Abstract

Preserving peace and security and preventing war are among the biggest challenges for today’s world, along with ethical concerns which have attracted the interest and attention of theorists in the realms of government relations and in the arena of international relations. Ethics gains have no meaning in international relations unless teamed with the concepts of peace and security. The efforts of the global community in formulating conventions, charters, declarations, and statements based on moralistic theories have focused on peace. But there is no consensus on determining these subtle goals or for executing these conventions, charters, and moral theories. The purpose of this study is to compare inclining to hegemonic structures versus indicating the value of pluralism in international relations. The aim is to clarify which of the above can promote peace and security most appropriately in an international system. The results from the research show that the most significant difference between the two theories, in terms of the concept of peace, is that hegemonic theories see peace and order in one or more governors, whilst the theories indicating value pluralism seek peace and stability in accepting and institutionalizing the tenets of plurality and autonomy. The order resulting from hegemonic power leads to domination that is inherently immoral, since it implies superiority and domination of one or more identities, cultures, and relevant values over the others. The supremacy and domination are reasonably conducive to intervention, which in turn is considered as one of the most important factors in destabilizing the process among countries. But in pluralism, where national and ethical values are at their most pluralistic, the value discourses converge and unite in one point and it is “to recognize the heterogeneous values.” This unification entails peace both ethically and reasonably.