One of the most widely-held assumptions of Western thought is the conviction that there exists a set of true, immutable, universal and timeless objective values, valid for all men everywhere, and that is possible to found a perfect society upon them.

Widely-held, sure, but is it true? Philosophers think not. Isaiah Berlin, the influential modern British philosopher, who died in 1997, thought it was a dangerous belief. He thought it encouraged some people to think that they knew the truth ? how society should be organised, how lives should be lived, how culture should be developed, and so on ? and that others, less fortunate in the knowledge department, should obey them.

In his last essay, published just before he died, Berlin wrote: ?This is the old Platonic belief in the philosopher-kings, who were entitled to give orders to others. There have always been thinkers who hold that if only scientists, or scientifically-trained persons, could be put in charge of things, the world would be vastly improved. To this I have to say that no better excuse, or even reason, has ever been propounded for unlimited despotism on the part of an elite which robs the majority of its essential liberties.?

This is the poison pill that internationalism carries in its back teeth ? if I can use that term to describe the belief that all would be well if a network of international organisations were created to run the world on behalf of nations reluctant to divest themselves of their selfish notions about sovereignty.

The problem with that idea, as we are able to judge by the poor performance of the United Nations and other international bodies, is that these bodies are designed by individual states which fear each other and compete for power. The ultimate aim of all of them all is to gain a position of dominant power over others, because having dominant power is the best means to ensure survival.

Their competitive nature is reflected in the international bodies they create. That certainly is the case with the UN, which the then-Secretary of State in the US, Dean Acheson, described in 1951 as ?not something apart from its members?.

?Its strength has no sources independent of the strength supplied by those who belong to it and are willing to back it up?.

Since the UN operates on the basis that one state has one vote, without regard for power, wealth, the ability of the people of the state or their respect for international order and human rights, the organisation is a hotbed of Byzantine, and sometimes bizarre politics. If it were not for the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council, its part in the conduct of international affairs would be positively chaotic.

The internationalist?s dream of a web of organisations that will govern the world of nations in the name of ?good? hasn?t much of a chance of working as things presently stand. That won?t change until many of the things that divide mankind disappear ? although if there were some immensely powerful threat to the well-being of all nations to contend with ? the planet being invaded by some alien life force, for example ? it is just conceivable that nations might be temporarily inclined to work together.

Sir Michael Howard, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, has called Philip Bobbitt?s book (published by Knopf in 2002) ?one of the most important works on international relations published during the last 50 years?.

Bobbitt sees the wars of the 20th Century as having been all of a piece. The Long War, as he calls it, lasted continually from 1914 until it was terminated by the Peace of Paris in 1990. It encompassed the First World War, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War as phases of a single conflict. It was fought over what were initially three different visions of national welfare ? those of the fascists, the communists and liberal democrats.

The irony of the liberal democrats? victory, however, was that in the course of achieving it, the nation-state itself had cause to evolve, and is now in the process of turning itself into something Bobbitt calls the market state.

The nation state is abandoning, as self-defeating, its attempts to provide for the welfare of all its citizens. Instead, it wants to found its legitimacy on its ability to maximise their opportunities, and to offer them basic security as a platform from which to take advantage of those opportunities.

In an article in The Times in the UK, Bobbitt explained that five modern developments had been responsible for this change:

?First, the recognition of human rights as norms that require adherence within all states, regardless of their internal laws; this is why Slobodan Milosevic is in the dock today, not because he disobeyed any of the laws of the state of which he was the elected leader.

?Second, the development of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction that render the defence of state borders ineffectual ...

Third, the proliferation of global and trans-national threats ? such as those that damage the environment, or threaten states through migration, population expansion, disease, or famine ? that no nation-state alone can control or hide from.

Fourth, the growth of a world economic regime that ignores borders in the movement of capital, which curtails states in the management of their economic affairs.

Fifth, the creation of a global communications network that penetrates borders and threatens national languages, customs and cultures.

?A market state is not a market,? he explained. ?The state is not going away, and in some respects it will be more powerful than ever. Nor does the nation state have a monopoly on nationalism; far earlier constitutional orders reflected intense nationalism. Rather ... the emergence of the market state will see the state evacuate areas of responsibility that it had, in the last 150 years, undertaken.

?When the Left argues for affirmative action, and the Right for criminalising abortion; when the Left wants to make hate speech a crime and the Right wants to criminalise drug use; when the Left seeks to create ?hate crimes? and the Right wants to ban non-national languages: all are regarding the state as a nation-state, employing law and regulation to enforce moral positions.

?But when the Left urges the deregulation of reproductive choice, and the Right the deregulation of industry, they have moved to a market-state perspective. Phenomena such as the replacement of conscription with an all-volunteer force, welfare reform that attempts to replace unemployment allowances with education and training to help the unemployed to enter the labour market, and the use of non-governmental organisations and private companies as adjuncts to traditional government activities, reflect elements of the barely emerging market state.?

The world is starting to produce the kind of leaders who not only recognise but celebrate these new limitations on the activity of the state. Bobbitt feels the current special relationship between Britain and the United States is more than simply a convenient alliance of interests, it is a meeting of the minds of people who share a vision of what the state?s place in the scheme of things ought to be in the 21st Century. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, he believes, were the last great leaders in the nation-state tradition, and the agents of breaking the link between the state and cradle-to-grave welfare.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair are among the first market-state political leaders, even though the British Prime Minister still speaks as if the state can make provision for a kind of social security through its public services. was written before the attack on the World Trade Center, but it includes a postscript entitled , in which Bobbitt suggests that the September attacks were the first battle in a new epochal war. In response to the notion that wars can only be fought between states, Bobbitt argues that the multinational, mercenary terror network that Osama bin Laden and others have assembled is a state ? albeit ?a malignant and mutated form of the market-state?.

Al Qaeda possesses many of the basic institutions of the state, including a standing army, a treasury, a permanent civil service, even a rudimentary welfare programme for its fighters and their families. All it lacks, according to Bobbitt, is contiguous territory. It is a virtual state.

The war against this virtual state and others like it will require a big shift in military strategies and priorities, as have all the epochal wars in history. It will also require a big shift in the laws of warfare, which are currently predicated largely on the notion that wars will be fought between states.

Bobbitt feels the rise of the market state will have both liberating and constricting effects on individuals. Racial, religious, ethnic and other prejudices will decline, as they must with the homogenising effect of immigration. But opportunity will grow, and with that growth, he feels that people ?in many societies north and south, will accomplish tasks and enjoy experiences their forefathers scarcely dreamed of?.

And perhaps ? just perhaps ? mankind might figure out a way of designing international organisations that are capable of assisting, not hindering, international peace and progress.