Suchergebnisse

1. Portugal and Iceland: Foreign policy constructed by smallness? -- 2. Portugal, the European Union and Shelter Theory -- 3. A Reluctant European: Iceland and European integration -- 4. Portugal and NATO: enduring alliance or necessary shelter? -- 5. The Small State and the Superpower: Iceland's Relations with the United States -- 6. Iceland´s Relations with the Nordic States -- 7. Portugal's contemporary relations with Africa: a limited shelter? -- 8. Sino-Icelandic Relations -- 9. The many shades of shelter: Portugal and Iceland´s quest for political, economic and societal shelter.

In The Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (1972: 402) highlights the effects of the general, overall weakness of smaller states vis-à-vis larger, more powerful ones in a key passage, where the Athenians remind the Melians that: "… since you know as well as we do that, as the world goes, right is only in question between equals in power. Meanwhile, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Concerns about the vulnerability of small, weak, isolated states have echoed throughout history: from Thucydides, through the review by Machiavelli (1985) of the risks of inviting great powers to intervene in domestic affairs, through 20th century US-led contemporary political science (Vital, 1971; Handel, 1990) and Commonwealth led scholarship (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1985). In the context of 20th century 'Balkanization', the small state could also prove unstable, even hostile and uncooperative, a situation tempting enough to invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbours: a combination, according to Brzezinski (1997: 123-124) of a power vacuum and a corollary power suction2: in the outcome, if the small state is 'absorbed', it would be its fault, and its destiny, in the grand scheme of things. In an excellent review of small states in the context of the global politics of development, Payne (2004: 623, 634) concludes that "vulnerabilities rather than opportunities are the most striking consequence of smallness". It has been recently claimed that, since they cannot defend or represent themselves adequately, small states "lack real independence, which makes them suboptimal participants in the international system" (Hagalin, 2005: 1). There is however, a less notable and acknowledged but more extraordinary strand of argumentation that considers 'the power of powerlessness', and the ability of small states to exploit their smaller size in a variety of ways in order to achieve their intended, even if unlikely, policy outcomes. The pursuance of smaller state goals becomes paradoxically acceptable and achievable precisely because such smaller states do not have the power to leverage disputants or pursue their own agenda. A case in point concerns the smallest state of all, the Vatican, whose powers are both unique and ambiguous, but certainly not insignificant (The Economist, 2007). Smaller states have "punched above their weight" (e.g. Edis, 1991); and, intermittently, political scientists confront their "amazing intractability" (e.g. Suhrke, 1973: 508). Henry Kissinger (1982: 172) referred to this stance, with obvious contempt, as "the tyranny of the weak"3. This paper seeks a safe passage through these two, equally reductionist, propositions. It deliberately focuses first on a comparative case analysis of two, distinct 'small state-big state' contests drawn from the 1970s, seeking to infer and tease out the conditions that enable smaller 'Lilliputian' states (whether often or rarely) to beat their respective Goliaths. The discussion is then taken forward to examine whether similar tactics can work in relation to contemporary concerns with environmental vulnerability, with a focus on two other, small island states. Before that, the semiotics of 'the small state' need to be explored, since they are suggestive of the perceptions and expectations that are harboured by decision makers at home and abroad and which tend towards the self-fulfilling prophecy. ; peer-reviewed

"Small State Foreign Policy" published on by Oxford University Press.

This essay provides an overview of the literature in the field of small states studies. It analyses the development of the discipline, and in particular how vulnerability and a lack of capacity – core concepts of the early small state literature – have dominated the discipline ever since. It also explores how realism, liberalism and constructivism respectively approach the study of small states. However, we also outline how the focus has over time slowly shifted from the challenges associated with smallness to opportunities. There is considerable literature across various disciplines that helps us to better understand small states in International Relations; but there remains a largely unexplored field of inquiry about small states which needs to be thoroughly examined and theorised. Studies of small states have never been as relevant as today, given the increasing number of small states and with many small territories that are potential candidates for independence. ; peer-reviewed

The study of small states has seen a revival since the end of the Cold War, but despite recent developments in our knowledge and understanding of small state politics, we know comparatively little about the historical context of present conditions and policies. As is the case of the study of politics and international relations in general, the study of small states is dominated by studies of the present and very recent past with little more than symbolic nods towards historical developments upon which present opportunities and challenges are based. In this context, Matthias Maass's Small states in world politics. The story of small state survival 1648-2016 is a welcome and important contribution. In his highly ambitious book, Maass traces the history of small state survival from the inception of the modern states system by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 up until the present (2016). Defining small states as "units that are individually irrelevant to the states system" (p. 31), Maass draws on Classical and Structural Realism and English School-thinking to compose a broad theoretical framework. This framework allows him to emphasize the continued importance of power politics over the centuries, while detecting how changing norms on war and conquest transform the nature of power politics and therefore the conditions for small state survival. ; N/A

The aim of this article is to analyze the concept of small states in the discipline of International Relations to show differences and contradictions in the definition and to discuss the literature on foreign policy and alliance behavior of small states. The article emphasizes that there has not been a single approach to the definition of small states and there is diversity in the studies dealing with foreign policy and alliance behavior of these states. While the article enables us to question to what extent this diversity makes the category of small states meaningful, on the other hand, it tries to show that this situation reflects the developments and theoretical discussions in the discipline. Differences in defining small states and diversity of foreign policy and alliance behavior lead scholars, who benefit from contending theories of International Relations, to deal with the category of small states from different perspectives.

"What is the story behind the paradoxical survival of small and weak states in a world of great powers and crude power politics? And what explains the dramatic rise and fall in the number of states overtime, following no consistent trend and not showing an immediately obvious direction or pattern? The answers lie at the system-level: Small states survival is shaped by the international states system. Small state survival and proliferation is determined first and foremost by features of and dynamics created at the states system. As the states system changes and evolves the chances for small states to survive or proliferate change as well. In fact, a quantitive investigation confirms this, showing that over the course of more than 3ư centuries, the number of small states did fluctuate widely and at times dramatically. In sum, the small state security is shaped by exogenous, systemic factors, not by small states' own foreign policies."--

The purpose of this paper is to redress the relative shortage of small power studies, expand the theoretical understanding pertaining to this peculiar type of states and reassert the term 'small power' in the relevant literature. The field of international relations (IR) that is devoted to small powers is limited, at least when compared to the material available for larger powers, as small powers were seemingly neglected during the Cold War era. However, small powers today have increased in numbers, as has their impact on the international system; hence, it is imperative that all pertinent definitions and attributes of small powers are examined in order to challenge the consistency and credibility of the term 'small state' over 'small power', as different connotations apply in either case. Adapted from the source document.

In recent decades, the idea that world politics is hierarchical rather than anarchic in nature has gained traction, with the quest for social status as one defining feature of interstate relations. Until recently, however, this field of research has primarily focused on the social status of great powers and overlooked the pursuit of international prestige and esteem among states of lesser standing. Benjamin de Carvalho and Iver B. Neumann's edited volume Small state status seeking sets out to address this lacuna. The editors suggest that competing for power supremacy is not really an option for small states. Thus, for the Lilliputians of the world, social status often becomes 'the only game in town'. As the introductory chapter suggests, small powers like Norway exemplify this attitude by seeking to project moral authority by being acknowledged as a good, reliable partner and honest broker to the major powers. It has pursued the good power. The book foregoes broad generalisations to inductively explore the numerous forms of non-great power strategies for status-seeking, which it then suggests could offer a fruitful basis for other comparative projects. ; N/A

Foreign policies and diplomatic relations.

Thorhallsson is an Icelander, and he never misses the opportunity to illustrate his argument is direct application to the history of Iceland, as it has unfolded since the Middle Ages and right up to the current historical moment. This is skilfully done in this book by means of six chapters, in each of which Baldur Thorhallsson is a co-author. The policy dilemmas are stark, and these are at the core of the book's arguments. Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the Schengen Treaty and a candidate country for EU accession, with however a political spectrum and a voting public that are largely not well disposed to joining the EU. Iceland is well integrated into the structures of Nordic cooperation, but none of the Nordic countries could offer Iceland comprehensive shelter. ; N/A