Democratic peace theory states that democracies hardly fight each other because they share similar standards of “live-and-let-live” and domestic institutions that limit the option of war. The causal logics that reinforce democratic peace theory are, normative logic and institutional logic. Normative logic argues that an “effect of democracy is to socialize political elites to act on the basis of democratic norms whenever possible.” These standards order nonviolent conflict resolution and negotiation within the idea of “live-and-let-live.” Evidence reveals that there are flaws in the normative logic. In contrast to the findings of democratic peace theorists, democracies do not externalize their domestic standards of conflict resolution, nor do they treat each other with trust and respect when they have conflicting interests. Institutional logic states “democratic institutions and processes make leaders accountable to a wide range of social groups that may oppose war.” Meaning that the components that make up institutional logic, do not seem to operate as they were expected to.…show more content… In normative logic, liberal democracies fail to adopt their democratic standards of conflict resolution in an international context, and they do not treat one another with trust and respect when their interests clash. In institutional logic, democratic leaders are not “especially accountable to peace-loving publics or pacific interest groups,” democracies are not specifically slow to mobilize or incapable of a surprise attack, and open political competition does not guarantee that a democracy will share private information about its level of resolution. Reflecting upon his findings, Rosato believes that these are legitimate reasons to doubt that joint democracy can cause