Power, however, does not absolutely belong to one or some actors. The less developed countries have control of most of the natural resources which make first world industries run, as well as a source of cheap labor, not to mention the importance of its markets, which slowly have become less of a surplus into a necessary gain. In this sense, there is a strong asymmetry in the economic dimension of power, which, as it has been discussed in previous essays is the essence of power itself. That asymmetry has slowly been overcome as rich countries, using the tools provided by other of the dimensions of power, have eventually taken control of third world capital. However, one of the most brilliant moves posed by the hegemon is the search for a world where international policy and regulations prevail. On one hand, the measures which surround this idea have exponentially help the United States to expand it influence worldwide on what is now know as the process of globalization. On the other hand, it has helped to give legitimacy to its actions, as they are now preceded through a well legislated system. In other worlds, the international system, by giving a safe illusion of law an order has turned in the perfect tool through which political power has been able to express successfully in favor of the most powerful actors. Therefore, It can be said that the main problem with international negotiations will be that its power asymmetry has reached levels which are unsustainable: because power is so centered around an actor or a group of actors, any negotiation, which by definition is a process where two actors use their power or resources are used in order to get a more favorable agreement, is condemned to fail. .
Being that having an unbalanced power asymmetry benefits immediately the most powerful actors, it is foolish to thing that some of the power mechanisms which allow that position would be left aside.