Summary on the following 3 readings

International relations Wright denies the existence of the theory of IR based on the principles of the methodology of the study of IR and the conceptual system that offers unified explanations of international occurrences. An initial glance according to Wright is that the speculation of relations among states is typically the scope of the political theory. As such, wrights propose various arguments against the existence of a theory in IR. Firstly, to be considered separate from mainstream political theory, it implies that theories of IR will have no classical bases making them be built away from pre-existent political theory thinkers such as Machiavelli and Plato. The speculation about the society of states that tends to shape the international law according to Wright explains the scene of theories of IR prior to 1914. The international law was the most vital of the reminiscences of theory of IR during that period (Wight 16)
Secondly, Wright opines that theories of international relations are marked by not only paucity but rather with intellectual and moral poverty. Wright highlights the unique poverty pertaining the imposition of the autonomous state and the notion of progress. The imposition of sovereign state argument is explainable via the state explanation and jurisdiction. As such, the balance of power cannot be a precise tool due to its ambiguity. Wright further provides that such hegemonic thoughts developed in the 20th C as a result of theoretical vacuum. Nevertheless, the theories could not establish themselves due to the lack of feasible situations that could cause them to happen. As such, the three determining phenomena to the international system cannot be described by an international thought, rather through domestic viewpoints. He provides that the nature of theories of IR coupled with the intellectual and political roles performed by the IR schools of thought are very similar to the nature of typical political theory. Of interest to the theorist is the recent bias to explicit theoretical reflection about IR being a definite measure of the importance of IR. As such, he provides the ultimate theoretical and political justification of the increased interest in IR. He argues that the threats stemming from the unresolved political challenges, people have come to think more in terms of a supranational community, a global government and political structures that culminate to the nation-state. Consequently, he provides an exemplary reflection of the political challenges whose solutions need functioning structures and organizations (Wight 20-35)
Morgenthau provides an insight into the world of Wright in his un-subscription from the theories of IR. Taking an internal approach to Wright’s arguments. Morgenthau theorizes that the belief in progress and the intellectual prejudice imposed by the sovereign state are the most distinguished reasons for Wrights negative perception of IR theories (Morgenthau 35-48).
Kenneth’s realistic opinion evolved from the liberal challenge and attempt to cure the defects of the classical realism by Morgenthau. He introduces a more scientific approach in which he strives avoid any philosophical discussion of the nature of the humans. Rather his theory is based on international politics analogous to macroeconomics. Kenneth argues that nations in the global front act as firms in a domestic market having similar underlying interest, survival. At the international front, the ecosystem of state’s actions is determined by the idea that a fraction of states gives preference survival at the expense of other ends in the short run. Such states according to Kenneth, act with relative efficiency to attain such ends (Kenneth)
Works Cited
Morgenthau, Hans J. “The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations,” in Politics in the 20th Century, Vol. I, “The Decline of Democratic Politics,” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (1962): 35-48, 6
Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press, 2009.
Wight, Martin. "Why is there no International Theory?." 1995 (1966): 15-35