(A) The fundamental problem in international politics is the lack of government - at least, that is, from realist theory perspective. Specifically, accepting the argument of Rousseau, the unit of the state in the international sphere of activity can be compared to that of the individual in a post-savage/pre-civilized society. Each person at this level of development is primarily concerned with his own self-interests: while he may recognize the benefits of cooperation with others, his personal needs - and fears - always take first priority (Waltz 11). It is only when the individual voluntarily exchanges individual liberty for the "civil liberty" ensured by a societal authority that self-interest is mitigated (Waltz 6). So, too, with nations as they currently co-exist: without an authority - a "government" - to which they can exchange state-interest for global-interest, international politics will be dictated by the anarchy of self-interest as each state perceives itself.
(B) In his article "'Classical' and 'Scientific' Theory," writer J. C. Garnett makes very clear his preference between the two approaches to international political theory: "Though many would like to make it so, international politics is not, and never can be, a scientific subject" (Garnett 10).
Garnett initially attempts to disguise his criticism of scientific theory - also called the "behaviorist" approach - behind enumeration of its limitations; his primary objection, though, is on "romantic" grounds. Garnett likes the mystery of humankind, a romance of human relationships that refuses to concede that the essential "soul" we possess may have some reducible elements of scientific quantity. He posits this romanticism midway through his critique by stating, categorically, "the study of man is qualitatively different from the study of inanimate matter because the behavior of human beings is largely 'inner-directed'...determined mainly by the thoughts, id...