INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER
INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND DISORDER

Summary/Abstract: From the moment people began to socialize, there was a need to establish an order of behavior to which members of society could relate. Therefore, the social order in a state reflects the way in which individuals and minority groups coexist based on a set of norms, which form the legal order. It presupposes a state of stability that is consolidated by norms, beliefs and values ​​defended by state and suprastate, as well as cultural institutions. Any essential defect in the state of order positions society in a state of disorder, a state in which the state can no longer impose compliance with the norms of coexistence or even generates such social manifestations. The rule of law implies, more or less visibly, the manifestation of the state as a political organization of society, implies the permanent activation of institutional means of exercising coercion, both in the private and public spheres of the person’s “games”, implies a permanent reference to the legal order, an existence that conditions the establishment of the rule of law. In turn, international law represents the legislative framework that regulates relations between states or between persons or entities of different nationalities. The defining texts for international law are treaties, conventions and governmental agreements. As a rule, international law consists of international agreements or conventions, as well as a set of generally recognized values, standards and principles. After the end of the Cold War, instead of consolidating the international behavior of states, based on the recognized principles of international law, some behaviors became evident that ignored these principles, imposed their own interests, even using force and violence. In relation to recognized international law, such behavioral aspects have constituted and constitute forms evidence of disorder, a consequence of disregard for behavioral norms of international law. A new world order does not imply globalization on the system of unipolar power, but reglobalization on a unitary system of institutions with an international vocation, which would defend principles of international law, not interests of power.

• Details
• Contents