International relations, world politics, transnational relations, global society.
Indeed, without a process or conflict view of international society, the normal state of affairs is stability, of functions maintaining the system and adjusting individuals to it. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that the existence of conflict compels the nations with similar goals of national interests to cooperate with each other. But, there is little recognition that the same sociological and anthropological perspectives on state-societies also apply to international relations. For similar prediction studies of Chinese behavior by Sang-Woo Rhee, and the United States and USSR by Chang-Yoon Choi, see Rummel (1977: Chapters 12 and 14, respectively).
But so is a dump a configuration of objects, and a sand pile a configuration of sand grains. Some structures of expectations (like the UN Charter) formalize law The multitude of groups in society display concretely the major expectations ordering individuals.
Governments free to define their own morality in the light of their own definition of national interest are not to be trusted. Consensus and equilibrium rather than conflict would be the defining characteristics of the society.This perspective, so rightly identified with Talcott Parsons' later work (1958) for societies in general, appears at first to contradict the conflict view of international relations.
It is the strength of this consensus model which probably explains why so many nonstudents of international relations, whose perspective is shaped by a view of society as consensual, see the fundamental explanation of international conflict to be the lack of a strong world government. This is a fundamental ambiguity in the resources of power, where the same resources, such as energy production, can be used both to bargain and to threaten (as the oil producing Arab states did in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war). And coercive power is not the rule. Two empirical dimensions of states measure this ability: their wealth (GNP per capita, energy consumption per capita, telephones per capita, and the like), and their absolute resources (national income, raw resources, energy production, and such). On the global level, states, multinational corporations, international churches, professional groups, and individuals pursue their interests without the governmental interference that can be seen within all contemporary states.The final aspect concerns the past, present, or future orientation of the world government. It follows in this view that a world government would create a lasting international peace.
Another source of confusion is over regulations governing, say, multinational corporations. Hobbes' perspective dominates. Reciprocity is the rule. The primacy, however, belongs to nation-states because these still control all the instruments of coercion and violence in international relations.