In weighing democracy and capitalism on peace I fall into the Gartzke camp where I do believe that capitalism has a greater impact on peace maintenance. It is the anarchic forces of the global capital market by state and non-state actors that subconsciously integrate the world into a perceived liberal economic order decreasing incentives for war. In this time period, under capitalism, territorial acquisition is rare to non-existent, capital is mobile and easily transferred away from victor’s hands, and the financial/monetary risk of militarized dispute is evidently rising. With little perceived gains from militarized dispute regarding economics, I do find myself persuaded by Gartzke’s article.

However, I do believe the case of the hegemon, like in Oneal and Russett’s article, provides an exception or point of weakness to the argument. A hegemon can still stand to financially benefit from militarized dispute primarily through the manufacturing of military equipment. Two other factors are oil and drugs. Every war that America has participated in/initiated in the past couple of decades involves oil or drugs. Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait. A hegemon will engage in militarized disputes and break this capitalist notion of a liberal economic order leading to peace if these two perceived natural resources provide sufficient temptation. In this case, a hegemon may value the benefits of oil and drug control as sufficient rewards for engaging in militarized dispute and its associated financial costs. Thus, similar to Oneal and Russett’s article, the hegemon does provide resistance to these theories of international peace.