Morgenthau, Hans. "The Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory". In International Theory: Critical Investigations, edited by James Der Derian, 36-52. New York: New York University Press, 1995.

Morgenthau, Hans. "The Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory". In International Theory: Critical Investigations, edited by James Der Derian, 36-52. New York: New York University Press, 1995.

• The author comments on his high opinion of a 1960 article by Martin Wight, in which Dr. Wight argued that IR theory was hobbled by the fact that it was created by politicians for the purpose of maintaining a state system, and is therefore dependent of political theory, which has limited it to discussions of state systems, created a false impression of human 'progress' in IR, and left the field motivated by ideology rather than real politik survivalism (37-38).
• Dr. Morgenthau so highly credits Dr. Wight's work because he views it as historically-grounded, whereas the vast majority of IR theory is abstract and without any historical grounding, making it useless for real world politics (40).
• The author blames the unpreparedness of the Allies in the Second World War largely on their dependence on idealistic IR theory and a system of international organizations and legal institutions without enforcement power (40).
• The issue of contemporary [1970s and onward] IR theory is that it assumes that traditional realist methods of IR which worked prior to the Second World War could replace idealism; the advent of the nuclear age made this belief wholly untrue, as the threat of nuclear armageddon radically changed state interactions (41, 51).
• Prior to 1945, war was a rational option in foreign policy as it could conceivably be pursued to the net benefit of the aggressive state. The creation of nuclear weapons made the costs of war with another nuclear power so high that war could never benefit the state (50). 
• Until the last century, there was no theory of IR, a stark contrast to the centuries of histories, philosophy, and political texts. This is because prior to the Napoleonic Wars and the creation of the Concert of Europe, interstate relations were considered to be the outgrowth of the nature of man and not subject to legal or moral theorizing. There was no recognition that IR is a social construct which could be changed (41-42).
• The creation of theories for describing international relations was further retarded by the fact that early IR scholars in the 19th and early 20th Century were interested in coming up with normative theories to created permanent peace, not explanatory theories (42).
• IR Theory was also so late to develop because IR, like other forms of politics, is really hard to theorize because it is a human process where unique and unpredictable things happen. Theory can be used to explain how states will act in most situations, but no theory can account for the arbitrary nature of politics (43-44).
• "It is at this point that theoretical understanding of international relations reaches its limits. It can develop different alternatives and clarify their necessary preconditions and likely consequences. It can point to the conditions that render one alternative more likely to materialize than the other. But it cannot say, with any degree of certainty, which of the alternatives is the correct one and will actually occur" (45).
• These limits of IR theory are revealed again in an example of possible responses to the 1962 Berlin blockade. Possible American responses to the blockade could have been appeasement, holding firm against any appeasement, or abandoning West Berlin as a costly liability. All of these approaches have theoretical backing from historical precedent, and in the present the appropriate response seems very unclear despite the existence of IR theory (46).
• A good theory of international relations, like a good theory of politics, is inherently political and response to the social and political discussions of the author's day. A good theory will identify points of interest in contemporary IR, and provide insight based on political assumptions and goals; the recommendations made are political and advance certain principles (47-48).
• "Much of the methodological activities carried on in academic circles, with sometimes fanatical devotion to esoteric terminology and mathematical formulas, equations, and charts, in order to elucidate or obscure the obvious. These activities can be explained psychologically by the fear of many academics [...] to be contaminated in their objective scholarship by contact with political reality. By engaging in activities that can have no relevance for the political problems of the day, such as theorizing about theories, one can maintains one's reputation as a scholar without running any political risks. This kind of international theory, then, is consummated in theorizing for theorizing's sake, an innocuous intellectual pastime engage in by academics for the benefit of other academics, without effect upon political reality and unaffected by it" (51-52).