The concurrences and variances in the outlooks of the neo-realists and neo-liberalist have already presented joint work of American neo-realists and neo-liberals which is published in 1993 by Columbia University Press. David Baldwin who edited and acted as an arbitrator, found six major arguments describing the points of two directions: 1) Neo-liberals are aware that the global political system is categorized by some “anarchy”. Unlike the neo-realists, who emphasize the fundamental importance of international system, Neo-liberals have confidence in specific models of interactions developed among countries (R.Akselrod, R.Keohane). 2) The neo-realists and the neo-liberals share similar views that international collaboration is possible. However, unlike neo-liberals, the neo-realists opine that cooperation is difficult and reliant to government authorities. 3) Neo-realists stress that partnerships bring relative profits and for neo-liberals it is undeniably valuable for its contributors. 4) The enthusiasts of both methodologies come to an agreement that such priorities of countries as state power and economic strength; however, neo-realists emphasize the significance to the primary priority, and bear beards to the subsequent priorities. 5) The neo-realists, unlike the neo-liberals, stress the significance of the real likelihoods, the resources of countries rather than their political objectives. 6) Lastly, the neo-realists realize the impacts and impacts of international organizations on foreign relations, but are certain of the fact that neo-liberals overstate their significance.Few American authors, including J. Hertz, I. Claud, D. Nye, cogitate the differences in theories between neo-liberalism and neo-realism as insignificant and even opine that they have the same views of “realistic liberalism”.1 According to those position both theories agree that states are the primary actors in international relations, in addition to that they also agree that states act rational self-interest. Each theories view that states are confronted with anarchy as an obstacle cooperation.