Neorealist vs. Realist

Attribute	Neorealist	Realist
Focus	International system	State behavior
Key Figures	Waltz, Mearsheimer	Morgenthau, Carr
Unit of Analysis	Anarchy	State
Power	Distribution of power	Balance of power
Conflict	Security dilemma	Competition for power

Definition of Neorealism and Realism

Neorealism and Realism are two prominent schools of thought in international relations theory. Realism, also known as classical realism, emphasizes the importance of power and security in international relations. Realists believe that states are the primary actors in the international system and that they are primarily motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of power. Neorealism, on the other hand, also known as structural realism, focuses on the structure of the international system and how it shapes state behavior. Neorealists argue that the anarchic nature of the international system leads states to prioritize their own security and survival.

Key Differences in Neorealism and Realism

One key difference between Neorealism and Realism is their focus on different aspects of international relations. Realism places a greater emphasis on the individual state as the primary actor, while Neorealism looks at the broader structural forces that influence state behavior. Realists tend to view the international system as a zero-sum game, where one state's gain is another state's loss. Neorealists, on the other hand, see states as rational actors that seek to maximize their security in a world where there is no overarching authority to enforce rules.

Similarities in Neorealism and Realism

Despite their differences, Neorealism and Realism share some common attributes. Both schools of thought emphasize the importance of power in international relations and the role of self-interest in state behavior. Realists and Neorealists both believe that states are the primary actors in the international system and that they are driven by a desire to ensure their own security and survival. Additionally, both Neorealism and Realism acknowledge the anarchic nature of the international system and the absence of a central authority to enforce rules.

Neorealist and Realist Approaches to Conflict

When it comes to conflict, Neorealism and Realism have different approaches. Realists tend to view conflict as a natural and inevitable part of international relations, driven by the pursuit of power and security. Realists believe that states must be prepared to use force to protect their interests and that conflict is a normal state of affairs in the international system. Neorealists, on the other hand, see conflict as a result of the structure of the international system, where states are forced to compete for security in an anarchic environment.

Neorealist and Realist Views on Cooperation

Cooperation is another area where Neorealism and Realism diverge. Realists are generally skeptical of the possibility of cooperation between states, believing that the pursuit of power and self-interest will always trump any potential benefits of cooperation. Realists argue that states are ultimately driven by a desire to maximize their own security and that cooperation is often a temporary and fragile arrangement. Neorealists, on the other hand, see cooperation as a possible outcome of the international system, where states may work together to achieve common goals and enhance their security.

Neorealist and Realist Perspectives on International Institutions

Neorealism and Realism also differ in their views on international institutions. Realists tend to view international institutions as tools that states use to further their own interests and enhance their power. Realists are skeptical of the ability of international institutions to constrain state behavior or promote cooperation, believing that states will always act in their own self-interest. Neorealists, on the other hand, see international institutions as important actors in the international system that can help to mitigate the effects of anarchy and promote stability and cooperation among states.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Neorealism and Realism are two important schools of thought in international relations theory that offer different perspectives on the nature of the international system. While Realism focuses on the role of individual states and the pursuit of power and security, Neorealism looks at the broader structural forces that shape state behavior. Despite their differences, both Neorealism and Realism emphasize the importance of power, self-interest, and security in international relations. Understanding the key attributes of Neorealism and Realism can help scholars and policymakers better navigate the complexities of the international system and develop strategies for promoting peace and stability.