Hey everyone, Noah Zerbe here. In this video we're going to compare the dominant theoretical approaches to the study of international relations in the United States, neoliberalism and neorealism. We discussed the theories themselves in other videos, so you may want to start with those videos if you haven't seen them yet. But if you're ready, let's go ahead and get started. Let's start with some basic areas of agreement. Both neorealism and neoliberalism conceive of themselves as positivist theories of international relations. They both believe that the international system is governed by certain objective laws that can be discovered through systematic analysis. They both also make use of insights from game theory to understand the dynamics of state behavior. They're both state-centric theories, believing that the state is the most important actor in global politics, and that the state behaves in a rational manner in pursuit of the national interest. Finally, unlike classical liberals, neoliberals accept the realist assertion that the international system is defined by a condition of anarchy that shapes state behavior. But even within these areas of agreement, there are some important differences. While neoliberalism and neorealism both hold that the state is a rational actor operating in the pursuit of the national interest, they disagree on exactly what that interest is and how it should be defined. Neoliberalism believes that states are, or at least should be, concerned primarily with absolute gains, while neorealists assert that the security dilemma dictates that states should be concerned with relative gains instead. Note that the difference between relative and absolute gains is the topic we cover in another video. More broadly, neo-realists tend to take a more narrow view of what constitutes the national interest, focusing primarily on military power and security. Neoliberals, by contrast, have a much broader conception of the national interest that includes economic well-being as well as military power and security. While both neoliberalism and neo-realism accept the assertion that the international system is defined by a condition of anarchy, they disagree dramatically about the nature of anarchy and its implications for global politics. you Neorealists tend to view anarchy as the all-encompassing, unchanging condition of the international system. It's the natural state of affairs in global politics. And that necessarily results in a self-help international environment, which makes cooperation difficult to achieve and fleeting at best. Further, according to neorealists, international organizations are incapable of, or perhaps ineffective at, affecting this condition of anarchy. Instead, international organizations like the United Nations or the European Union are are merely vehicles through which the most dominant states can further assert their dominance. As a result, neo-realists tend to be dismissive of the importance of international organizations and the power of norms, rules, and regimes in governing global politics. By contrast, neoliberals tend to view anarchy as a vacuum that can be filled with processes and institutions that blunt its impact on state behavior. Thus, neoliberals argue that international organizations play a central role in mitigating the condition of anarchy in the global system. By creating expectations or norms and systems for the peaceful resolutions of disputes, that is, rules and regimes, international organizations can facilitate cooperation rather than competition between states in global politics. Neoliberals point to international organizations like the United Nations, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization, among countless others, and argue that such organizations have changed the nature of the global system. As a result, neoliberals argue that neorealists fundamentally misunderstand the actual condition of global politics in the contemporary era. As a result of their different takes on the international system and on the nature of anarchy and cooperation, neoliberalism and neorealism tend to focus on different issues in their analyses. Neorealists tend to focus on national security issues like war, arms races, security, and conflict, while neoliberals tend to focus on issues like political economy, human rights, and international organizations. Because of all this, it would be tempting to conclude that because they're more concerned with anarchy and security, And because they tend to focus more on questions of conflict and war, that neorealists would be more likely to support the use of force in foreign policy. And conversely, it may be tempting to conclude that neoliberals oppose the use of force. But in practice this is not always the case, and the 2003 Iraq War is a good case in point. In 2003 the United States launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. The US justified the war on three primary grounds. First, that the Hussein government had supported al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Second, that the Hussein government had been pursuing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions. And third, that the Hussein government was repressive and undemocratic, and that its regime had repressed political dissent in ethnic minority groups, including the Kurds. The US policy was one of democratization. rooted in the idea that a stable, democratic regime in Iraq would be a close US ally and could provide an important counterweight to the potential influence of Iran in the region. Interestingly, the justification for war aligned closely with neoliberal policies, and many neoliberal scholars supported the war effort. Conversely, many neorealist scholars opposed the use of force by the United States in Iraq, arguing that there was no clear national security interest at play. And this was not the first time that this happened. Most realists, with the notable exception of Henry Kissinger, opposed the US war in Vietnam along similar lines. Indeed, Hans Morgenthau, widely viewed as the father of realism, lost his position in the US State Department because he refused to support the war. So while it may be tempting to view realists and neorealists as supportive of the use of force in foreign affairs, this is not necessarily the case. In many cases, when there's no clear national security objective at play, realists and neorealists will likely oppose the use of force. And conversely, while we may be tempted to think that neoliberals are less willing to use force in foreign policy, This is not always the case. Indeed, there are many cases where neoliberals are more supportive of the use of force than neorealists are, particularly in the case of human rights violations, for example with the responsibility to protect, or in cases of supporting regime change and democratization. So that concludes our brief comparison of neorealism and neoliberalism in global politics. I hope you found it useful. Please leave any questions you have in the comments section below, and thanks for watching. Have a great day. Bye.