Power concept, national power, human factor are at the forefront for realism. Realist writers claim that state is a basic actor of international arena. According to realist writers; human beings are bad, sinner, self-interested. They are attacker in their relations, so states are liken to human beings by this way. Power and self-interested are important for state in international arena. On the other hand, liberalists writers refuse that state, power and national power are basic actor in international system. Freedom of individual is basic concept for liberals. According to John Locke: Human beings were free in state of nature, so state of nature was state of freedom. The state was created to ensure own freedom. There are some differences between liberal, realist theories, but realism and liberalism are analised by two way in themselves. Neo-realism ( structural realism ) and neoliberalism.

In realist understanding, there is a contrast in relations between congregation and state. The basic actor is state in international system, but they are not against international institution and co-operation. Kenneth Waltz is different from classical realism understanding. He try to explain international political system by scientific perspective way. In classical understanding, nature of human beings were selfish, attacker, self-interested, but structural realism try to explain international relations by anarchical perspective of international system. System is managed by people, but neorealism focus on system, so Walt's realism does not care state control and diplomacy. There is a difference between structural and classical realism from point of center of decision making. In a word, external factors are effective. Waltz claim that anarchical nature of international system is different from domestic policy and domestic policy (government ) acts limited border. He analises bipolar system and multipolar system and he focuses on bipolar system, because the system is more balanced. In multipolar system, security and peace are not talked about. According to neorealists; the basic feature of international system is that security and survive on. On the other hand; Hans Morgenthau claims that international system are managed by competion factor in human nature.

The basic difference is that the state is more effective than individuals . According to neoliberal understanding; states are uniter, rational, egoist actors. That is to say, states are billiard balls that focus on self-interested. Neoliberals say that international institutions are important to solve war problem in anarchical system. The co-operation is easier than realist understanding. According to neoliberals; What do states co-operate between each other? Unceartinty, credible commitment confidentiality...

Neoliberal theory is alternative of realism, and there are some differences between neo and classical liberalism. When differences are analised, the extrincis factors are analised primarly, the international factors are importtant in international politic. There are some similarity between structural liberalism and neo realism. Both of them identify international system as an anarchy. According to them; international co-operation is possible. The military force is more important than economic power for neorealists, and economic power is important neoliberals.

After scholastic thought and feodalism, liberalism come into existence. Middle ages system has not had enough conditions to develop liberalism. In middle age in Europe, international system has had two basic actor Church and Feodalism. Talking about freedom, individual freedom, national state were not possible. The renaissance and reform laid the foundations of liberal understanding. As a result, there are some similarity between neo-neo theories, and are some differences. Two extreme theory that are liberalism and realism, they found common point by the neo-neo theory. The state is basic actor for both of them, but neorealism understanding claims that co-operation and institutionalism are important in international system, at the same time realist approach was against congregation, but structural realist writers agree with neoliberalists about domestic policy. In conclusion, neorealism is middle point for liberalism, neoliberalism is middle point for realism.

Mücahit Bayram IŞIK