In the past I have argued for the idea that the international realm can be remade, that mankind is not essentially naturally in a state of violent chaos as Hobbes advocated for. However, new developments in Iraq have me questioning the morality of humanity in human beings. CNN covered this news story this morning.

In it the reporters describe Iraq's bloody "attempt at redrawing itself" and the lengths each militant side is willing to go to in order to win the battle for their territory. This classic Shiite versus Sunni battle is a clear case of nationalist conflict, the kind which the world has seen repeatedly since before the invention of international relations. Each nationality has a legitimate claim to they territory in that region and they cannot agree on some aspect of their coexistene. Regardless of what the true argument conflict or issue is, according to the CNN news report both sides have resorted to genocide, mass killings of the other.

Does this mean that the international realm will always resort back to a state of anarchic violent self-interested and coercive state behavior? Or is this a lingering wisp of past relations?

Prior to the advent of international institutions there would have been no discussion of international intervention and yet that is what happens now when such an atrocity has occurred. This type of violence is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world stage, whereas in the past it would have been overlooked until an official government took over the territory to be recognized as a sovereign state.

So while some actors still behave in the pre-international governance manner, others have accepted the changes made to the international environment and abide by its rules and norms. What will happen in the future remains to be seen. Only the interference of a catastrophic event could change the entire world environment. Only time can tell whether that change will be natural or manmade.