I start with two basic assumptions. First, any peaceful world order has to take into account all four types of power: military, economic, cultural, and political. One cannot build peace on only one or two of them. Any power type can be transformed, even softened--but not disregarded. Power is with us forever. Second, states, even nation-states, will be around for a long time. There is something stabilizing in territorial contiguity and temporal continuity, combined with some degree of cultural sharing. In addition there is the simple fact that nation-states do provide; the state often is l'etat-providence.
The world may be anarchic and risky as a multistate system, but states often provide internal security, alleviate misery, guarantee a minimum of freedom, and equip people with at least one source of identity: the nation-state itself. Although war as an institution is an increasing failure, the nation-state is not, however related the two may be. The nation-state is simply too successful, and will be around for the foreseeable future.
Hence the argument here is not to dismantle nation-states, but to modify their aggressiveness. The short-term problem is not how to abolish states but how to weaken them, soften them, and then weave them together by interlinking them in an equitable manner, so that it becomes structurally difficult for them to engage in war or warlike processes. The question is how to convert this general formula into concrete peace in the inter-state system.
Table 15.1 incorporates much of the thinking in this important arena. A peaceful world presupposes regulation of power so as to obtain peace. War is power abuse. The study of power coincides with the study of