The presence of anarchy does not automatically mean the absence of international order. There still is an international order; only, there is no central authority to rule above independent states that, while anarchic by character, do not necessarily experience chaos, disputes, or disorder. Take the state of global affairs today: our world system is without a leader because technically speaking, there is no universal government ruling over independent sovereignties. The United Nations or even the self-proclaimed worldwide police that’s the USA cannot be considered to possess a superior power to solve conflicts among warring states, for example. Whether or not there is war, there is no worldwide hierarchy among all free states in the world, but there is order among nations when they generate a particular social order (in the case of the current world, independent states). The abovementioned justifies the presence of international order despite the presence of anarchy. It also means that the presence of anarchy may even be necessary in completing the system of international order because it contributes to the existence of status quo.
comparative literature major from the state university, boyish-looking, 5'5", slim, brown, clean-cut, clear-faced, originally from nueva ecija and tarlac, hilarious, smart, flirtatious, literary-inclined, temperamental,in the brink of OC-ness. "'di ba, ako'y tao lang na nadadarang at natutukso rin...?" drop me a line at yahoo messenger: firstname.lastname@example.org; email: email@example.com;
mobile #s: (0905)6669969 & (0919)5336833