Violence is part of life. All solutions to conflict need not be inherently violent, yet all solutions must anticipate violence. All anticipation of violence need not be had at the expense of pleasure, well-being and the good things in life, yet sometimes, (or often) pleasure must be sacrificed in order to minimize violence. Where violence cannot be minimized, potential and immediate threats should be located, exploited for weaknesses and completely destroyed.
Not only would this appear to be a ubiquitous phenomenon, but it would appear to be nominal in almost all directions, dare I say, in a way which transcends the contemporary model of space and time. The universe preys on itself, destroys itself and recycles its own waste.
It is one thing to say that no one nation is equal to another. It is quite another thing to say that no one border is equal to another. It is one thing to say that no one war is equal to another. It is quite another thing to say that no one social contract is equal to another. Ultimately, any ideology that has definitive, universal views about the nature of violence will fail. It is only by a kind of violence that any one ideology is able to gain dominance in a hierarchy of other ideologies. It is like the mind trying to understand being; an intellectual task which ultimately hits a series of dead ends rather quickly because it tries to reconstruct a metaphysical replica of a cause out of mere effects.
It should be quite obvious that I would seem to have run into a contradiction here; if all ideologies which try to universalize the role of violence (even if it be in the form of the greatest violence of all: non-violence) are doomed to failure, then what good does it do to make a universal claim about the un-universifiable essence of violence? The important distinction I would make is that I'm not universalizing the nature of violence through an ideological register, but rather describing violence as an emotive vehicle of change and function of time as such. Those who deny this fall prey to the delusion that you can have a world where there is an accumulation of maximum peace for all, so long as everyone understands that you will be killed if you do not accept the version of peace which the status quo has to offer. Those societies which accept that life itself is a form of violence, ironically, end up being the safest societies, as they are pragmatically equipped to prepare for outside and inside threats.
It doesn't much matter if, within the deeper quarters of a society, one discovers a sort of Fourierian Phalanstery of Epicurean delights; if such a society knows that it cannot rely on the hedonists and drunkards within it and that someone has to cash the entropic checks, it will last for as long as fortune will allow, which will be a hell of a lot longer than any utopian society which operates according to the ethics of projection, content to consider all criminal activity a result of people simply not being free enough.
The simulacra of sovereignty may vary from society to society, or from polity to polity. However, sovereignty itself is a form of violence, even if one recognizes this to mean, quite simply, that a sort of violence is being done when one (or when a group) practices self-discipline in the service of maintaining security.
That sovereignty which understands that utopia is not an option will build the closest thing to it.