Much of written history displays the conquests of the most powerful nations over less powerful ones. This has led to ever-changing territories as nations have been conquered or have conquered others and the most powerful nations or alliances of nations hold the ultimate authority. Especially in the past century, however, there has not been one major world power but many powerful nation-states capable of dominating the smaller nation-states around them. Before World War One, a balance of power (in Europe at least) system kept nations from unleashing their power and dominance on less powerful nations. As this system collapsed after the war, the League of Nations was set up as a forum to end disputes peacefully. This system too collapsed upon the start of World War Two and after the war was resolved great debates began to try and establish a better form of resolving conflicts via peaceful means. What emerged is the United Nations, a modern forum that has attempted to keep the world at peace for over fifty years now. Yet there has been numerous devastating wars during the last fifty years which the UN has not been able to resolve. What I'm trying make clear here is that we cannot allow states to rule with ultimate state authority for it seems that it is part of our human nature, when we are more powerful than others, to impose our authority on them for self-beneficial reasons. Thus I disagree with the statement that "in international politics, no authority should supercede the authority of the state" and that establishments like the UN are necessary to protect powerful nation-states from themselves.
             Once analyzed, my views regarding this statement take some aspects from both the idealist and realist schools of thought. These two major theories emerged during the twentieth century; the idealist theory emerging after the First World War and the Realist theory after the Second World War. Both are still debated when discussing issues ...