The definition of a peace and war situation depends, thus, ' ' of a judgment politician, positive or negative, of that it withholds the power, that is, of that they manage the two opostos' '. This in them leads to the analysis of the peace under the perspective of the relations between the individuals and the State. In this perspective, the State of peace is constructed by the governmental, structural perception, that it withholds the control of the public order and the power to determine, through a judgment politician and legal negative or positive, the quality of the peace that it desires. The quality of the peace is determined by the capacity of the State and the Government in perceiving and answering to the demands of the collective, in promoting a peace sustainable. In the internal sphere, even so the perception of the State is structural, the individuals directly does not relate the peace to the State as institution, but to the Government while to be able, attributing it success or failure to it, understood as bond and responsibility of the exercise of its function, in the administration of more emergent questions of public security guard, health, job, feeding and justice, for example. In the internal sphere, the State of peace confuses with a Government of peace, what nor always condiz with the perception of the too much States and Governments in the international sphere. The exemplificativo heading, the Government of Russia in face of the terrorist attacks for chechenos separatistas, waved with restrictive measures of the individual freedoms that approach each time more the Russian Government of the exercise of a regimen authoritarian politician.

In an internal perspective, the public opinion, manipulated or not for the Government, can legitimize reductions in the individual freedoms, but under the international optics of the Ocidente (and this subject it allows to the resource to the clivagem politics between Ocidente and East of the Cold War), the authoritarianism, when wounding the popular representation, directly stains the legitimacy of the government in the determination and conduction of the objectives of the State, at risk substitutes the pragmatismo and legality for ideologies, placing the international peace and the security, as it evidences the case most recent in the history of the international relations: the Korea of North. Thus, if the Government fails, systematically, in the administration of the internal demands, can be restored a state of conflict that, in extremities, can mean the disruption of public and institucional the order, with reflected beyond-borders and risks to the integrity of the proper State that they can cause, for example, fisso of sovereignty, dismemberment or of fusing of States, eventually with the disappearance of one or another one, as seen in the Colombia, the former-Ussr and Germany that, with exception of this last one, had been preceded by armed conflicts interns with high cost for the rights human beings. Finally, the situation of more important peace for this study, but that it is, as seen, intrinsically tied with the two previous perspectives, is the situation of peace promoted for the State that exercises peace in its international relations: the peace between States. The Right, understood as a legal order, has an important paper in the promotion and construction of the peace, by the way, the peace is the proper reason of existing of Right, as a necessary status of the things, since the Right regulates the interest conflicts, in ample direction, or what it intends to intervene or if to insert in this natural state. Of its time, the Domestic law