The literature on democratic peace rests on two claims: first, democracies avoid conflict among themselves; second, they are equally likely to fight nondemocracies as the latter attack one another. While strong evidence supports the first claim, this paper challenges the second.

This research asks whether the democratic peace is purely dyadic or also has monadic effects within single states.‽ First, it directly compares these two explanations by analyzing each state separately, addressing potential issues in dyadic comparisons.‽ Second, it introduces a key variable: satisfaction with the status quo.

Our findings suggest that while democracies are indeed peaceful toward one another during crises (dyadic effect), there is also a strong monadic effect at play. Democracies and nondemocracies react differently to domestic conditions that can lead to international conflict.‽ The initiation of violence in interstate crises appears more influenced by the dyadic relationship between democracies than previously thought, but underlying state-level dynamics (monadic effects) are also crucial for understanding crisis emergence.