To discuss O’Neal and Russett’s “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence and International Organizations” a definition of what exactly the “Kantian Peace” entails must first be established. Kant’s classic argument states that an international perpetual peace can exist if the following features are present: a republican constitution, a federation of interdependent republics, and a commercial spirit. Thus, Kant is not proposing a unilateral relationship with a single independent to dependent variable association; the requirements for Kantian peace necessitate the examination of at least three other independent variables. Accordingly, O’Neal and Russett aim to assess (1) democracy, (2) trade interdependence and (3) IGO involvement, in relation to peace. By performing both dyadic and systemic analyses, O’Neal and Russett ultimately conclude that Kant’s theory was remarkably prescient.

In their analysis, they use a single dependent variable, DISPUTE, a dichotomous measure of whether or not there is a militarized interstate dispute (MID), and three Kantian dyadic independent variables: DEM_L, a gradated measure of the level of democracy in the less democratic state of each dyad, DEPEND_L, a gradated measure of the level of dependence of the state less economically dependent on trade, and IGO, a gradated measure of the number of IGOs in which both states in a dyad share membership.

To best dispel the possibility of reverse causality for their purposes, O’Neal and Russett lag all independent variables from the dependent variable by one year. This precaution aims to protect again endogeneity i.e. when conflict may limit trade just as trade may constrain conflict. They also try to control for a variety of realist explanations for dyadic peace, including in their analysis the capability ratio (CAPRATIO), alliance (ALLIES), and contiguity and distance (NONCONTIG and DISTANCE). For the years 1885- 1992, excluding the two world wars and the immediate postwar years (1915-20, 1940-46, O’Neal and Russett observed a total of 150,000 dyads.

To assess their observations, O’Neal and Russett employ a logistic regression analysis on the following equation:

(EQ₁) DISPUTE= DEM_L + DEPEND_L + IGO + ALLIES + CAPRATIO + NONCONTIG + DISTANCE + MINORPWRS

Table 1 in the paper summarizes the results attained from their analysis; the results that I find most compelling are found in the first row. The association between democracy and dyadic peace is signifiant at the p<.0001 level.