Finally, civil and political liberties imply liberties like the freedom of expression, press, and forming and joining organisations, which links democracy again with liberalism. .
The last two paragraphs highlighted the close connection of liberalism and democracy. For that reason and for the fact that almost all democracies are liberal states and almost all liberal states are democracies (Lynn-Jones, 1998), in this assignment the terms liberal state/country and democratic state/country are used as synonyms. .
By coming back to the democratic peace theory, Kant argued that these common morals and understandings of how to legitimate power results in transparency between the liberal states and that let understand each other better (Sa-rensen, 1993: 94). This transparency again lets the people choose negotiations instead of voting for violence (Sa-rensen, 1993: 94). Kant called the lack of violence a "peaceful zone ", which was not based on a treaty but on similar attitudes a "pacific union"" (Sa-rensen, 1993: 94). .
Kant just made the assumption that liberal countries never fight against each other without any evidence (Baylis, et al., 2005: 189). Therefore, it should be demonstrated that liberal states really go not to war against each other, which was not possible, because different researchers found wars between democracies in history (Sa-rensen, 1993: 93). For example, Great Britain and the United States of America went to war in 1812, even though they were both democracies at this time (Smith, et al, 2008: 52). Nevertheless, according to Sa-rensen (1993: 93) the empirical investigations found out that liberal countries enter into war with each other less frequently.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that democratic countries are more peaceful than other political systems, which lead to the second characteristic of the democratic peace theory (Sa-rensen, 1993: 93). Namely, that there is a high potential for violence between liberal and non-liberal states, which Smith et al.
