Both politics and international relations are based on sovereignty of the state. International relations basically govern the relations between states. Within the states, the sovereign power belongs to the state except to the extent that the state has abdicated or delegated sovereignty by international treaty. The arrangements governing relations between states are far from adequate, but there is a much greater deficiency with regard to conditions within states. Any international intervention in these conditions constitutes external interference with the sovereignty of the state. Because crisis prevention requires some degree of external interference, present arrangements stand in the way of effective crisis prevention. At the same time, international capital is free to move around and states are practically at its mercy. This creates an imbalance between the political and economic sphere and leaves international capital largely beyond any political or social control. That is why the global capitalist system needs to be seen as a distorted form of open society. Open society stands for a certain kind of relationship between state and society that has important implications for international relations as well. The basic principle is that society and state are not identical; the state should serve society, not rule it. People have some needs that they cannot meet on their own; the state is there to meet those needs. The state should not be in charge of all collective decisions: some needs are better served by voluntary associations, others by municipal authorities, and yet others for international arrangements. Civil society, state and local government each have their appropriate spheres of influence; what is appropriate should be decided by the people, not by the state. How the decisions are reached should be governed by a constitution. The Constitution defines how laws are made, changed, administered and enforced. The state should not be beyond the reach of the law. Not all states meet these conditions. By their nature states are more suited for rule then service. Originally, states were ruled by a sovereign, although the power of sovereigns was not always absolute. The state is an archaic instrument that has been adapted to the demands of open society. Sometimes the evolution took a different direction: in the former Soviet Union the party-state apparatus sought to exercise more comprehensive control over society than any absolute ruler. That is what made the distinction between open and closed society so relevant at the time. The United States has a historical commitment to the ideals of open society, starting with Declaration of Independence. As per public opinion surveys, the United Nations, despite its weaknesses, is still more popular with the public than Congress or the president. All that needs to be done is to recapture the latent support for an open society We find that state are more likely to abuse their power in relation to their own citizens than in relation to other states because in dealing with other states they are subject to more constraints. People living under oppressive regimes need assistance from the outside. Often it is their only lifeline. But what interest do people living outside have in coming to their aid? That is the point on which our social values are in urgent need of reconstruction. By and large, people living in representative democracies do support the principles of open society within their own countries; they defend their own freedom when it is endangered. But there is not enough support for open society as a universal principle. Many people who are vocal in defending their own freedom see a contradiction in principles when asked to interfere in the affairs of a faraway country. What is worse, they have a point. Actions have unintended consequences and well-intentioned interventions in the name of some abstract principles could end up doing more harm than good. The supreme challenge of our time is to establish a universally valid code of conduct for our global society. The concept of open society can frame the problem but it cannot actually solve it. In an open society there are no final solutions. It follows from our fallibility that a code of conduct cannot be derived from first principles. Nevertheless, we need a code of conduct, Particula Lee for international relations. International relations cannot be confined to relations between states, because as we have seen and experienced, the interests of the state do not coincide with the interests of the people. That is why we need some universally valid rules for the relationship between state and society that safeguard the rights of the individual. We have the rudiments of such rules in some pious declarations but they are far too general and there is no enforcement mechanism behind them. More over, it is dangerous to leave the enforcement to state because, as noted above, states have no principles, only interests. Society must be mobilised to impose principles on the behaviour of states and the principles that need to be imposed are the principles of open society. Democratic states are organised according to the principles of open society –at least in principle. A code of conduct is established in the form of laws, which can be revised and refined in the light of experience. The state is under the control of society and not above the law. What is lacking is the rule of international law. The question is, how can it be accomplished? Only through the cooperation of democratic states that are controlled by their societies. They would have to yield some of their sovereignty to establish the rule of international law and find some ways to induce other states to do the same. This sounds good in principle, but must beware of unintended consequences. Intervening in internal affairs of another state is fraught with danger, but not intervening may do even more harm. The United States has a historical commitment to the ideals of open society, starting with Declaration of Independence. As per public opinion surveys, the United Nations, despite its weaknesses, is still more popular with the public than Congress or the president. All that needs to be done is to recapture the latent support for an open society. The writer is a former director, national institute of public administration (Nipa) Government of Pakistan, a political analyst, a public policy expert and a published author