These IGOs and INGOs are weaving the webs of cooperation that states alone apparently cannot produce. In fact, Mills leitmotiv is to identify human rights as such a need. Mills performs his best analysis when he points out how the legal status of self-determination, migration, and intervention could transform to accord with appropriate moral prescriptions. Unfortunately, Mills appears somewhat idealistic, as do other constructivists. This evolution, more likely, will struggle along a zigzag path produced by competing interests of actors who sometimes cooperate and who sometimes do not.
States are the core of the society and associate together because of shared values and interests.
Many of these states, especially the Western ones, promote and sometimes enforce human rights and in league with IGOs and INGOs, though not in a uniform pattern regarding time and place. I believe Mills exaggerates the world s moral consensus and what the world can consciously change. Wedded to constructivism and the great potential of a moral cause, it is unlikely that Mills would have been satisfied with the more moderate but more realistic English School approach. Another shortcoming of Human Rights in the Emerging Global OrdER is the failure to appreciate that all states are not alike. Despite the presence of rogue states, more states are democratic and more people enjoy human rights than ever before in history.