Your article probably had to do with the Constructivist School of International Relations theory.

Constructivism emerged in International Relations academia in the late 80s as a critique of the Realist School of International Relations theory that had been the dominant mantra since the end of the Second World War. Constructivism is not an International Relation Theory (as Realism and Liberalism are referred to) as much as it is a methodology, and as a consequence some (like Barkin in his 2003 paper Realist Constructivism) even argue that Realism and Constructivism can even be compatible. Indeed, most Constructivists (even those in opposition to Realism) agree that the defining feature of their approach is to focus on the ideas and social constructions present in internal and international politics. So Constructivists hold that actions in international relations are defined by social norms and ideas rather than by objective or material conditions. This might seem somewhat vapid and far-fetched, until you look at things like 39.36% of the European Union's budget (that is to say, over 63 billion Euros) going to the Common Agricultural Policy. And what sort of economic or political benefit did the Margaret Thatcher-led United Kingdom gain from defending the Falkland Islands? Why did apartheid-era South Africa undertake a costly 75-year occupation of Namibia, a country that while certainly geographically very beautiful, is mostly empty desert? The politicians who lead countries and international organizations often do strange things, and only by looking at the institutions, experiences, and principles that are guiding them can we fully understand their actions (or so Constructivists argue).

The person who coined the term constructivism is A. Wendt in a paper titled, "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics." An objective view can be gained from a paper titled, "Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes" by Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger, examines the state of International Relations Theories in the mid-90s, an includes an analysis of constructivism.

Just to clarify though, International Relations Theory and History are related fields, but they are nonetheless distinct. While historians are typically concerned with evaluating and reinterpreting the evidence, drivers, and meaning behind historical events, international relations theorists are instead looking to use historical events in order to extrapolate a broad universal theories that can inform policymakers in their decisions.

History is a liberal art, while international relations is a social science. While historians definetely have their biases, historians seldom express views that they hold to be broad universal truths. Historical "schools" are mostly concerned with the methodology through which evidence is interpreted. Across historical writing, historians' ultimate assertions are always only ever valid insofar as they relate to context of the evidence they have examined. So what is indisputable in the history of the Mediterranean is not necessarily applicable when examining China or India: that is to say, while scholars ask questions of the causes and qualities of the fall of the Roman Empire or rise of the Frankish Kingdom, these causes and qualities cannot be applied to the Sixteen Kingdoms period of Chinese history. On the other hand, International Relations Theorists are instead interested in making broad universal truths. To their credit, international relations theorists are typically very careful about precise wording, and often qualify their conclusions with many complex caveats. Lastly, it is worth mentioning one thing good International Relations Theorists do have in common with good Historians are that they are likely to blend techniques proposed by differing schools in order to present the most complete picture possible.

I wrote a very similar answer to a question about Henry Kissinger's value as a historian where I expanded upon some of the differences between International Relations theory and History which you might be interested in.