▁trad ing ▁states . ▁Trad itional ▁interpret ations ▁of ▁the ▁capital ▁peace ▁cont end ▁that ▁development ▁and ▁global ▁mark ets ▁will ▁eventually ▁eliminate ▁resource ▁competition ▁as ▁a ▁mot ive ▁for ▁war . ▁This ▁view ▁was ▁eventually ▁de emed ▁out dated , ▁as ▁“ it ▁became ▁clear ▁that ▁needed ▁raw ▁materials ▁would ▁continue ▁to ▁make ▁their ▁way ▁to ▁industrial ▁cent ers ▁through ▁free ▁mark ets , ▁rather ▁than ▁through ▁merc ant il ist ▁aut ark ies ▁( G art z ke ▁& ▁H ew itt , ▁ 2 0 1 0 , ▁p . ▁ 1 2 2 ). ▁ ▁The ▁capital ist ▁theory ▁cont ends ▁that ▁as ▁econom ies ▁become ▁stronger , ▁prosper ous ▁capital ist ▁states ▁no ▁longer ▁need ▁to ▁threaten ▁one ▁another ▁over ▁access ▁to ▁inputs ▁to ▁production . ▁Con sequently , ▁the ▁security ▁d ile m ma ▁los es ▁its ▁relev ance . ▁ ▁Sch ol ars ▁like ▁Michael ▁M ous seau ▁argue ▁that ▁dem oc ra cies ▁are ▁only ▁peace ful ▁in ▁pairs . ▁Other ▁research ▁has ▁demonstrated ▁that ▁the ▁dem ocr atic ▁peace ▁is ▁even ▁more ▁exclusive ▁than ▁previously ▁imag ined , ▁limit ing ▁the ▁finding ▁to ▁developed ▁dem oc ra cies . ▁G art z ke ▁and ▁H ew itt ▁( 2 0 1 0 ) ▁challeng ed ▁this ▁by ▁demonstr ating ▁that ▁it ▁is ▁economic ▁development ▁and ▁market ▁fre ed oms , ▁rather ▁than ▁political ▁liberty ▁that ▁result ▁in ▁inter state ▁peace . ▁ ▁D eter rent ▁effect ▁of ▁institution al ▁t ies ▁ ▁International ▁Government