There is a certain kind of instability that law would display as a social institution in the twenty-first century. Apart from this, there would also be a certain privileging of diplomatic ties between nations. This would lead to a situation of anarchy within the society that one is a part of. . .
Many have argued that law is not a viable mode of controlling society in the event of societies being controlled by pragmatic forces rather than the law. Diplomatic ties and the maintenance of economic structures can then be looked upon as the reasons as to why the law is adhered to in the society of the twenty-first century. In cases where the law does not facilitate this, it may be flouted with the consent of the very people and institutions which had created them. This flexibility in the operation of the law is a phenomenon that is expected to continue in the twenty-first century. The possibilities of chaos thus remain even in the twenty-first century that shows no signs of effecting a change in this regard. This has implications for the way one views social institutions and their methods of functioning. This also implies a change in the conventional notions of what constitutes a civilization and civilizational ethos. By the time of the end of the cold war itself, “it was clear that law could not constrain the external behavior of nations in any serious way. only the use of force was respected. If realists were correct that states were rational, unitary actors concerned with their own survival, then they would be loath to enter into agreements that in any way constrained their ability to act.” (Raffo et al. 2007, 5).