Robert Schuett has written:

'Political realism, Freud, and human nature in international relations' -- subject(s): Human behavior, Philosophy, International relations, Realism

Roger D. Spegele has written:

'Critical Thinking in International Relations'

'The political thought of Joseph Conrad'

'Political realism in international theory' -- subject(s): Philosophy, International relations, Realism

The main difference between the two is in their view of the causes of conflict in international relations. Classical realism puts an emphasis on the self-interested and unchanging human nature which therefore makes states self-interested and power seeking units. Neo-realism, on the other hand, argues that the conflict in international relations can be explained by the state of anarchy: lack of overarching authority in IR which pushes individual states to seek power (self-help system).

Yes, the realist approach is one of the prominent perspectives in studying international relations. Realism emphasizes the importance of power dynamics, state interests, and the competitive nature of the international system in shaping state behavior. While it has faced criticism for its focus on conflict and state-centric view, it remains a valuable framework for understanding international relations.

Realism and neo-realism are both valuable perspectives in international relations theory, each with its strengths. Realism emphasizes the importance of power, self-interest, and the nature of states in the international system, while neo-realism, or structural realism, focuses on the impact of the structure of the international system on state behavior. The choice of which theory is "better" depends on the specific research question or context being examined.