The fundamental principle of the study of international relations is the question of why wars occur. Political theorists have addressed this question with heated debates throughout history, and in the post-World War II period, theories of democratic peace and realism came to the forefront of the study of international relations. These two theories offer contrasting explanations for the reasons why nations fight with each other and also try to predict the likelihood of future conflicts. Democratic peace theory, which concludes that democratic regimes do not go to war with each other due to their democratic nature, has achieved the status of international relations law in some circles (Owen 1994, Doyle 1983). Using the absence of conflict between democratic nations as the basis for the theory, Spiro identifies that Democratic Peace advocates affirm two aspects of the theory (Spiro, 1994). The first is an institutional or structural belief that factors such as public opinion or checks and balances within government limit the likelihood of war. The other is an ideological belief that the liberal values ​​of such regimes aim to foster peaceful interactions and limit conflict. Democratic peace theory would therefore discredit realist perspectives of interstate conflict that focus on the strategic interest of a sovereign state within an anarchic world sphere. The theory has achieved the status of dogma in many circles, but it still has its share of critics who adhere to realist theory such as David Spiro and Bruce Russett. Realists contest the relevance of the statistics on which democratic peace is based, arguing for a renewal of interest in realist theory of international relations. Realists argue that world politics is straight... middle of paper... infrequent in providing an empirical foundation for their conclusion. Likewise, the limitations placed on the categories of war and democracy ignore the fact that liberal states have ignored each other's respect for democratic institutions and norms and have authorized the use of force against another like-minded state. Doyle is aware of the limitations of his Democratic Peace Theory, emphasizing that protecting liberalism's democratizing heritage may in fact guarantee the negative consequence of stimulating illiberal practices (Doyle, 1983). The significance of a theory of peace that concludes its fundamental principles and can actually generate belligerent behavior is questionable. Doyle's democratic peace theory offers an interesting starting point in the study of the relationship between democratic nations and conflicts; however, its assumptions should not be evaluated as law.