本文是一篇国际关系Essay范文，主题是：What are the main differences between ‘classical realism’ and ‘neo-realism’? “古典现实主义”和“新现实主义”之间的主要区别是什么？
60多年来，现实主义已成为国际关系中最重要的理论。它的当代建构归功于汉斯·摩根索及其在20世纪40年代末的作品。摩根索利用了学者和战略家的早期作品，包括古希腊学者修昔底德、马基雅维利、霍布斯及其无政府状态的概念，以及E.H.卡尔1939年的作品。随着国际关系学科的蓬勃发展，现实主义成为主要理论，形成了基于其哲学的政治假设，如现实政治。随着国际关系作为一门以现实主义为中心的学科的扩展，该理论也随之改革。肯尼斯·华尔兹成功地成为了新现实主义之父，就像摩根索三十年前对现实主义所做的那样。这导致了现实主义理论在古典现实主义和结构（新）现实主义之间的分裂。下面是关于Example International Relations Essay的全部内容，供参考。
Introduction 简介
Realism has become a foremost theory within international relations over six decades. Its contemporary construction is attributed to Hans Morgenthau and his work in the late 1940s. Morgenthau utilised previous works from scholars and strategists, which include, Ancient Greek scholar Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and his notions of the anarchic state, and the 1939 work of E.H Carr. Realism became the primary theory as the discipline of International Relations blossomed, forming political hypothesis based on its philosophies, such as Real Politik. As International Relations expanded as a discipline with Realism at its centre the theory become reformed. Kenneth Waltz succeeded in becoming the father of Neo-Realism in the same way Morgenthau had done with Realism thirty years prior. This resulted in a schism in the Realist theory between classic Realism and structural (neo) Realism.
The purpose of this essay is to investigate this split and to distinguish the major differences of the two Realist strands. These theories are vast volumes of work that have been considered by the brightest minds of discipline for several decades, the salient features of the two theories discussed in this text will offer just a glimpse into their philosophies. Investigation to compare the differences of the two shall be split into two parts, firstly examining the theoretical base and highlighting the noticeable distinctions. The second part will conceptualise these points in a practical sense, attaching them to historical events predominantly from the twentieth century.
本文旨在研究这种分裂，并区分这两种现实主义的主要区别。这些理论是几十年来最聪明的学科头脑所考虑的大量工作，本文讨论的这两种理论的显著特征将仅提供对其哲学的一瞥。比较两者差异的调查应分为两个部分，首先检查理论基础，突出明显的区别。第二部分将从实践意义上对这些观点进行概念化，将其与主要来自二十世纪的历史事件联系起来。
Theoretical 理论
Morgenthau’s key principles of Realism consider states as individuals, a ‘unified actor.’ One state represents itself, and these states are primary in international relations. Internal politics and contradictions are irrelevant as states pursue interests defined by power. Power, is a further key proponent of Morgenthau’s paradigm, he believed it central to human nature and therefore state actors. Morgenthau considered human nature as corrupt, dictated by selfishness and ego, resulting in a dangerous world constructed by egotistical greedy actors. Thus Realism possesses at its core a very pessimistic outlook of constant threat and danger, logically therefore Realism submits as one of its fundamental considerations that state actors are driven by survival and the need for greater dominance and power to create a favourable balance of power and decreasing the actors potential to diminish. (Gellman, 1988). Realists consider these attitudes to consume national interest, trumping any other concern. Self-help becomes a necessity. Reliance or trust of other actors is foolish as Machiavelli describes – “today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy” (Morgenthau, 1948).
摩根索的主要现实主义原则将国家视为个体，是一个“统一的行动者”一个国家代表自己，这些国家是国际关系中的首要国家。当国家追求权力界定的利益时，内部政治和矛盾无关紧要。权力是摩根索范式的另一个关键支持者，他认为它是人性的核心，因此也是国家行为者的核心。摩根索认为人性是腐败的，由自私和自我支配，导致了一个由利己贪婪的行动者构建的危险世界。因此，现实主义的核心是对不断的威胁和危险持非常悲观的看法，因此，从逻辑上讲，现实主义的基本考虑之一是，国家行为者受生存和更大支配地位和权力的需要的驱动，以创造有利的权力平衡，减少行为者减少的潜力。。现实主义者认为这些态度是为了牺牲国家利益，胜过任何其他担忧。自助成为一种必要。正如马基雅维利所描述的那样，“今天的朋友就是明天的敌人”。
Realisms success and prominence in international relations naturally exposed it to a series of critiques. Authors and scholars disagreed with its ideological theory and often advocated alternative theories. These included a Liberalist outlook that promotes the importance of democracy and free trade, while Marxists believe international affairs could be understood as a class struggle between capital and labour. Other theories derided the lack of morality, collectivism and simplicity in Realism. Despite it retaining several of the basic features of classical Realism, including the notions that states are primary unitary actors and power is dominant. Neo-Realism provided criticism of the classic paradigm. Structural Realism directed attention to the structural characteristics of an international system of states rather than to its components (Evans and Newham, 1998). Kenneth Waltz detaches from Morgenthau’s classic Realism suggesting it to be too ‘reductionist’. He argues that international politics can be thought of as a system with a precisely defined structure, Realism in his view, is unable to conceptualise the international system in this way due to its varying limitation, essentially due to its behavioural methodology. (Waltz, 1979) Neo-Realism considers the traditional strand as being incapable of explaining behaviour at a level above a nation state. Waltz is described as offering defensive version of Realism, while John Mearsheimer promotes an offensive consideration of Realism, suggesting Waltz’s analysis fails to chart the aggression that exists in international relations, however they are often considered as one through neo or structural Realism. (Mearsheimer, 2013)
现实主义在国际关系中的成功和突出自然使它受到一系列批评。作者和学者不同意其意识形态理论，并经常主张替代理论。其中包括提倡民主和自由贸易重要性的自由主义观点，而马克思主义者认为国际事务可以理解为资本和劳动之间的阶级斗争。其他理论则嘲笑现实主义缺乏道德、集体主义和简单性。尽管它保留了古典现实主义的一些基本特征，包括国家是主要的单一行动者和权力占主导地位的概念。新现实主义对经典范式进行了批判。结构现实主义将注意力转向国际国家体系的结构特征，而不是其组成部分。肯尼斯·华尔兹脱离了摩根索的经典现实主义，认为它过于“还原论”。他认为，国际政治可以被视为一个具有精确定义的结构的系统，在他看来，现实主义由于其不同的局限性，基本上由于其行为方法论，无法以这种方式对国际系统进行概念化。新现实主义认为传统的strand无法解释民族国家之上的行为。华尔兹被描述为提供了防御性的现实主义版本，而约翰·米尔斯海默提倡对现实主义的进攻性考虑，这表明华尔兹的分析未能描绘出国际关系中存在的侵略，然而，它们通常被认为是通过新现实主义或结构现实主义。
The idea, that international politics can be understood as a system, with an exact construct and separate structure, is both the starting point for international theory and point of departure from the traditional Realism. The fundamental concern for Neo-Realists is why do states exhibit similar foreign policy behaviour regardless of their opposing political systems and contrasting ideologies. The Cold War brought two opposing superpowers that although were socially and politically opposite behaved in a similar manner and weren’t separate in their pursuit of military power and influence. Realism in Waltz’s view was severely limited, as where other classic disciplines of international relations. Neo-Realism is designed as re-examination, a second tier explanation that fills in the gaps classic theories neglected. For example, traditional Realists remain adamant that actors are individuals in international affairs, referencing the Hobbesian notion that two entities are unable to enjoy the same thing equally and are consequently destined to become enemies. Whilst, Neo-Realists consider that relative and absolute gains are important and they may be attained by collusion through international institutions. (Waltz, 1979)
国际政治可以理解为一个系统，具有精确的结构和独立的结构，这既是国际理论的出发点，也是对传统现实主义的出发点。新现实主义者最关心的问题是，为什么国家表现出类似的外交政策行为，而不管其对立的政治制度和意识形态如何。冷战带来了两个对立的超级大国，虽然在社会和政治上是对立的，但他们的行为方式相似，在追求军事力量和影响力方面并不分离。现实主义在华尔兹的视野中受到了严重的限制，就像其他国际关系的经典学科一样。新现实主义被设计为重新审视，一种第二层次的解释，填补了经典理论被忽视的空白。例如，传统现实主义者仍然坚持认为国际事务中的行动者是个人，他们引用了霍布斯的观点，即两个实体不能平等地享受同一件事，因此注定要成为敌人。同时，新现实主义者认为，相对和绝对收益很重要，它们可能通过国际机构的勾结而实现。
Practical 实践
The salient theoretical differences exhibited in the first section will be strengthened in this second section by applying the theory to practical situations in order to enhance the understanding and the degree of separation. As one has discussed, traditional Realists consider that the foundation of international affairs is war, perpetrated by states. A Realist doctrine is exhibited by the actions and musings of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, during their time together during Nixon’s presidency and with Kissinger’s influence on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford. While in the theatre of the Cold War, they attempted to maximise American power in order to safeguard American security against fellow actors. Incursions in Vietnam and Korea were designed at a basic level to keep their ideology as the primary superpower and increase American dominance. Nixon’s presidency was associated also with his administrations dialogue with China, and their keenness to exploit the Sino-Soviet split in order to tip the balance of power in America’s favour, all illustrating a class Realist mentality of international relations, that it is constructed entirely between state interactions and a grasp for power. (Nye, 2007)
通过将理论应用于实际情况，以增强理解和分离程度，第一节中展示的显著理论差异将在第二节中得到加强。正如人们所讨论的那样，传统现实主义者认为，国际事务的基础是国家发动的战争。理查德·尼克松和亨利·基辛格在尼克松担任总统期间的行为和思考，以及基辛格对尼克松继任者杰拉尔德·福特的影响，都体现了现实主义。在冷战期间，他们试图最大限度地利用美国的力量，以保护美国的安全，免受其他行为者的伤害。入侵越南和朝鲜的目的是在基本层面上保持其作为主要超级大国的意识形态，并增加美国的主导地位。尼克松的总统任期还与他的政府与中国的对话有关，以及他们热衷于利用中苏分裂，以使力量平衡有利于美国，所有这些都表明了国际关系的阶级现实主义心态，即它完全是在国家互动和掌握权力之间构建的。
Another example that depicts this mentality is Thucydides work concerning The Peloponnesian War, an often-utilised example used by traditional Realists; Thucydides in his works expresses an unrelenting Athenian desire to pursue self-interest, and achieved this through the use of force and hard power. He famously wrote, “The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (Thucydides, 1972, p402). Thucydides sentiments illustrate the Realist notion of human nature being motivated primarily by power, and it is similar to subsequent wars throughout human history. Colin Gray a modern scholar concurs with the Realist outlook suggesting an inherent human characteristic that still drives states in the same way it did in 400 B.C (Gray,2009).
描述这种心态的另一个例子是修昔底德关于伯罗奔尼撒战争的作品，这是传统现实主义者经常使用的例子；修昔底德在他的作品中表达了雅典人追求私利的不懈愿望，并通过使用武力和硬权力实现了这一愿望。他有句名言：“强者做他们有能力做的事，弱者接受他们必须接受的事”。修昔底德的情感阐释了现实主义的概念，即人性主要由权力驱动，这类似于人类历史上的后续战争。现代学者科林·格雷赞同现实主义观点，认为人类固有的特征仍然以公元前400年的方式驱动着国家。
Neo-Realists tend to distance themselves from this notion of a corruptible human nature. They blame the starting of the Second World War, not on innate human corruptibility, but on the failure to achieve a recognised international system. They disagree with Realist logic that the primary reason for the Second World War was Hitler’s lust to institute his power and influence across Europe. In their estimations the disorder provided by the Treaty of Versailles was principal in throwing the world back into war. Its adoption on the behest of French, British and American states provided the opportunity and the catalyst for the Nazi Party to flourish. Resentment in Germany of the allied powers, coupled with a weak nation unable to recover because of this ‘dictate’ rendered the German economy and military perpetually weak, all contributing to Hitler’s ability to snatch power and consequently produce the elements to start a world war. The world was failed in Neo-Realist estimations by a lack of substantial system (Jervis, 1994).
新现实主义者倾向于远离这种人性腐败的观念。他们指责第二次世界大战的开始，不是人类天生的腐败，而是未能建立一个公认的国际体系。他们不同意现实主义逻辑，即第二次世界大战的主要原因是希特勒渴望在整个欧洲建立自己的权力和影响力。据他们估计，《凡尔赛条约》造成的混乱是导致世界再次陷入战争的主要原因。它是在法国、英国和美国国家的要求下通过的，为纳粹党的蓬勃发展提供了机会和催化剂。德国对盟国的怨恨，再加上一个由于这种“命令”而无法恢复的弱国，使得德国的经济和军事永远处于弱势，这一切都助长了希特勒夺取权力的能力，从而产生了发动世界大战的因素。由于缺乏实质性体系，世界在新现实主义估计中失败。
The response classic Realists provide to Neo-Realists is that their re-worked form of the theory is simply presented in a way that is more structural and scientific but with the core maintaining the original doctrines offered by traditional Realism. Although Neo-Realists do not deny that their ideology is extremely similarIt is an improvement on the original theory offering a more structured and formulated paradigm., but Realists argue those alterations, which include these structural formations is what inhibits the new theory. Richard Ashley is one author that concurs with these sentiments stating traditional Realism, provides an advanced concept of analysis (Ashley, 1984). For example, even if the Treaty of Versailles did create bleak conditions on Germany that incited the Nazi’s upsurge, the fundamental lust for power Hitler exhibited in the extreme was still predominant for starting World War Two regardless of structural factors. This analysis echoes Colin Gray’s opinions regarding the characteristics exhibited from the Peloponnesian War still being relevant in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and illustrates Realism relevance.
经典现实主义者对新现实主义者的回应是，他们重新设计的理论形式只是以一种更具结构性和科学性的方式呈现，但其核心保持了传统现实主义提供的原始学说。虽然新现实主义者并不否认他们的意识形态极为相似，但它是对原始理论的改进，提供了一个更结构化和公式化的范式。，但现实主义者认为，这些变化，包括这些结构形式，是阻碍新理论的因素。理查德·阿什利是一位赞同这些观点的作家，他阐述了传统现实主义，提出了先进的分析概念。例如，即使《凡尔赛条约》确实为德国创造了刺激纳粹高涨的黯淡条件，希特勒极端表现出的对权力的基本欲望仍然是发动第二次世界大战的主导因素，而不管结构性因素如何。这一分析呼应了科林·格雷关于伯罗奔尼撒战争所表现出的特征在二十世纪和二十一世纪仍然相关的观点，并说明了现实主义的相关性。
A further crucial difference between the two strands is the role of political belief or governance. Classic Realism has always established this consideration. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Hirohito all had what was classed as un-democratic governances. Stalin, with a similar totalitarian system had initially signed a pact with Hitler, it was only the latter’s covetousness for supremacy that scuppered that particular alliance, illustrating the pessimistic nature of traditional Realism, not being able to trust other actors. Conversely, Neo-Realists, led by Waltz concluded that there is no “differentiation of function between different units, i.e. all states perform roughly the same role” (Halliday, 1994). Neo-Realism came at a time where the system had altered from what classic Realism was founded upon, a pre-war world of several great powers. The Cold War heralded a bi-polar system, dominant on nuclear weapons rendering the differing ideologies and political regimes irrelevant, it was the system that prevailed. Furthermore, America propped up highly undemocratic regimes throughout the Cold War in Asia, South America and the Middle East. Suggesting classic Realist arguments of governance systems is incomplete (Merhasimer, 2013).
这两条线之间的另一个关键区别是政治信仰或治理的作用。经典现实主义始终确立了这种考虑。希特勒、墨索里尼、佛朗哥和裕仁都拥有被归类为非民主政府的政府。斯大林最初与希特勒签署了一项类似极权制度的条约，但希特勒对霸权的贪婪才使这一联盟化为乌有，说明了传统现实主义的悲观性质，无法信任其他行动者。相反，以华尔兹为首的新现实主义者得出的结论是，“不同单位之间的功能没有区别，即所有国家都扮演着大致相同的角色”。新现实主义出现的时候，这个体系已经从建立在古典现实主义基础上的一个由几个大国组成的战前世界发生了变化。冷战预示着一个两极体系，在核武器上占主导地位，使得不同的意识形态和政治制度变得无关紧要，正是这种体系占了上风。此外，在整个冷战期间，美国在亚洲、南美和中东支持高度不民主的政权。提出治理系统的经典现实主义论点是不完整的。
Traditional Realism witnessed a degree of a resurgence post-9/11, the event itself and the subsequent fallout was deemed textbook of classic Realism. Actors had to employ self-help and act unilaterally to stop attacks and an assault on the states survival. 9/11 produced a real illustration to the strength non-state actors can have on the international relations. Although Neo-Realism maintains the classic theory consideration of state primacy, it does reference non-state actors as relevant in the international system. Additional actors however must adapt to the actions of states Waltz suggests, “When the crunch comes, states remake the rules by which other actors operate.” (Waltz, 1979, p94) Furthermore, America’s democratic crusade dubbed ‘the war on terror’ was viewed as traditional Realism in action, inferring Morgenthau’s consideration of autocracy vs. democracy. However, Neo Realists will reference American support for very non-democratic states, such as its unwavering support for Saudi Arabia as the system still triumphing over the state and its form of governance. The actions of the US tie in with Mearsheimer’s offensive Realist outlook to seek hegemony, “great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.” (Merhasimer, 2001)
传统写实主义在9·11事件后有一定程度的复苏，事件本身及其后果被视为经典写实主义的教科书。行动者必须采取自助和单方面行动，以阻止袭击和对国家生存的袭击。9·11事件真实地说明了非国家行为者在国际关系中的力量。虽然新现实主义保持了对国家至上的经典理论考虑，但它确实提到了与国际体系相关的非国家行为者。然而，沃尔兹建议，其他行动者必须适应国家的行动，“当危机来临时，国家重新制定其他行动者运作的规则。”此外，被称为“反恐战争”的美国民主十字军东征被视为传统的现实主义行动，由此推断出摩根索对独裁与民主的思考。然而，新现实主义者将提及美国对非常非民主国家的支持，例如，当沙特的体制及其治理形式仍在战胜国家时，美国对沙特的坚定支持。美国的行动与米尔斯海默的进攻性现实主义霸权观相契合，“大国认识到，确保其安全的最佳方式是现在实现霸权，从而消除另一个大国挑战的任何可能性。只有被误导的国家才会放弃成为体系中霸权的机会，因为它认为自己已经有足够的力量生存下去。”
Conclusion 结论
In conclusion whilst both strands of Realism remain constant in key areas such as the anarchic state, unitary actors and the importance of Power. Neo-Realism presents a shift away from the traditional theories offering a tangible alternative to the corruptible human nature consideration being the root of the cause conflict, as exemplified aptly by the debate on the outbreak of World War Two. However, the crucial point of departure that Neo-Realism provides is the importance given to the international system over the state, claiming that traditional Realism is inhibited by its methodology, failing to explain behaviour of an entity above the nation state. Neo-Realism allows for co-operation among states at a higher level than Realism permits, this provides an opportunity to succeed in achieving absolute and relative gains. The concept flourished during the Cold War, rejecting Morgenthau’s system of governance analysis, suggesting that states behave the same regardless whether it’s democratic or not. Neo-Realists still maintain this is relevant. Classic Realists disagree using the events of this century to prove that its methodology was always correct.
In Sum, the two differ fundamentally on approach, Neo-Realism seeks to offer a systematic and scientific approach that they believe is lacking in traditional Realism; according to its proponents it complements the original theory by correcting its fallacies, building on classic Realism emphasis on self-interest, power and the state, challenging the human nature concept and behaviour above state level.
Bibliography 参考文献
Ashley, R K, 1984. ‘The Poverty of Neo-Realism’. International Organisation , 38/02, pp. 255-286.
Donnelly, J 2000 Realism and International Relations. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Evans, G and Newham R, 1998. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. 1st ed. London: Penguin
Fox, W, 1985. ‘E H Carr and Political Realism: Vision and Revision’, Review of International Studies 11/1 , pp.1-16.
Gellman, P , 1988. ‘Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Political Realism’. Review of International Studies, 14/04, pp.247-266.
Gray, C. S, 2009. ‘The 21st Century security environment and the future of war’. Parameters, XXXVIII (4). pp. 14-26.
Halliday, F, 1994. Rethinking International Relations. 1st ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
Harrison, E. 2002, Waltz, Kant and Systemic Approaches to International Relations, Review of International Studies 28(1), 2002.
Jervis, R, 1994. ‘Hans Morgenthau, Realism and the Study of International Politics’, Social Research 61(Winter)_, pp. 853-876 .
Mearsheimer, J J, 2013. “Structural Realism,” in Rex Warner eds., M. Finlay Translates. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 77-93.
Mearsheimer, J J, 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company
Morgenthau , H J, 1948. Politics Among Nations. 1st ed. New York: Knopf.
Nye, J, 2007. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History in political science. 6th ed. Pearson Longman: New York.
Thucydides, 1972. History of the Peloponnesian War M.I Finley eds,
Translated by Rex Warner Penguin: London.
Waltz, K, 2001, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. 2nd Revised edition. New York: Colombia University Pres.
Waltz, K. 2000, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, 25(1).
Waltz, K, 1979. Theory of International Politics . 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Essay范文结论总结尽管现实主义的两股力量在关键领域保持不变，如无政府状态、单一行动者和权力的重要性。新现实主义提出了一种对传统理论的转变，为作为原因冲突根源的腐败人性考虑提供了一种切实可行的替代方案，第二次世界大战爆发的辩论就是一个很好的例子。然而，新现实主义提供的关键出发点是国际体系对国家的重要性，声称传统现实主义受到其方法论的抑制，无法解释民族国家之上实体的行为。新现实主义允许各国在现实主义允许的更高水平上进行合作，这为成功实现绝对和相对收益提供了机会。这一概念在冷战期间蓬勃发展，拒绝了摩根索的治理体系分析，表明无论国家是否民主，其行为都是一样的。新现实主义者仍然认为这是相关的。经典现实主义者不同意用本世纪的事件来证明其方法论始终是正确的。
二者在方法上有着根本的不同，新现实主义试图提供一种他们认为传统现实主义所缺乏的系统而科学的方法；据其支持者称，它通过纠正其谬误来补充原始理论，以强调私利、权力和国家的经典现实主义为基础，挑战国家层面以上的人性概念和行为。本站提供各国各专业Essay写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。