Differences between classical realism and neorealism

What is classical realism?

According to Elman (2007), the main assumption in the theory of classical realism is that the desire for power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity, which causes states to continuously engage in a struggle to increase their capabilities. He said the absence of the international equivalent of a state's government is a permissive condition that gives human appetite free reign. 

The notion of 'flawed nature' comes from the work of Thomas Hobbes; he said human beings by nature are brutish and egoistic. It is in our nature to pursue our own interest before the interest of others. We are capable of doing anything in order to achieve the outcomes we want.

To further understand the notion, we look at the four universal conditions mentioned by Thomas Hobbes:

1. Equality of power - all people are roughly equal in strength and intelligence. No single person is so smart or powerful that they cannot be defeated or outwitted by someone else.
2. Equality of need - all people have the same basic need (food, water, clothing, shelter, etc.).
3. Scarcity - resources of the world are scarce there is not enough to go around.
4. Limited altruism - people by nature generally tend to only look out for their own self-interest. Some may have altruistic tendencies (that is tendencies to help others). 

Since there is basic equality of power, everyone thinks to himself or herself that he or she is capable of getting whatever he or she wants. Everyone has the same needs for the same resources, but those resources are scarce, combined with the fact that people primarily act only out of self-interest, this would all lead to the competition of every human against every other for the resources that we want to acquire.

This will lead to a constant state of conflict or violence in order to acquire scarce resources. As such, humans have agreed to a social contract, in which we have surrendered some of our rights to a sovereign power known as the state and its brain, the government. That means the domestic system is hierarchical with the government at the top of the political structure. Moreover, the rule of law, administered by the judicial arms of the government ensures that no one is above the law.

Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson (2012) defined politics as the process by which groups representing divergent interests and values make collective decision. They also shared two assumptions of politics:

1. All societies of any complexity must contain diversity, that humans will always have different interest and values; there will always be a need for a mechanism where all these different interest and values are reconciled.
2. Scarcity is an inevitable characteristic of all societies. Since there is not enough to go around of the goods that people want, there needs to be some mechanism whereby these goods can be distributed.

Furthermore, the two defining characteristics of politics according to Shivley (2012) helps us to see how the ideas of Thomas Hobbes are used:

1. Politics always involves the making of common decisions for groups of people.
2. Those decisions are made by some members of the group exercising power over other members of the group.

Elman (2007) states that aggressive political leaders or domestic political systems that give parochial groups the opportunity to pursue their self-serving expansionist foreign policy is the main cause of wars.

Plano and Olton (1988) mentioned that the realist approach to policy making is fundamentally empirical and pragmatic. The realist school assumes that the key factor prevalent in all international relations is power. The wise and efficient use of power by a state in pursuit of its national interest is the main ingredient of a successful foreign policy.

Morgenthau (2016) said in his work that states want to, keep power, increase power, and demonstrate power through their foreign policies. He said that to increase a state's capability, a political leader must formulate policies aimed at addressing the nine elements of national power. The opportunity cost of wanting to develop one element rather than pursuing another agenda not related to the building up of national power in many instances leads to conflict or war. 

His nine elements of national power are:

1. Geography
2. Natural resources
3. Industrial capacity
4. Military preparedness
5. Population
6. National character
7. National morale

The use of geography as an element of power is called geopolitics according to Goldstein and Pevehouse (2014). The proposal by Australia and the US to build a naval base on Manus Island is a strategic move to counter or contain the increasing influence of China in the Pacific region.

In addition, the geographical location of Manus Island is vital, if China and the US with its allies engage in a military confrontation over the disputed territories in the South China Sea. The South China Sea is rich in oil and gas. There is also a remarkable amount of biological diversity, including over 30% of the world's coral reefs and many valuable fisheries. Thus, pursuing this economic interest comes at a cost; conflict with Japan and the Philippines who are US allies is unavoidable. 

The need for natural resources to sustain its industries and build up its national power is a key economic interest that China is pursuing. China is using its Belt and Road Initiative to connect with other countries in the hope of establishing mutual understanding. China will help the infrastructural needs of the countries who are signatories to the initiative and in return, the countries will continue to sell their natural resources to China.

What is neorealism?

Chiaruzzi (2017) defined neorealism as a theory of international relations that seeks to improve upon realism by making it more scientific (based on positivism) and by obtaining a more objective picture of how the structure of anarchy shapes and shoves states. Most closely associated with the work of Kenneth Waltz, neorealism argues, contrary to older versions of realism that states seek to maximize security rather than power.

According to Goldstein (2005), patterns of international events are explained in terms of the system structure - international distribution of power - rather than the internal makeup of individual states. That means the nine elements of national power as an example of the internal makeup of individual states do not influence the behaviour of states in the international system. States behave based on the international distribution of power.

Chiaruzzi (2017) outlines clearly that Kenneth Waltz rejects the classical realist arguments that human nature and the domestic character of states are relevant factors in explaining fundamental aspects of international relations. War, alliances, balance of power and cooperation cannot be explained by focusing on the behaviour of states. He said states must be treated as empty boxes because their domestic arrangements and characteristics do not make a difference at the level of the international system. At the system level, it is the fundamental structure of anarchy that shapes the behaviour of states, not their internal make-up.

Moreover, as stated by Elman (2007), Kenneth Waltz mentioned in his work that the system composes of structures and interacting units. Political structures have 3 elements:

1. Ordering principle (anarchy or hierarchy).
2. Character of the units (functionally alike or different).
3. Distribution of capabilities (multipolar, bipolar and unipolar systems).

Kenneth Waltz argued that two elements of the structure of the international system are constants:

1. Lack of an overarching authority means the ordering principle is anarchy.
2. Principle of self-help means all units remain functionally alike.

Japan, Australia and the Philippines are allies of the US. That means their security is guaranteed by the US who is the unipolar power in the Asia Pacific region. China will use diplomacy to address any conflict with them rather than risk going to war.  

References:

Chiaruzzi, M. (2017). Realism. In R. Devetek et al (Eds.), An introduction to international relations (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Elman, C. (2007). Realism. In M. Griffiths (Ed.), International relations theory for the twenty-first century. Routledge.

Garner, R., Ferdinand, P., & Lawson, S. (2012). Introduction to politics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, J. (2005). International relations (6th ed.). Peking University Press.

Goldstein, J. & Pevehouse, J. C. (2014). International relations (10th ed.). Pearsons.

Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics among nations: struggle for power and peace (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Plano, J. & Olton, R. (1988). The international relations dictionary (4th ed.). Clio Press Ltd.

Shively, W. P. (2012). Power & choice: an introduction to political science.McGraw-Hill.