External theories explain what nation states want, or appear to want, whereas internal theories ask whether this matters or whether the preferences of other agents are likely to be more important. Consideration for how ethnic and nationalist identity claims are mediated through public argument reveals the process by which culture is constituted through talk, even as the potential for redefinition is limited by history and other material constraints on collective action. Huntington's 'Clash of Civilization' hypothesis is contrasted to this argumentation framework to argue for the importance of heightened theoretical attention both to the practice of public deliberation and the spaces for exchange opened up through talk. The article examines three ways of understanding security and the political implications of each. It illustrates this by examining U.S. policy and discourse regarding Haiti circa 1991-1994.
Institutional explanations are incomplete.
Ideational explanations provide critical insights into aspects of liberal-democratic relations that institutional accounts leave unexplained or underexplained, but have not been taken far enough. These inadequacies can be addressed by grounding ideational explanations for the democratic peace in constructivist theory. Constructivists argue that certain processes can lead states to positively identify with one another. This sort of positive collective identification holds the key to understanding why liberal democracies rarely fight one another. Collective liberal identity leads to a definition of state interests and appropriate state strategies which facilitates cooperative relations, a tendency for liberal-democracies to ally with one another, and peaceful resolution of conflicts of interest.