As a summary, let us compare the major propositions of neo-liberalism and neo-realism, and analyze their major points of disagreement. First of all is the nature of relative anarchy. Both liberalism and realism, claim that international system is anarchical, and they also claim that it is relatively, not absolutely anarchical. But the reason of this relative, or limited anarchy is different for neo-liberalism and neo-realism. Whereas neo-liberals claim that this relative anarchy can be mitigated through international institutions, regimes, law, and values, realists argue that anarchy can only be reduced through a structure of international system. That is through distribution of power. Another crucial disagreement between neo-liberalism and neo-realism is about possibility, or likelihood of cooperation in international system. For neo-realists, international cooperation is quite hard to achieve, difficult to manage, and ultimately cooperation depends on the distribution of power. Again, it is the structure of international system which either promotes, or rather limits cooperation. Whereas neo-liberals claim that cooperation is much easier, and the major reason for cooperation is mutual interest. If you have mutual interest, you would cooperate despite the differences of the power distribution. The third disagreement between neo-liberalism and neo-realism is the discourse about absolute and relative gains. Neo-liberals claim that common interest compel states to maximize absolute gains. And thus in order to get absolute gains just to achieve something, states ignore relative gains. For neo-realists it's the contrary. They state that states are concerned about relative gains more than absolute gains, and they wants to get more, because relative gains impact the distribution of power. And states do not want the others to be more powerful, to become more powerful, than themselves as a result of this cooperation. And finally, neo-realists claim that international order always follows the distribution of power. If power shifts, the existing order ends, and then is surpassed by another order based on a new distribution of power. Whereas neo-liberals, such as John Ikenberry and his study of order, argue that liberal international order can survive the change of power distribution. And as Ikenberry claims, the relative decline of the United States does not result in the demise of the existing liberal international order. The liberal international order continues to exist, if you want in the post-American world. This is all about neoliberalism. Thank you very much for your attention.