Sovereignty at the Extremes: Micro-States in World Politics
| Author | JC Sharman |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321716665392 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
665392PSX0010.1177/0032321716665392Political StudiesSharman
research-article2016
Article
Political Studies
2017, Vol. 65(3) 559 –575
Sovereignty at the Extremes:
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Micro-States in World Politics
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716665392
DOI: 10.1177/0032321716665392
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
JC Sharman1,2
Abstract
Micro-states illustrate deep changes in the international system obscured by scholars’ traditional
focus on great powers. Logically, the nature and systemic effects of international anarchy should
be most apparent in relation to the smallest and weakest states, and least apparent in relation to
great powers. Focusing on micro-states suggests a permissive contemporary international system
facilitating the proliferation and survival of states independent of their military and functional
capacities. Micro-states’ lack of great power allies illustrates the irrelevance of military threats
under anarchy, while the presence of an international economic safety net attenuates problems of
economic viability. The lack of association between smallness and delegating sovereignty questions
functional explanations of hierarchy. Instead, varying micro-states strategies of à la carte hierarchy
and selling sovereign prerogatives demonstrate that the current international system presents
even its smallest and weakest members with choices rather than imperatives.
Keywords
micro-states, sovereignty, international system, hierarchy, security
Accepted: 15 June 2016
As a general rule, those studying world politics have sought to explain the nature of the
international system and the actors that constitute it through studying a small, biased
sample of highly unrepresentative units: great powers and super-powers, cases that clus-
ter together at one extreme of many of the most important variables of interest. This
article adopts exactly the opposite approach in studying micro-states to throw new light
on the nature and effects of international anarchy. This new perspective suggests a per-
missive international system that absolves states from the need to meet what were
previously strict security and other functional imperatives, and instead presents even the
smallest and weakest states with a menu of choices to exercise, delegate or sell sovereign
prerogatives.
1Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia
2Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Corresponding author:
JC Sharman, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia.
Email: jcs207@cam.ac.uk; j.sharman@griffith.edu.au
560
Political Studies 65 (3)
This article is framed by two questions. First, what does the proliferation of micro-
states tell us about the nature of the international system? Second, what strategies do
micro-states adopt to take advantage of systemic conditions? The answer to the first is
that micro-states evidence the permissive nature of the international system in both mili-
tary and economic terms. Specifically, their survival and multiplication illustrates the
obsolescence and irrelevance of fears of conquest traditionally said to be an inherent
feature of international anarchy. Their ability to rely on a safety net of development aid
and concessional lending shows the attenuation of the economic self-help principle. The
lack of association between state size and international hierarchy undermines the position
that micro-states face disproportionate systemic pressures to subordinate themselves to
great power patrons. Instead of imperatives, the international system provides micro-
states with a menu of options from which they craft different strategies. These states have
taken a pick-and-choose approach to their sovereign prerogatives: energetically wielding
some, delegating others in selectively forming hierarchical relationships, and commer-
cialising still others. The variation whereby some micro-states delegate or sell sovereign
prerogatives while others do not demonstrates that these strategies are indeed choices,
rather than products of systemic necessity.
How can big questions about the nature of the international system be answered by the
study of tiny places? International Relations is primarily distinguished from the other
sub-fields of political science by the condition of anarchy, said to be so important because
it creates uniquely pressing security concerns (survival in a self-help system) and makes
co-operation especially difficult (market failures and collective action problems). But
these special pressures created by anarchy should be least important for great powers.
They are best able to defend themselves alone. Similarly, they are best able to secure their
economic needs in isolation. For example, thanks to their large economies, great powers
are the least dependent on trade, and thus the least dependent on an open international
trading order (Krasner, 1978). Systemic effects should be most evident in the very weak-
est and smallest states. The imperatives of survival and self-help should press most heav-
ily on micro-states. The problem of co-operation under anarchy, and thus the imperative
to pool and delegate sovereignty to obtain ends that cannot be achieved in isolation,
should also be most acute for micro-states.
The pervasive gigantism of IR has meant that the potential insights from studying small
states are radically under-exploited. John Gerring (2007) notes that in qualitative case
studies selection can be premised on representativeness or variation relative to the general
population. Given that IR scholarship has concentrated so single-mindedly on great
powers, it does not have representativeness. Given that it looks at only one end of the
power spectrum, it does not have variation either. If power is the central concern of those
who study international politics (or any kind of politics), then there is a great deal to
be learned from those who experience its use on the receiving end, rather than just those
who wield it. This observation holds even for those only interested in great powers.
To better understand the nature of the contemporary international system, this article
examines four of the smallest sovereign states in existence: Liechtenstein in Europe, Nauru
in the Pacific, St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean and the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean,
which vary substantially in per capita wealth, geopolitical context and historical back-
ground. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, and especially since the 1960s, there
has been a marked proliferation of small states, an important development which IR schol-
arship has so far done little to explain (Lake and O’Mahony, 2004). These four cases jointly
illustrate key changes in the nature of the international system over time, specifically the
Sharman
561
declining relevance of functional imperatives concerning security competition, economic
self-help and hierarchy. All four were bitterly fought over as great power possessions yet
have been left unmolested as sovereign states. The contemporary anarchic international
system allows for such small, unarmed and unallied states to survive undisturbed, succoured
by outside bail-outs in the event of economic crises. All four were tightly integrated within
imperial hierarchies yet now energetically wield many sovereign prerogatives in a system
that accords them formal equality. The multiplication and survival of these tiny units cannot
be explained by a trend towards international hierarchy, given that states’ propensity to
delegate sovereign prerogatives seems unrelated to functional factors like (dis)economies
of scale reflecting geographic, economic or demographic size. Micro-states play sover-
eignty games in selectively exercising, delegating and selling sovereign powers, from dip-
lomatic recognition to the issuance of postage stamps (Adler-Nissen and Gad, 2013).
The argument here complements earlier work on the survival of weak or failed states
(Atzili, 2012; Hironaka, 2005; Jackson, 1990), but differs from them in the empirical
referents, and in the focus on the international system, rather than intra-state conflict. It
bolsters scholarship on the broad themes of obsolescence of inter-state war (e.g. Mueller,
1989), and theoretical literature suggesting that the international system is evolving from
a Hobbesian towards a more Kantian environment (Wendt, 1999).
The first section of this article lays out the rationale for studying micro-states, par-
ticularly in terms of the value of case studies with extreme values of independent or
dependent variables, and the need to remedy selection bias and address problems of over-
determination. In substantiating the thesis about how the international system has become
much more permissive, the second step is to derive and test propositions on survival pres-
sures, and the delegation of sovereign prerogatives in line with recent work on hierarchy
in international politics. Despite being most likely victims of security pressures, these
states either maintain token armed forces or none at all. Liechtenstein, Nauru and the
Seychelles have no alliances, while St Kitts and Nevis’ most powerful military ally is
Barbados. All bar Liechtenstein have experienced recent wrenching economic crises sur-
mounted only with foreign help in the form of outside bail-outs. Because micro-states
should be least able to provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial