Abstract
In traditional political thought, as reflected by Henri Rousseau or Charles de Montesquieu, the qualification of a state as „small“ in the context of foreign and security policy meant that such a state was perceived as no danger to neighboring states. Small states were seen as fragile creatures in the rough sea of international relations. They were internally well suited for democratic regimes but externally helpless and constantly threatened by extinction.1 This view of small states was partly a myth based on political romanticism and idealization of the small size of nations,2 partly explainable by the nature of the existing international system3 which was far less governed by the rule of law than it is today. With democracy well established in large states as well and the principle of sovereign equality of states generally accepted and anchored in the Charter of the UN, what significance does the concept of the small state retain? Does it still have any significance at all?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eduard Sieber (1920): Die Idee des Kleinstaates bei den Denkern des 18. Jahrhunderts in Frankreich und Deutschland, Basle (Verlag der Basler Bücherstube, Kobers Buch- und Kunsthandlung).
For the different myths regarding small states, see the contribution of Daniel Thiirer in this volume.
An international system is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between themselves, and have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions to cause them to behave — at least in some measures — as parts of a whole. Hedley Bull (19772): The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics, New York (Columbia University Press), p. 9.
Peter R. Baehr (1974:1): Small States. A Tool for Analyses?, in: World Politics (vol. XXVII), pp. 456–466
Wilhelm Christmas-Möller: Some Thoughts on the Scientific Applicability of the Small State Concept. A Research History and Discussion, in: Otmar Höll (ed.) (1983): Small States in Europe and Dependence (The Laxenburg Papers, 6), Vienna (Braumüller), pp. 35–53.
Harold D. Lasswell (1962): Power and Personality, New York (W.W. Norton), p. 16.
Hans Morgenthau (19674): Politics among Nations?, New York (Knopf), p. 5.
Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan (1950): Power and Society. A Framework for Political Inquiry, New Haven (Yale University Press), p. 75.
Marshall R. Singer (1972): Weak Sates in a World of Powers. The Dynamics of International Relationships, New York (The Free Press), p. 54.
David Vital (1971): The Survival of Small States. Studies in Small Power / Great Power Conflict, London (Oxford University Press), pp. 6, 50–51; This slightly more elaborated factor has been used for measuring a state’s international importance. Melvin Small and J. David Singer (1973:4): The Diplomatic Importance of States, 1816–1970, in: World Politics (vol. XXV), pp. 577–599.
David Vital (1967): The Inequality of States. A Study of the Small Power in International Relations, Oxford (Clarendon Press), p. 4.
Hakan Wiberg (1987:4): The Security of Small Nations. Challenges and Defences, in: Journal of Peace Research, p. 339; Otmar Höll: Introduction. Towards a Broadening of the Small States Perspective, in: Höll (1983), p. 23 (see note no. 4).
Mario Hirsch (1976:32): Influence without Power. Small States in European Politics, in: The World Today, p. 113.
Robert L. Rothstein (1968): Alliances and Small Powers, New York/London (Columbia University Press), p. 26
George Liska (1957): International Equilibrium, Cambridge, (Harvard University Press), pp. 25 ff..
Thomas C. Schelling (1980): The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge (Harvard University Press), p. 22.
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye (1989): Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition, Boston/Toronto (Little, Brown), p. 11.
Robert O. Keohane (1969:2): Lilliputians’ Dilemma. Small States in International Politics, in: International Organization (vol. XXIII), pp. 295 f..
Rothstein (1968), p. 21 (see note no. 13).
Bull (1977), p. 13 (see note no. 3).
Laurent Goetschel: Kleinstaaten im multilateralen Umfeld der OSZE, in: Laurent Goetschel (ed.) (1997): Vom Statisten zum Hauptdarsteller. Die Schweiz und ihre OSZE-Präsidentschaft, Berne (Haupt), p. 37.
Robert W. Tucker (1977:14): Inequality Among Nations and the Future of International Order, in: The Colorado College Studies, pp. 14–15.
In analogy to Norbert Elias (1976): Über den Prozess der Zivilisation, Frankfurt a.M. (Suhrkamp).
Tucker (1977:14), pp. 14–15 (see note no. 20).
Bull (1977), p. 17 (see note no. 3).
William E. Rappard (1934:49): Small States in the League of Nations, in: Political Science Quarterly, pp. 544–575.
Art. 2§4, Art. 51 UN Charter.
Laurent Goetschel (February 1997): Regional Integration and the Foreign and Security Policy of Small States. A Framework of Analysis, (Paper prepared for the 25th ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops), Berne, p. 7.
Especially in regard to defense issues.
Höll (1983), p. 13 (see note no. 4).
Daniel Frei: Kleinstaatliche Aussenpolitik als Umgang mit Abhängigkeit, in: Daniel Frei (ed.) (1977): Die Schweiz in einer sich wandelnden Welt (Sozialwissenschaftliche Studien des Schweizerischen Instituts für Auslandforschung, Nr. 5), Zurich (Schulthess), p. 203
Hans A. Mouritzen: Defensive Acquiescence. Making the Best out of Dependence, in: Höll (1983), pp. 239–261 (see note no. 4)
Nikolaj Petersen (1977): Adaptation as a Framework for the Analysis of Foreign Policy Behavior, in: Cooperation and Conflict (vol. XII), p. 221–250
Ole Elgström: Active Foreign Policy as a Preventive Strategy Against Dependence, in: Höll (ed.) (1983), pp. 262–280 (see note no. 4).
Morgenthau (1967), p. 305 (see note no. 6).
Bull, (1977), p. 8 (see note no. 3); Daniel Philpott (1995:2): Sovereignty. An Introduction and Brief History, in: Journal of International Affairs (vol. 48), p. 357; Reimund Seidelmann: Souveränität, in: Dieter Nohlen (ed.) (1994: Lexikon der Politik (vol. 6, Internationale Beziehungen, Andreas Boeckh (ed.)), Munich (Beck), p. 493.
Robert O. Keohane: Hobbe’s Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politics. Sovereignty in International Society, in: Hans-Henrik Holm and Georg Sorensen (eds.) (1995): Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End of the Cold War, Boulder (Westview), pp. 165–229
Stephen D. Krasner: Sovereignty. An Institutional Perspective, in: James A. Caporaso (ed.) (1989): The Elusive State. International and Comparative Perspectives, London (Sage), pp. 69–96.
Robert O. Keohane (1989): International Institutions and State Power. Essays, in: International Relations Theory, Boulder (Westview), p. 3.
Krasner (1989), pp. 83–88 (see note no. 32).
Alexander Wendt (1987): The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory, in: International Organization (vol. 41), pp. 335–370.
Keohane/Nye, (1989) (see note no. 15); Keohane (1995), p. 177 (see note no. 32).
Keohane (1995), p. 177 (see note no. 32).
Since the emergence of the modern state system, small states were more often seen as victims of external pressure tactics and forced to enter international agreements which limited their freedom of action more sharply than that of their partner states; Stephen D. Krasner (1995:3): Compromising Westphalia, in: International Security (vol. 20), pp. 147–148.
Morten Kelstrup (February 1997): Integration Policies of Small States, (Paper prepared for the 25th ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops), Berne, p. 11; See also: Frei (1977), p. 202 (see note no. 29).
Daniel Thürer: Kleinstaat — Aussenpolitische Aspekte, in: Arno Waschkuhn (ed.) (1993): Kleinstaat — Grundsätzliche und aktuelle Probleme, (Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, vol. 16), Vaduz (Verlag der Liechtensteinischen Akademischen Gesellschaft), pp. 226–227.
Elgström (1983), pp. 266–272 (see note no. 29).
Germaine de Staël (1913): Über Deutschland, Weimar (Orig.: Paris 1810), p. 67, cited by Anselm Skuhra: Industrialized Small States. Some Comparative Considerations, in: Höli (1983), p. 69 (see note no. 4).
See the contribution of Uffe Balslev in this volume.
See the contributions of Wilhelm Agrell, Andreas Rendl and Teija Tiilikainen in this volume.
Kelstrup (1997), p. 13 (see note no. 39).
See the contribution of Heiner Hänggi in this volume.
Leonard Neidhardt (1982:22): Aspekte der politischen Kommunikation in der Schweiz, in: Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Politische Wissenschaft, p. 21.
Peter J. Katzenstein (1996): The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York (Columbia University Press), p. 28.
Katzenstein (1996), p. 5 (see note no. 48).
Alexander Wendt (1994:2): Collective Identity Formation and the International State, in: American Political Science Review (vol. 88), p. 385.
Katzenstein (1996), p. 2 (see note no. 48).
Wendt (1994:2), (see note no. 50).
Katzenstein (1996), pp. 35–36 (see note no. 48).
Answers to this hypothesis would necessitate thorough comparative case studies between European small states, which lies outside the scope of the present volume.
Little Countries. Small but Perfectly Formed, in: The Economist (3 January 1998), p. 65.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goetschel, L. (1998). The Foreign and Security Policy Interests of Small States in Today’s Europe. In: Goetschel, L. (eds) Small States Inside and Outside the European Union. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2832-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2832-3_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5060-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2832-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive