Rather, he does present a clear case for including underlying moral tones in how international relations are constructed and executed. Yet, these only have a certain part to play. Exaggerating that portion through unrealistic utopian ideology proves to lead to the failure of the peace attempts during the twenty years Carr describes in crisis. In this, he is also criticizing the other end of the spectrum in terms of utopian ideology. Carr aims to discredit some of the misconceptions brought about by a more extreme realistic approach that was also failing to provide progressive results. Political philosophies are often in order to gain power over other nations. Thus, they can be very easily molded into oppressive or aggressive strategies if not restrained by some sort of moral guidance. Carr believed that strategies born out of this self serving pragmatic approach were failing just as much as their utopian counterparts.

Carr's personal belief is that international politics are heavily dependent on the presence of power structures and how they interact within an international context. Methods of power include military, economic, ideological, and judicial. By manipulating the balance between these structures of power, more efficient strategies in international relations can take shape. Essentially, Carr was advocating the balance of these power structures with an appropriate, but realistic, moral foundation makes for the best environment to facilitate cooperation...

He presents his argument in a progressive structure, offering criticism of current systems but with his own recommendations for change. It is impressive in how he aims to secure an autonomous role for international relations. This was done in order to better preserve and promote greater efficiency in working with a wider broad of groups in a more globalized context. Carr's influence did help shape international relations as a separate concept, one that is supposed to be devoid of certain national or regional biases. These influences can be seen in the current construct of many international relations, like that of the United Nations. It is also interesting to see Carr invoke the Aristotelian philosophy of the golden mean. This is where everything is in perfect balance based on a moderation of elemental influences. This makes sense, as Carr clearly illustrates how practices on the extreme ends of the spectrum fail to address the real problems in an efficient way. Blending the two extremes in a flexible and multi-faceted approach is clearly better suited for such a complicated endeavor. However, the work was written right before World War I hit. Thus, read in a modern context, it is lacking some of the relevance today because international relations have since been so defined by the events and consequences of the war. Still, Carr's argument proves agreeable and well structured.