Morgenthau vs. Waltz

Attribute	Morgenthau	Waltz
View on human nature	Tragic view, humans driven by desire for power and self-interest	Rational view, humans driven by survival instinct
Focus on state behavior	Emphasizes state behavior in international relations	Focuses on structure of the international system
Role of morality	Believes morality should guide state actions	Argues that morality is not relevant in international politics
Approach to power	Power is a means to achieve security and order	Power is a structural feature of the international system

Introduction

Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz are two prominent figures in the field of international relations theory. While both scholars have made significant contributions to the study of international politics, they have different perspectives on the nature of the international system and the behavior of states within it. In this article, we will compare and contrast the attributes of Morgenthau and Waltz, focusing on their views on power, the role of the state, and the causes of conflict.

Views on Power

Morgenthau, a proponent of classical realism, believed that power is the primary driver of international politics. He argued that states are rational actors who seek to maximize their power in order to ensure their survival and security. According to Morgenthau, the balance of power is a key factor in maintaining stability in the international system. In contrast, Waltz, a neorealist, emphasized the importance of the structure of the international system in shaping state behavior. He argued that the distribution of power among states is less important than the structure of the system itself, which constrains and shapes the behavior of states.

Role of the State

For Morgenthau, the state is the primary actor in international politics. He believed that states are sovereign entities that pursue their national interests in a competitive and anarchic international system. Morgenthau emphasized the importance of statecraft and diplomacy in managing international relations and maintaining stability. In contrast, Waltz focused on the systemic level of analysis, arguing that the behavior of states is shaped by the structure of the international system rather than by individual state actions. He believed that states are constrained by the anarchic nature of the international system and the distribution of power among states.

Causes of Conflict

Morgenthau viewed conflict as a natural and inevitable feature of international politics. He believed that states are driven by their desire for power and security, which often leads to competition and conflict with other states. Morgenthau argued that the balance of power is a key factor in preventing major wars and maintaining stability in the international system. In contrast, Waltz focused on the systemic causes of conflict, arguing that the structure of the international system and the distribution of power among states are the primary drivers of conflict. He believed that states are constrained by the anarchic nature of the international system, which leads to competition and conflict among states.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Morgenthau and Waltz have different perspectives on the nature of the international system and the behavior of states within it. While Morgenthau emphasized the importance of power and the role of the state in international politics, Waltz focused on the systemic level of analysis and the structural constraints that shape state behavior. Both scholars have made significant contributions to the field of international relations theory, and their work continues to influence scholars and policymakers today.