The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts
| Author | Niels Amstrup |
| Published date | 01 September 1976 |
| Date | 01 September 1976 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/001083677601100302 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Perennial Problem of Small States:
A Survey of Research Efforts
NIELS AMSTRUP
Institute of Political Science, University of Aarhus
Amstrup, N. The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts.
Cooperation and Conflict,
XI,
1976, 163-182.
The survey points to the age-old European interest in the role of small states, almost
ignored in the recent literature on small states.
It
is shown that the numerous attempts
to define a small state have exclusively been concerned with defining an independent
variable to the neglect of a dependent variable, viz. the behavior of small states. The
studies on the security policy of small states and on their foreign economic relations
are discussed. Other approaches to the study of small states in international relations
are analyzed, including various quantitative attempts. In the conclusion some alterna-
tives for further research are suggested.
Niels Amstrup, Institute 0/ Political Science, University 0/ Aarhus, Denmark.
I. INTRODUCTION
It
is a commonplace to note that the
discipline of international relations tradi-
tionally is most concerned with explain-
ing the role of the great powers in the
international system. Since the end of the
1950s, however, some scholars have been
interested in the specific role played by
small states and the action possibilities
of these states.
Before discussing these more recent
contributions to the possible role of small
states in the international system it seems
relevant to indicate that this problem has
a long tradition in the history of political
thinking in Europe. As shown in the more
than fifty years old dissertations by
Eduard Sieber and Oscar Bernhard Cap-
pis! there was much interest in the small
state asapolitical phenomenon during
the 18th and at the beginning of the 19th
century. Many authors saw the small state
as an attractive alternative to the big
state, supposed to be absolutistic and
centralized. On the other hand, the via-
bility of small states was regarded as
precarious. Montesquieu saw this viability
problem solved by a confederation be-
tween small states, whereas Arnold
Her-
mann Ludwig Heeren pointed to the
balance of (great) powers as a means for
protecting small states.s
Around the middle of the 19th century
a new, and for the small state critical,
situation arose due to the combination
of the idea of the nation state with that
of the great power." In more specific
. terms one could say that the small Ger-
man states became an obstacle to the
movement towards German unification.
As early as 1850, August Ludwig von
Roschau saw the small German states as
'das Erb- und Grundiibel, an dem
unsere Nation seit Jahrhunderten elend
darniederliegt, die Quelle alles unseres
historischen Ungliicks, unserer Ohn-
macht, unserer inneren ZerwUrfnisse,
unserer Niederlagen
und
unserer BUrger-
kriege, der Verkriippelung unseres
Na-
tionalgeistes und unserer politischen
Unmlindigkeit'.4
The rise of the 'Prussian historical
school' with its heavy emphasis on the
strength of the state and the need for
'Vergrosserung der Nation' contributed
much to a negative assessment of the
small state. The extreme exponent of this
school was Heinrich von Treitschke.
164 Niels Amstrup
Comparing big and small states he found
'dass iiberhaupt die Kultur im weitesten
Sinne in den grossen Dimensionen mach-
tiger Staaten gliicklicher gedeiht als in
der Enge der Kleinstaaterei',
For
him the
extermination of the small (German)
states was simply 'einen Akt der histor-
ischen Notwendigkelt'r'
A similar trend can be observed in the
'geopolitical school', which came to the
fore at the end of the 19th century, in
particular due to the numerous writings
of Friedrich Ratzel. Ratzel tried to estab-
lish certain 'laws of growth' for states,
but he admitted that the small states did
not fit his laws: 'Die kleinen Staaten
machen eine Ausnahme von den Wach-
stumsgesetzen der Staaten; sie sind wie
versteinert'. Their position was, however,
an unenviable one, because they had
'eine fast rein leidende Stellung in den
grossen politischen Prozessen'," No won-
der Ratzel did not give the small states
much further attention.
The writings of the Swedish political
scientist and geographer Rudolf Kjellen,
who was much influenced by Ratzel,
include some observations on the small
states. Kjellen noted, for instance, that
'not only continue the old small states to
exist.
.•
but furthermore new (small
states) still generate in the state system','
In other words, due to empirical observa-
tions Kjellen found it necessary to modify
the 'law of growth'. He also analyzed the
geographical position of small states and
found that 'buffer politics contains a life
insurance for the small states'. 'The
intermediate position, which is the con-
dition for the buffer aspect and which
easily can be politically dangerous for
the small state, is on the other hand from
an economic point of view very advan-
tageous . , , This explains the strong de-
velopment of trade in (states like) the
Netherlands and Belgium, Switzerland
and Denmark'.8So, a politically exposed
position might at the same time be eco-
nomically advantageous.
The First World War gave the problem
of small states a new dimension. As
Tryg_
ve Mathisen points out, advocating the
case of small states became an instrument
for the belligerent powers.?
In 'the decade following Versailles
political conditions favored both
th~
security of European small states
and
their opportunity to play constructive
roles in world politics, then almost en-
tirely focused on Europe'.'? So, the post-
Versailles system gave new opportunities
for the small (European) states, or at
least new dimensions in their foreign
policy behavior. Most conspicuously this
was seen in their role within the activities
of the League of Nations. Pertinent in
this respect is a study by William E
Rappard in 1934, perhaps the first
com:
parative study of small state foreign
policy behavior.t! Rappard observed
that
the creation of the League consolidated
'the inequality between Great Powers
and
Small States' and asked why the small
states accepted this (formally) inferior
status. He gave three reasons. Firstly
small states, being also militarily weak
states, had everything to gain from an
even imperfect establishment of law
and
order. Law did not only mean justice
for
all states, but also and in particular
security for the small states. Secondly
the small states 'have gained in
effectiv~
influence on world affairs much more
than they have lost in theoretical equal-
ity'. And thirdly, 'they have played
an
exceptionally important part in
SUPplying
international conferences and commis_
sions ,with
p~esidents
and chairmen',
an
asseruon which he amply substantiates
On the other hand, Rappard points
out'
the common interests of small states
i~
the League were not sufficiently strong
to create a joint behavior of the small
states, because their positions and inter;
ests were too divergent.P
In 1937 Paul Herre published an
ex-
tensive study on 'The Small European
States and the Coming of the WOrld
To continue reading
Request your trial