A number of vvriters consider anarchy as the fundamental fact ofinternational relations.1 Linked to the Hobbesian analogy, they see it as achaotic arena of "war of ali against ali." The inference is that authority andorder are lacking. Described as "political realism," this approach claims toanalyze a number of social concepts such as human nature, interest, powerand character of international affairs and exhibits a tendency to treat lack ofdemocracy in relations betvveen nations and even aggressive foreign policy asthe inevitable products of reaiity, vvhether one likes it or not. It is deduced,then, that vvithin this context, the history of international relations is, infact, a struggle for domination. This pursuit, vvhich may look to somecommentators as a curtailment, raises the doctrine to the status of a"universal truth." The bases of this interpretation are so vvidely described thatthey encompass, at times, theories of morality or social and economicdoctrines. For instance, vvhile an undemocratic leader of a client country maybe portrayed as a statesman responsible to his people, another one, equallyundemocratic or even duly elected by his citizens and responsive to theirneeds, may be presented in negative images. Similarly, laissez-fairebetween capital and labour in the domestic sphere and market economy in theinternational realm are the paradise of the economically strong.