Link to article

Why is it important to know about this theory?

It is a classic text in the field of small-state studies. This text has contributed to a better understanding of the role of small states in the international political system. To understand and master the important subject of small states, it is a must-read.

Academic framework

In this chapter of their book, the authors state that the aim of their book is to “identify the main features, challenges and opportunities facing the politics of small states today”.  The politics of small states has changed as globalisation has taken the world by storm. Globalisation has enabled them to boost their economies through trade and thus their security, but has also increased their vulnerability and dependence on global problems such as mass migration, terrorism, money laundering and environmental degradation. The emergence of global institutions has given them a more powerful voice among the major players in international diplomacy but, on the other hand, it has limited their autonomy and, more importantly, increased the pressure on their already scarce diplomatic and administrative resources.

In this chapter, the authors have three objectives. The first is to find an appropriate, functional and pragmatic definition of “small states”. The second is to define, starting from the definition and then from three dilemmas of small-state politics, the framework within which small states operate politically. The third objective is to briefly summarise the book’s findings and indicate what lessons can be drawn from further research.

For many concepts in international relations, there is no concrete scientific consensus on their definition. Debates over the definition of “small states” (which have dominated the study of small states over the past 50 years) may hinder comparisons and theorisation, but have also provided opportunities to study the concept with different perspectives using a pluralistic approach.  The authors distinguish three main definitions of the concept of small states.

Three main definitions of small states

Ideal type 1: ‘non-major’ powers

Here, small states are defined as all states that are not major powers. A great power is defined by its ability to maintain the stability of the international system and international law (by possessing a nuclear weapon or one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council or by owning an aircraft carrier), and by its power to write international law. Small states are thus merely recipients of the rule and have little or nothing to say about it. 

Although this poses a number of problems. Recent power shifts (the Brexit and its impact on Germany, for example) have made it unclear in recent years what is a major power and what is not. Small states are thus defined as a residual category.

Ideal type 2: Material assessment

Here, the criterion for distinguishing small states from powerful states is the absolute or relative material capacity of small states. These are relatively low for small states because they do not necessarily have the population size to compete with other states. The material assessment can give an idea of a state’s military strength, its ability to assert its will at the national and international level, and thus can provide an assessment of a state’s power.

Again, there are some problems with the definition. First, there is no clear distinction between large and small states. Second, the focus on material inevitably leads to a focus on a state’s military capacity, which does not necessarily reflect the state’s power to intervene convincingly and influentially diplomatically or economically; but only its power to ensure its military survival and ability to intervene.

Ideal type 3: political constructions

Here, the criterion is based on how the state itself, other states, institutions and the population see itself and other states, knowing that the definition is a political construct. This definition differs power concepts, and security concepts from the other two definitions.

Authors’ definition:

Small states are defined by the limited capacity of their political, economic and administrative systems and by the fact that they tend to find themselves “the weaker party in an asymmetrical relationship, unable to change the nature or functioning of that relationship by themselves”.[1].

The three dilemmas of small-state politics

The nationalist/cosmopolitan dilemma

Nationalism is necessary for the survival of small states, because it creates a unifying socio-cultural fabric with a historical narrative that legitimises the state and unites the people, but on the other hand, they must contain and/or delegitimise the national interests of the great powers, as these can threaten their scope of action or, worse, their survival.

The democratisation/groupthink dilemma

In small countries, democracy seems more present and effective than in large states because the distance between the political elite and the population is smaller and the political coherence between the two is greater. But polarisation and pluralism, combined with limited political choice, complicate democracy. It can lead to a political elite without sufficient counterbalance, leading to insufficient innovation or corruption.

The influence/autonomy dilemma

New technologies and recent developments have changed the situation. The threats and opportunities of small states are no longer confined to their geopolitical environment. The post-1945 world is organised in institutions, in multilateral trade agreements. Small states therefore have more influence than before, but on the other hand, their autonomy is threatened and must also be protected. This is because other countries also have more influence over them than before.

Key findings and future research directions

First, limited capacities and capabilities have an absolute dimension, a relative dimension and a relational dimension. Small countries have limited agency. They also have limited competition, personal relationships and a small idea market. In bilateral agreements, they are in a weak position.  But institutions matter. Through appropriate design and management of national and international institutions, small states can better deal with the challenges arising from their limited capacities and capabilities.

Small states attract the attention of major powers and the international community when they are seen as potentially dangerous or when they need urgent assistance. Today, small states remain constrained in their actions and trapped in asymmetric relationships, making them dependent and threatening their values and interests. They also take advantage of their weakness, giving them more room to act and adopt survival strategies.

---

[1] Archer, Clive, Alyson J.K. Bailes, and Anders Wivel, eds. Small States and International Security: Europe and Beyond. 1st ed. Routledge, 2014, 9. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315798042.