Perang Ekuador dan Peru Tahun 1995

Abstract

This study tries to explain the reasons why Peru and Ecuador went to war with each other in 1995, even though both are democracies. The research was conducted concerning Immanuel Kant's Democratic Peace Theory by examining norms and institutions as essential factors in developing his theory. This study uses qualitative research with literature review and interview methods. The study will focus on the conditions of norms and institutions in Peru and Ecuador in 1995, the year the two countries decided to go to war with each other. Based on the research results, it is known that democratic norms and institutions owned by Ecuador and Peru have not been able to create peace as has been assumed by Immanuel Kant in the Democratic Peace Theory. Although Ecuador has democratic institutions that can reduce the authority of its leaders in decision-making, the domestic democratic norms established in the 1830 Constitutional Law cannot make the Ecuadorian people's support refer to peace in overcoming the Cenepa border conflict. On the contrary, in Peru, democratic norms that prefer to negotiate and make peace are not followed by the effectiveness of the role of democratic institutions that cannot limit President Fujimori's authority, who chooses to carry out attacks in border areas which then triggers a war.

References

1. Arnson, C. J. (2012). In the Wake of War: Democratization and Internal Armed Conflict in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2. Brysk, A. (2000). From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
3. Database and Search Engine for Direct Democracy. (1993, October 31). Peru Constitution. Retrieved from Database and Search Engine for Direct Democracy: https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=pe011993
4. Faverio, A., & Naimark, A. (2013). Perpetual Injustice: The Twenty-Year Battle for Reparations in Peru. Human Rights Brief, 32-36.
5. Ferrada, M. F. (2007). Non-Democratic Peace in South America: Comparing the Beagle Channel Crisis (1977-1978) and the Cenepa Crisis (1994-1995). Canada: McGill University Press.
6. Freedom House Survey Team. (1995). Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties 1994-1995. New York: University Press of America, Inc.
7. Goodsell, J. N. (1981, February 2). Peru-Ecuador war: oil at issue? Retrieved from The Cristian Science Monitor: https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0202/020245.html
8. Herbst, J. (2000). States and Power in Africa, Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
9. Herz, M. (2002). Ecuador vs. Peru: Peacemaking Amid Rivalry. Lynne Rienner Boulder Co.
10. Kenney, C. D. (2004). Fujimori's Coup and the Breakdown of Democracy in Latin America. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
11. Lepruwash. (1995). The 1995 Peruvian-Ecuadorian Border Conflict. Retrieved from Ecuador Nativeweb: http://ecuador.nativeweb.org/border/border1.html#4
12. Lund, M. S. (1996). Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
13. Marcella, G., & Downes, R. (1999). Security Cooperation in the Western Hemispherer: Resolving the Ecuador-Peru Conflict. Miami: North-South Center Press.
14. Mares, D. (2001). Violent Peace: Militarized Interstate Bargaining in Latin America. New York: Columbia University Press.
15. Owen, J. M. (1994). How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security, 87-125.
16. Palmer, D. S., & Mares, D. R. (2012). Power, Institutions, and Leadership in War and Peace: Lessons from Peru and Ecuador, 1995–1998. Texas: University of Texas Press.
17. Political Database of the Americas. (2009). Democracy and Citizen Security. Retrieved from PDBA: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Security/security_e.html
18. Radcliff, S. A. (1998). Frontiers and Popular Nationhood: Geographies of Identity in the 1995 Ecuador-Peru Border Dispute. Political Geography, 277.
19. Radcliffe, S. A. (2007). Culture and Development in a Globalizing World: Geographies, Actors and Paradigms. Development in Practice, 156-158.
20. Ravlo, H., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2000). Colonial War and Globalization of Democratic Values.
21. Silalahi, U. (2006). Metode Penelitian Sosial. Bandung: Unpar Press.

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 Ahmad Daniel Kusumah Anshary

Indexing & Citations