Small States and International

Relations

By Rob Kevlihan

Overview

Introduction: What constitutes a “small state‟ ?

Theories of International Relations

Classical realism and neo-realism

Liberalism and institutionalism

World Systems and Dependency

Constructivist

Implications for small states

Introduction

What constitutes a “small state” ?

Geographical size, size of population?

Question of relative or absolute power?

How is power defined? – military, economic,

defensive, offensive?

Context of “smallness”: Local, regional or

global?

Introduction

International relations and small states

IR theory typically focuses on the behavior and

interests of the powerful

The international system is also frequently defined in

terms of power distributions – for example, balance of

power theory

Most modern IR theorists come from powerful

(western) states

But; empirical reality – 190 + states – how many are

actually powerful?

Major schools of IR

Three major arguments:

Realist – that human nature or the system

defines the behavior of states

Liberal - that domestic state / society relations

define state ends and as such state behavior

Constructivist: that states can define the

nature of their interactions – the realist zero

sum game is not inevitable.

Theories on International

Relations

Characteristics of Classical Realism

Reductive view of power

Dark view of human nature

Risk Averse

Classical realism

Reductive view of power

Thucydides “Since you know as well as we do

that right, as the world goes, is only in

question between equals in power, while the

strong do what they can and the weak suffer

what they must.”

Classical Realism

Dark View of Human Nature

Thomas Hobbes: „The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short‟

In the absence of an overarching law (anarchy), man lives in a state of war

Morgenthau: Only through working with the forces of human nature, rather than against them, by ever balancing interests, that moral principles can be realized.

Classical Realism

Risk Averse

Machiavelli – It is better to be feared than

loved

EH Carr – “the conservatism of realism”

Morgenthau - realism „aims at the realization

of the lesser evil rather than of the absolute

good‟

Classical Realism

Outcome: the self fulfilling prophesy of realism:

Worst case scenario assumption about states

intentions leads states to adopt realist positions

Implications for small states

Small states are essentially pawns in “the great

game” played between larger states and should use

whatever (small) advantages they have to maintain

(limited) autonomy of action and (relative) freedom

from external domination

Classical Realism

But

Moral aspect in some later writers (Carr, Morgenthau)

Bounded definitions of what constitutes international relations Morgenthau: IR = activities normally undertaken

where power is considered

Carr: Politics defined as power politics, with international co-operation divided into the „political‟ and „non-political‟

Neo-realism

Focus on the implications of anarchy,

rather than on human nature

More systemic approach that is concerned

with relative power

System defined by the most powerful

states

Neo-realism

Waltz: Theory of International Politics “Continuities” in international relations - balance of

power the ultimate outcome

Forces are shaped by the very existence of other states as well as interactions between them and will persist as long as none of the competing units can convert the anarchic international system into a hierarchic one

socialization and competition are the two invisible hands of the international system that lead to a persistence in outcomes

Neo-realism

Waltz / contd. Capability of states is brought to the fore, with small

or weaker states been mostly unimportant for Waltz‟s analysis.

With respect to the distribution of these capabilities, Waltz highlights the importance of relative power, with the distribution of capabilities being a function of the number of great powers.

This results in a self help approach by states to other states that involves the use of realpolitick. Realist behavior is necessary in order for states to ensure their survival in the system

Neo-realism

Alliance formation in the realist system

Walt: Balancing or band-wagoning behavior likely from

small states in response to the system of balance of power;

Not just a question of power: states will ally with or against the most threatening power.

As a result aggregate power, proximity, offensive capability and offensive intentions all play a role in deciding state behavior

Neo-realism

More aggressive variant

Mearsheimer‟s Offensive Realism

All states strive to be the global hegemon

But, global hegemony is not possible; best case

scenario as regional hegemon with ability to

project power into other regions

Regional hegemons will therefore seek to keep

other potential hegemons from emerging

Neo realism

Mearsheimer / contd. Greater range of strategies possible for states

(including small states): War, blackmail, bait and bleed (where states try to weaken

rivals by provoking a long war between them), bloodletting (taking measures to ensure that any war will be costly), balancing and buckpassing, appeasement and band-wagoning.

However, actual choice in a realist world frequently comes down to balancing or buck-passing in the face of threatening states, with states preferring buck-passing whenever possible

Liberalism

Classical liberalism is frequently equated

with the straw man of idealism (or

utopianism)

Naive reliance on

International law (e.g. The Kellogg Briand pact

outlawing war)

The power of international public opinion

And / or interdependency due to trade relations

Liberalism

Modern variant emphasizes the importance of domestic factors

State cannot be treated as “black box”

The character of the state determines or influences how it will act in the international system: for example: Democratic peace argument

Allison‟s bureaucratic influences on foreign policy

Role of interest groups (Putnam‟s two level game)

Liberalism

Implications for small states Reliance on idealist principles proved inadequate for

many states in the 1930s

However, post WWII, sovereignty has proved to be a more effective shield for states (if not regimes governing those states)

Democracies may take some assurance from the presence of other democracies in their region, even ones that are more powerful.

Alliances based on common interests may be possible across borders, again, depending on the openness of the systems involved

Institutionalism

Sometimes classified as a variant of liberalism, sometimes treated separately

Focus is on international institutions both global (e.g. UN, WTO, IMF, WB), and regional (e.g. EU, SCO, ASEAN, AU, OAS etc.) levels, and on international regimes (environmental protection, human rights etc)

Debate focuses on degree to which these institutions and regimes are creatures of the most powerful or are autonomous entities

Institutionalism

Realist interpretations

Mearsheimer Institutions designed by and suit the needs of the

powerful

Keohane Even realists have mutual interests.

Institutions are typically established to serve the interests of the global hegemon, but with their decline, these institutions can still serve a purpose –reduction in transaction costs, ability to make side payments and reduction in uncertainty

Institutionalism

Liberal interpretations

Haas

Importance of international communities of experts (epistemic communities) in defining states interests

Young

Regimes, often nested in institutional arrangements, offer new ways for decentralized global governance

Institutionalism

Implications for small states

International institutions may provide some scope for

small states to have a greater influence, depending

on circumstances

These institutions may benefit small states to a

disproportionate extent because of their benefits –

reducing transaction costs, reduction in uncertainty

etc.

However, they may further bind the smaller state to

the policies and interests of larger states

World Systems and Dependency

Marxist analysis – must consider global

division of labor and production

Center vs Periphery, with system self

sustaining

Role of elites in both center and periphery

in maintaining the status quo.

World Systems and Dependency

Implications for small states

Very difficult for small states to change their

relative position in the world system

Such states may not even “wish” to, if

governing elites find the current insertion to

be to their benefit

Constructivism

Wendt

“Anarchy is what states make of it” – i.e. states, acting

collectively, that can determine how international

affairs are conducted.

Direct response to Waltz

The way in which the international system works is a

function of socially constructed meanings between

states

Different kinds of anarchy – Hobbesian, Lockean and

Kantian

Constructivism

Implications for small states

Most of the time throughout most of the world,

states get along fine.

Most states recognize this – probabilistic

rather than possibilistic approach to

international relations

However, there are times when small states

may be part of a Hobbesian system

Constructivism

Cutting edge? Wendt‟s Application of quantum theory to IR (2004 /

05) Supports post modern approach from a scientific realist base

States identities and relations formed in the moments of interaction between states and are not “objective” or “separate”

Process of interaction at moments of interaction that count, rather than any essential qualities inherent in states

Implications for small states Constant process of creating identity and defining nature of

insertion in the international system.

Conclusions

For small states, a lot depends on local

circumstances

The kind of neighborhood you find yourself in

Exactly how small are you relatively speaking

What advantages do you possess (e.g. Switzerland)

The climate of the times – the local nature of anarchy

The alliances that you form (including institutional

attachments)

The issues at stake

Final Conclusion

Politics is more an art than a science –

and never more so than in international

relations

All the theories of IR have something to

offer. Deciding when the insights of any

one are more persuasive remains the

challenge.