The current state of affairs inthe International order can be seen in two very distinct ways. Firstas the desired outcome in which a human rights law exist andindividual liberty is taken into consideration and respectedindependent of social status or nationality. Freedom is not only ainterest of all individuals, but it is a moral right since all humanshave the basic needs of being the ruler of their own body in order toact consciously and flourish in this reality, and it have become alegal right for all since the abolishment of slavery. Second as ainternational order driven by capital, in which individual freedom isthe most desired right and the market is what guide self-interestedhuman beings in the competitive collective life. Although liberaltheories of the nineteenth century represent an advance toward theideas of equality and justice, numerous contradictions arise. Notalways the implementation of liberal ideas can reconcile the economicinterests and the ethical aspects. Moral life is only actuallyachievable based in cooperation, reciprocity and the development ofresponsibility and commitment, since without this basic virtues lifebecome a life of vices and competition which are characteristics thatdon't make society evolve justly. Nowadays the market economy isdeveloping and taking control over the sovereignty of states, sincenow policies and national decisions arent based on the needs ofthe majority of the people, instead they are usually resolved withthe interests of the ruling elite which owns land and multinationalcompanies, due to this fact individuals are being divided intocategories of people in which capital is what drive theseself-interested assets of the government. Viable and effectiveindividual liberty can only be achievable when the Law acknowledgesthe equality of human rights among all. In the current period, wherethere is a huge social injustice and lack of human rights, a newconception of what is a right need to be drawn, and it can only beachieved based in a just ethical theory that respects the dignity ofhuman beings as individuals independent of economic or nationalstatus. In this sense the other isn't the limit of our liberty, or acompetitive being that only acts based on its own utility and freedomof choice, but instead a condition to achieve collective liberty. The Utilitarian moral theory holds liberty as an essential virtue butchanges its indispensable characteristics, since liberty have nomeaning where there is no individual liberty of action, and whereaccomplishments in life are based on monetary purchasing power. The first option is largelyargued in Rights discourse; in this case the state would be like aRepublic, in which above all economics incentives it is the Law thatguides and endeavors individuals. Multiculturalism would be protectedand granted under this law of rights of man, without racial/nationaldivisions or privileges, and people would be seen as equal sociallyand under the law, not only as self interested individualist laborpower sellers in the market. Since it seems to be a situation inwhich nations have decided what is best for individuals, andproclaimed some essential Human rights that are seen as the basis fora social animal that have needs and desires and lives collectively,it is a rights based morality aimed to the collective goodindependent of nationality or monetary power. John Locke