Considering the Nation State as the privilegied actor in International Relations since Westphalian System points a congenital esquizofreny. The International Relations classical principles - self-determination and non-intervention - sugests, by one side, a right of each State self-determinate itself sovereingtly and, by other side, a right of not being object of intervention. The first right excludes, the second, includes. Just the State guarrantees its self-determination and doing so, excludes the others; meanwhile the non-intervention depends on the other States respect. The debate about human rights in International Relations follows the same logic. Cosmopolitans defends inclusion; comunitarians, exclusion. These are rights that exlcude each other and make the International Relations something esquizofrenic. Rawls tries to work out this dilemma, but he fails. The proposal may be thinking International Relations from another point of view, from post-modernism, by which we think the satisfaction of human global demands that overcome the national boundaries made in Westphalia by a political configuration other than the Nation State.
Human Rights; Cosmopolitanism; Comunitarianism; Nation State