當代民主和平研究已不再局限於民主政體間的戰爭機率，有些學者已經開始轉向研究威權政體間的戰爭機率。這樣的研究發展，有利於促進國際政治和比較政府兩個次領域的對話，而本文亦嘗試將威權政體分類相關的比較政治研究，帶入國際政治場域進行分析。2002 年 Mark Peceny、Caroline C. Beer和 Shannon Sanchez-Terry 提出 「獨裁政體和平假說」(dictatorial peace)，主張威權政體間亦存在低武裝衝突機率。而且，如果再將威權政體進一步分類，則僅有單一政黨政體間存有較低的武裝衝突機率，Peceny等認為單一政黨政體間的共享意識形態，亦即馬列主義，是導致較低武裝衝突機率的原因 。

本文則認為，Peceny等以共享意識形態作為因果機制之結論過於草率，畢竟共產主義式政黨國家政體並不是單一政黨政體的唯一形式。因此，本文透過比較 Barbara Geddes、Juan Linz和Alfred Stepan對於威權政體分類之研究，重新對單一政黨政體進行定義，並納入意識形態作為分類標準。經過對Peceny等的資料庫重新進行編碼，並以其原有統計方法檢證後，本文發現，Peceny 等之共享意識形態結論無法成立，但是，威權政體間的較低武裝程度，仍然為統計上顯著之現象，只是其因果機制仍待進一步分析。

When analyzing the relationship between regime type and the possibility of militarized interstate conflict, an interdisciplinary dialogue between the fields of comparative politics and international relations is vitally demanded, especially when stepping into the further area of democratic peace, “dictatorial peace." In 2002, Mark Peceny, Caroline Beer, and Shannon Sanchez-Terry concluded that a lower conflict possibility does exist among non-democratic regimes. Moreover, after classifying non-democracies into three categories, they claimed that a shared ideology among socialist regimes is the main cause for single-party dyads to have a lower opportunity of military conflict. However, since the communist party-state system is not the only form in the single party category, it is too hasty to make a conclusion attributing to the causal relationship based on the shared value and ideology.

Based on the hypothesis of the ideological cause by Peceny et al., this article would like to test their hypothesis by a further classification. By comparing the typologies of Barbara Geddes, Juan Linz, and Alfred Stepan, it is reasonable to take ideology as an indicator for classifying non-democracies, which Peceny et al. failed to take into consideration. After applying the original research design and method used by Peceny et al., our statistical result does not support their ideological hypothesis about single-party regimes. However, our result also reconfirms the statistical significance of the lower conflict possibility among single-party regimes, which needs future explorations to find out the causal mechanism.