The concept of international community existing on the current scale is quite new (Bromley, 2009, p. 410). In this new world order, states must interact with each other on a much more integrated and cohesive level to maintain international order. In the following essay we will evaluate the claim that “there is no legitimate authority internationally” (Bromley, 2009, p. 427). In the process, we will examine two competing visions of international order: realist and liberal theory. We will discover that international politics is, at best, complicated and that the reality of international relations falls somewhere between realist and liberal views. The realist view of international politics assumes that, essentially, there is no legitimate international authority. In this context, authority could mean the ability of a collective of governments, or another international body, to impose its rules and regulations on an individual state. Conceptually the idea is similar to that put forward by the sociologist Max Weber, namely that authority can be reduced to a specific body or, in his specific case, a State, which "claims (successfully) the monopoly of the use legitimate human resources". physical force within a given territory” (Weber cited in Blakely and Saward, 2009, p.361). It is important to note that the source of any government's power, both at a time when force is not necessary and ultimately even when force becomes necessary, derives from the people being governed. As Bromley and Clarke write, “Authority… rests on the consent of those over whom it is exercised” (Bromley and Clarke, 2009, p. 328). Working with this definition of authority, the realist view assumes that it is clear that no domestic text...... middle of paper ...... is based on a framework of international law and respect for human rights and sovereignty . equality was, to a large extent, held back by superpower opposition during the Cold War” (2009, p. 413). Ultimately, international authority exists, subject to the agreement of member states, as Bromley and Clarke write “Authority must be earned and therefore must be created and sustained, and sometimes repaired and reinvented, on an ongoing basis” (2009, p. 328); There remains, however, the possibility for a state to renounce this self-imposed international order and act independently, for selfish interests. Ultimately, we are left with a difficult dichotomy, a tightrope walk, whereby states constantly renew and redefine international order and authority while maintaining their right to reverse the trend if necessary...