Classical Realism vs. Neoclassical Realism

Attribute	Classical Realism	Neoclassical Realism
Key Figures	Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes	Hans Morgenthau, Raymond Aron, Kenneth Waltz
Focus	Human nature and power politics	State behavior and international system
State Behavior	Driven by self-interest and power	Driven by survival and security
International System	Anarchic and competitive	Anarchic and structured
Power	Primary determinant of state behavior	Important but not the only factor

Introduction

Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism are two prominent theories in the field of international relations that seek to explain the behavior of states in the international system. While both theories share some similarities, they also have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will compare and contrast the key features of Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism to provide a better understanding of their differences.

Core Assumptions

Classical Realism, as articulated by scholars like Hans Morgenthau, emphasizes the importance of human nature and the struggle for power as the driving forces behind state behavior. According to Classical Realists, states are inherently selfish and power-seeking entities that prioritize their own interests above all else. On the other hand, Neoclassical Realism, developed by scholars like Stephen Walt, builds upon the core assumptions of Classical Realism but also takes into account the impact of domestic factors on state behavior. Neoclassical Realists argue that a state's foreign policy decisions are influenced not only by external threats and opportunities but also by internal political dynamics.

Focus on Power

One of the key differences between Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism lies in their focus on power. Classical Realism places a strong emphasis on the anarchic nature of the international system and the constant struggle for power among states. According to Classical Realists, states are driven by a desire to maximize their power and security in order to survive in a competitive environment. In contrast, Neoclassical Realism acknowledges the importance of power in international relations but also considers other factors, such as domestic politics and leadership perceptions, in shaping state behavior.

Role of Morality

Another important distinction between Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism is their approach to morality in international relations. Classical Realists argue that states should prioritize their national interests and security above all else, even if it means engaging in morally questionable actions. According to Classical Realists, the international system is inherently amoral, and states must be willing to make tough decisions to protect their own interests. Neoclassical Realists, on the other hand, believe that morality can play a role in shaping state behavior, particularly when it comes to issues of legitimacy and public opinion.

View on International Institutions

Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism also differ in their views on the role of international institutions in the international system. Classical Realists are skeptical of the effectiveness of international institutions, arguing that they are often used by powerful states to further their own interests. According to Classical Realists, international institutions are merely tools that states use to achieve their strategic objectives, rather than mechanisms for promoting cooperation and peace. Neoclassical Realists, on the other hand, recognize the potential benefits of international institutions in facilitating cooperation and managing conflicts, but they also acknowledge their limitations in the face of power politics.

Implications for Foreign Policy

Both Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism have important implications for the formulation of foreign policy. Classical Realism suggests that states should prioritize their national interests and security above all else, even if it means engaging in power politics and conflict. According to Classical Realists, states should be prepared to use force and coercion to protect their interests in a competitive international environment. Neoclassical Realism, on the other hand, advocates for a more nuanced approach to foreign policy that takes into account both external threats and internal constraints. Neoclassical Realists argue that states should balance their pursuit of power with considerations of domestic politics and public opinion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism are two important theories in the field of international relations that offer different perspectives on state behavior in the international system. While Classical Realism emphasizes the role of power and self-interest in shaping state behavior, Neoclassical Realism takes a more nuanced approach that considers the impact of domestic factors on foreign policy decisions. By comparing and contrasting the key attributes of Classical Realism and Neoclassical Realism, we can gain a better understanding of the complexities of state behavior in the international arena.