, mudanças e desafios. Brasília: FUNAG: 241-253.

Montesquieu. "Do espírito das leis" (De l'esprit des lois).  Livro XX, "Do Comércio".

Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett. 1999. “Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research Special Issue on Trade and Conflict 36 (4): 423-442. https://www.jstor.org/stable/425297.

Reiter, Dan. 2017. “Is Democracy a Cause of Peace?" Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.287.

Reporters sans frontières. 2023. World Press Freedom Index 2023. https://rsf.org.

Russett, Bruce & William Antholis. 1992. “Do Democracies Fight Each Other? Evidence from the Peloponnesian War.”  Journal of Peace Research 29 (4): 415-434. https://www.jstor.org/stable/425542

Russett, Bruce, William Antholis, Carol R. Ember, Melvin Ember & Zeev Maoz. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rqf6.   

Schultz, Kenneth A. 2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

V-Dem Institute. 2023. V-Dem Dataset 2023. https://www.v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/.

Vattel, Emer de. 1758. “The Law of Nations”, apud Oona Hathaway & Scott J. Shapiro. 2017. The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Cap. 40, nota 47. New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Weart, Spencer R. 1998. Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. New Haven: Yale University Press.

World Justice Project. 2023. Rule of Law Index 2023. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/downloads/WJPIndex2023.pdf.  

Zachariades, Alexandros. 2018. “The Implicit Imperialism of Democratic Peace". E-International Relations, 9 de outubro de 2018. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/10/09/the-implicit-imperialism-of-democratic-peace/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

Received: May 27 2025

Aceito para publicação: June 12 2025

Copyright © 2025 CEBRI-Journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited.