This essay stresses that many theories of International relations are contested. International relations scholars have witnessed heated debates on one hand and philosophers, biologists and environmental activists on the contrary. In spite of this multiplicity of divergent views, several major schools of thought have emerged. The principal difference is the variables they put emphasis to, for instance, military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs.
This paper makes a conclusion that while many green theories of international relations are fiercely contested, it is usually not appropriate to see them as rivals over some universal truth about world politics. Each rests on certain assumptions and epistemologies. Moreover, each is constrained by certain specified conditions and pursues its analytic goal. While various theories may lead to more or less compelling conclusions about international relations, none is definitively ‘right' or ‘wrong. Rather, each possesses some tools that can be of use to students of international politics in examining and analyzing rich, multi-causal phenomena. For International Relations to remain relevant in the face of global environmental change and degradation, it should progress, in a ̳critical and not analytic style. It should, in other words, pay more attention to the very framework for action and ultimately, with the aim of transforming this structure.