Can you critique my grammar?

[tamaraw12345]

I'm currently working on my technical/ academic writing skills. This is just a sample writing. I'm not arguing for or defending anything. I was just wondering if the sentences of the paragraph flow and read well. Thanks! Here it goes:

The highly anarchic system of international relations puts all states on equal footing. Consequently, no one 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 inferior 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, 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 transcendent and operate 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.

 

[teechar]

Here [STRIKE]it[/STRIKE] goes:

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 [STRIKE]inferior[/STRIKE] weaker 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. [STRIKE]More so,[/STRIKE] 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 [STRIKE]are culturally transcendent[/STRIKE] transcend cultures and [STRIKE]operate[/STRIKE] apply 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.

.

 

[Tarheel]

I'm currently working on my technical/ academic writing skills. This is just a sample writing. I'm not arguing for or defending anything. I was just wondering if the sentences of the paragraph flow and read well. Thanks! Here it goes:

The highly anarchic system of international relations puts all states on an equal footing. Consequently, no one 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 inferior 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, 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 an argument is grounded in the assumption that moral rules are culturally transcendent and operate universally. To date, however, there is little consensus on what those moral rules should be. Even worse is that efforts to universalize certain norms or principles are perceived by some states as culturally imperialistic.