International Relation theory raises fundamentally empirical issues which can only be settled by analyzing the facts.
Professor Martin Wight, in the 1960 April issue of international Relations, published a paper titled “Why Is There No International Theory?” The Professor believes that the sovereign state has, since the Reformation, been the focal point of Western political thought and experience (Morgenthau 63). The international theory is true to diplomatic experience, and is augmented when belief in progress is prevalent. According to this school of thought, if things remain as they were in the past, man would become desperate. This theory he referred to as “the argument from desperation”.
International relations is widely involves recurrence and repetition as international reality and international theory collide. International theory becomes a sort of philosophy of history as it involves the ultimate experience of national existence and national extinction. For national existence, every individual requires the protection of the state that represents them in the international community (Wight 38). This view considers a sovereign State to be the end of a political experience and activity. This juristic expression considers international politics to be an untidy extension of domestic politics. It is a systematic and continued balance of power between different players.
International Relations is a transient subject with the modern society being in a state of transition. The past occurrences in one state relating with other states influences the future interactions that are likely to occur. Therefore, the theorizing of international relations is likened to a system of abstract propositions with a predictive function. In the view of this system, nations become stereotyped participators in stereotyped symmetric or asymmetric relations (Morgenthau 65). The modern society has emerged from a medieval society and is