The highly anarchic system of international relations puts all states on an equal footing. Consequently, no one (state) could effectively implement international laws. Responses to this problem are polarized between the realist and idealist positions. Hard realism argues that the existence of one superpower would allow for a more stable system. This is so because that superpower could coerce or influence
inferiorweaker states to abide by generally accepted principles or norms. The problem with this theory is that nobody could sanction a hegemon if ever it acts contrary to international laws. More so,Moreover, the hegemon might choose to promote only those laws which are conducive to its political and economic interests. Hard idealism, at the opposite extreme, asserts that a world government is the only feasible solution to anarchy and lawlessness in international politics. Such argument is grounded in the assumption that moral rules are culturally transcendenttranscend cultures and operateapply universally. To date, however, there is little consensus on what these moral rules are. Even worse is that efforts to universalize certain norms or principles are perceived by some states as a culturally imperialistic move.
Interested in Language