Analysis of classical realism and Neo-Realism school of thought
Introduction
As a very first sentences of my paper work I want to stress the importance of the theory in
international relations as a reason to write this paper. What is theory and why do we need it in
IR? As we have already known theory is “IRscope” which makes us to see invisible things in
international system. What are the main reasons behind the strong and weak waves happen in
global arena and where will directions of those waves go are all explained, described and
predicted by theories. Thus, without theories we cannot analyze events. There is a sheer
abundance of theorists whose arguments contradict with each other based on different theories
- scopes. However, in my theory paper, I would like to discuss some realist and neo-realist
arguments claimed by great international theorists.
While starting to talk about Realism, it is important to mention the name of the ancient Greek
historian Thucydides who wrote a book named “History of the Peloponnesian War” which is
considered as a very first book over the theory of realism. "The strong do what they can and
the weak suffer what they must" taken from History is an argument said by Athenian invaders
to Melians who were neutral in the war. When Melians asked for justice and mercy from
Athenians, they answered them with this sentence. Athenians believed that if you aren’t as
strong as your opponent, justice couldn’t be served. As Melians were weak and small, they
should be invaded by strong one like Athenians. And so did happen – Melians suffered.
Briefly, Thucydides wanted to emphasize the idea that states are living in the international
“self-help” system in which they can trust no one but themselves. After this great work many
other realists have written books and articles that support his ideas.
As it is agreed by all realist theorists that the core argument of realism is that international
relations are anarchic. Once there is no international government to control the aggressive
relations among states they always seek for power. But the question arises here– why
international system is anarchic? What makes it anarchic while there is still interaction among
nations? The arguments of theorists on realism differ on this issue. This also makes realism a
paradigm consists of different theories. behavioral realism, structural realism and others.
Some theorists like Hobbes argues that which makes international relations anarchic place is
human nature. Because of the fact that all people are equal, he thought, which means that each
man feels like he is also capable of that power which others achieved. And this equality gives
its way to international anarchic system. Hobbes argues that there are three main
characteristics of human nature – competition, diffidence, glory and those make nations seek
for power, security and reputation. This triple issue is the real reason for states to constantly
compete in international system to get an advantage over their opponent. It means that not
only international relations among states are anarchic, arguments among theorists over it are
also disordered. On my theory paper I will refer to two great realist theorists – Hans
Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz and compare and contrast their arguments and give my
opinions on the issue.
Waltz was an American political scientist who supported neo realism theory or structural
realism. In 1959, Waltz wrote his book “Man, The state and War” in which he perfectly
analysis three “images” of anarchic international relations. He wrote that in the first “image”
all the causes of war arise from the sinful human nature. As long as men like leaders of the
government, head of state acting and thinking immorally and aggressively, there will always
be wars and conflicts between states. As a second “image” Waltz analysis that the main cause
for the instability comes from the internal intentions of states. It means that as states are very
, ambitious and seeking for power, their relations with other countries are very competitive. He
accused states’ intentions of making international system anarchic. Should be noted that by
saying anarchy Waltz describes the international system not disordered but a system without
central authority, law. Thirdly, third “image” of causes of anarchy explains that it’s the
anarchic international system itself that affects relations among nations. Waltz himself is a
theorist supports the third “image” that contradicts other realist’s arguments. Later, he
continued his arguments on the book named “Theory of International Politics”. After this
book written in 1979, Waltz divided realism into two: classical realism and neo-realism. Hans
Morgenthau was one of those classical realism theorists. German- born, American political
scientist Morgenthau attached great importance into power politics in international relations in
his book “Politics Among Nations” written in 1948. So called Morgenthau’s six principles
analyzed in this book.
Literature review
In the first chapter of his book called “Man, the State and War” Waltz is seeking the ways of
peace in international relations and questioning when will the system turn into peaceful
environment, what’s required for that? In order to make a clear assumption based on peace, he
suggests, it’s better to investigate causes of the war. Waltz interpreted the causes of inevitable
conflicts in international relations through three ways – “images”. “The argument that war is
inevitable because men are irrevocably bad, and the argument that wars can be ended because
men can be changed, are contradictory” (Waltz, Man, the State and War, 1959, pp. 12,13).
First image theorists believe that statesmen who lack in education and knowledge cause wars
and the very first remedy for ending wars is changing or educating those leaders. Then, Waltz
differ pessimist’s view from positivist’s view on the first image. We don’t want to go into
detail about what they believe, but it should be mentioned briefly that both see the causes on
human nature but pessimists unlike optimists doesn’t believe the possibility of peace at the
end of the war. The main difference that separates Waltz’s neo-realism from classical realism
lays at this point. Waltz summarize first “image” theorists as they believe that if all the
interests of humans are satisfied, there wouldn’t be wars anymore. But, he thought that the
idea is “inadequate” and the supporters of those ideas are “idle dreamers”. He denounced
those theorists because of “ignoring the political context of social action” (Waltz, Man, the
State and War, 1959). Waltz claimed that those who see the causes of wars on the first or
second “image” are reductionists. “Theories of international politics that concentrate causes at
the individual or national level are reductionist; theories that conceive of causes operating at
the international level as well are systemic” (Waltz K. N., 1979, p. 23).
However, unlike Morgenthau, Waltz is a structuralist which means that he believes the
importance of structure and interacting units in the international system. Here the question
arises. it is understood that states act according to their interests and their behaviors somehow
affect other states, this formulated international system formulates also affects those other
states’ actions. Doesn’t it mean that Waltz supports both second and third “image”? No, he
accepts the relation of first two “images” to the third one but claims that being a morally good
leader or a state doesn’t guarantee a peaceful system. Because it doesn’t depend on sole state
or individual but the structure as a whole. Then, Waltz continues that there has always been
war between states but the important thing is to overcome this situation with minimal damage.
For this, they can only trust their own power (self-help).
Waltz as a realist theorist accepts the idea of the world without harmony and centralized law
which leads to the inevitability of wars between states. He claims that “uncertainty and
Introduction
As a very first sentences of my paper work I want to stress the importance of the theory in
international relations as a reason to write this paper. What is theory and why do we need it in
IR? As we have already known theory is “IRscope” which makes us to see invisible things in
international system. What are the main reasons behind the strong and weak waves happen in
global arena and where will directions of those waves go are all explained, described and
predicted by theories. Thus, without theories we cannot analyze events. There is a sheer
abundance of theorists whose arguments contradict with each other based on different theories
- scopes. However, in my theory paper, I would like to discuss some realist and neo-realist
arguments claimed by great international theorists.
While starting to talk about Realism, it is important to mention the name of the ancient Greek
historian Thucydides who wrote a book named “History of the Peloponnesian War” which is
considered as a very first book over the theory of realism. "The strong do what they can and
the weak suffer what they must" taken from History is an argument said by Athenian invaders
to Melians who were neutral in the war. When Melians asked for justice and mercy from
Athenians, they answered them with this sentence. Athenians believed that if you aren’t as
strong as your opponent, justice couldn’t be served. As Melians were weak and small, they
should be invaded by strong one like Athenians. And so did happen – Melians suffered.
Briefly, Thucydides wanted to emphasize the idea that states are living in the international
“self-help” system in which they can trust no one but themselves. After this great work many
other realists have written books and articles that support his ideas.
As it is agreed by all realist theorists that the core argument of realism is that international
relations are anarchic. Once there is no international government to control the aggressive
relations among states they always seek for power. But the question arises here– why
international system is anarchic? What makes it anarchic while there is still interaction among
nations? The arguments of theorists on realism differ on this issue. This also makes realism a
paradigm consists of different theories. behavioral realism, structural realism and others.
Some theorists like Hobbes argues that which makes international relations anarchic place is
human nature. Because of the fact that all people are equal, he thought, which means that each
man feels like he is also capable of that power which others achieved. And this equality gives
its way to international anarchic system. Hobbes argues that there are three main
characteristics of human nature – competition, diffidence, glory and those make nations seek
for power, security and reputation. This triple issue is the real reason for states to constantly
compete in international system to get an advantage over their opponent. It means that not
only international relations among states are anarchic, arguments among theorists over it are
also disordered. On my theory paper I will refer to two great realist theorists – Hans
Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz and compare and contrast their arguments and give my
opinions on the issue.
Waltz was an American political scientist who supported neo realism theory or structural
realism. In 1959, Waltz wrote his book “Man, The state and War” in which he perfectly
analysis three “images” of anarchic international relations. He wrote that in the first “image”
all the causes of war arise from the sinful human nature. As long as men like leaders of the
government, head of state acting and thinking immorally and aggressively, there will always
be wars and conflicts between states. As a second “image” Waltz analysis that the main cause
for the instability comes from the internal intentions of states. It means that as states are very
, ambitious and seeking for power, their relations with other countries are very competitive. He
accused states’ intentions of making international system anarchic. Should be noted that by
saying anarchy Waltz describes the international system not disordered but a system without
central authority, law. Thirdly, third “image” of causes of anarchy explains that it’s the
anarchic international system itself that affects relations among nations. Waltz himself is a
theorist supports the third “image” that contradicts other realist’s arguments. Later, he
continued his arguments on the book named “Theory of International Politics”. After this
book written in 1979, Waltz divided realism into two: classical realism and neo-realism. Hans
Morgenthau was one of those classical realism theorists. German- born, American political
scientist Morgenthau attached great importance into power politics in international relations in
his book “Politics Among Nations” written in 1948. So called Morgenthau’s six principles
analyzed in this book.
Literature review
In the first chapter of his book called “Man, the State and War” Waltz is seeking the ways of
peace in international relations and questioning when will the system turn into peaceful
environment, what’s required for that? In order to make a clear assumption based on peace, he
suggests, it’s better to investigate causes of the war. Waltz interpreted the causes of inevitable
conflicts in international relations through three ways – “images”. “The argument that war is
inevitable because men are irrevocably bad, and the argument that wars can be ended because
men can be changed, are contradictory” (Waltz, Man, the State and War, 1959, pp. 12,13).
First image theorists believe that statesmen who lack in education and knowledge cause wars
and the very first remedy for ending wars is changing or educating those leaders. Then, Waltz
differ pessimist’s view from positivist’s view on the first image. We don’t want to go into
detail about what they believe, but it should be mentioned briefly that both see the causes on
human nature but pessimists unlike optimists doesn’t believe the possibility of peace at the
end of the war. The main difference that separates Waltz’s neo-realism from classical realism
lays at this point. Waltz summarize first “image” theorists as they believe that if all the
interests of humans are satisfied, there wouldn’t be wars anymore. But, he thought that the
idea is “inadequate” and the supporters of those ideas are “idle dreamers”. He denounced
those theorists because of “ignoring the political context of social action” (Waltz, Man, the
State and War, 1959). Waltz claimed that those who see the causes of wars on the first or
second “image” are reductionists. “Theories of international politics that concentrate causes at
the individual or national level are reductionist; theories that conceive of causes operating at
the international level as well are systemic” (Waltz K. N., 1979, p. 23).
However, unlike Morgenthau, Waltz is a structuralist which means that he believes the
importance of structure and interacting units in the international system. Here the question
arises. it is understood that states act according to their interests and their behaviors somehow
affect other states, this formulated international system formulates also affects those other
states’ actions. Doesn’t it mean that Waltz supports both second and third “image”? No, he
accepts the relation of first two “images” to the third one but claims that being a morally good
leader or a state doesn’t guarantee a peaceful system. Because it doesn’t depend on sole state
or individual but the structure as a whole. Then, Waltz continues that there has always been
war between states but the important thing is to overcome this situation with minimal damage.
For this, they can only trust their own power (self-help).
Waltz as a realist theorist accepts the idea of the world without harmony and centralized law
which leads to the inevitability of wars between states. He claims that “uncertainty and
