This article is aimed at describing and defining small power status. Definitions can explain either the extensional or intensional meaning of a concept. The intensional way of defining a concept is selected and on this basis the following possible defining characteristics of small powers are explored: low rank, high degree of penetration by environment, a given type of behavior, a distinct role and conflicting interests. The investigation leads to the conclusion that low rank is apparently the most useful, but also the most conventional defining characteristic. For this reason the author suggests that approaches based on the concepts of role and interest are worthy of closer investigation and that they may add new dimensions to the study of small powers and their behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See e.g. CopiIrwing, Introduction to Logic, 2nd ed.New York, 1961, pp. 89–94.
2.
Ibid., pp. 99–129.
3.
Yearbook of United Nations, 1965, pp. 685–9.
4.
For example David Vital has selected this approach in his book The Inequality of States. A Study of Small Powers in International Relations. Oxford, 1967, pp. 3–9, in which the size of population is a crucial criterion. For similar, but a more sophisticated approach, see VellutJean-Luc, ‘Smaller States and the Problem of War and Peace: Some Consequences of the Emergence of Smaller States in Africa’, Journal of Peace Research, 1967, No. 3, pp. 252–69. Vellut divides 120 states into five rank classes (Great Powers, Medium Powers, Small Powers, Smaller Powers I and Smaller Powers II) using their GDP and population and in the case of Great Powers on the basis of armed forces and veto in UN Security Council too.
5.
For a more extensive analysis of this pair of concepts see HøivikTord, Notes on Rank Theory, PRIO, Oslo, 1968 (mimeo.).
6.
BenoitEmile, ‘Status, Status Types and Status Interrelations’, American Sociological Review, 1944, No. 2, pp. 151–61.
7.
See e.g. RussetBruce, International Regions and the International System. A Study in Political Ecology. Chicago, 1967, and SawyerJack, ‘Dimensions of Nations: Size, Wealth and Politics’, American Journal of Sociology1967, No. 2, pp. 145–72.
8.
TaylorCharles, ‘Statistical Typology of Micro-States and Territories. Towards a Definition of Micro-State, in Status and Problems of Very Small States and Territories’, UNITAR Series, New York, 1969, No. 3, pp. 206–30. In general this publication contains a lot of useful data.
9.
SingerDavidSmallMelvin, ‘The Composition and Status Ordering of International System, 1815–1940’, World Politics, 1966, No. 2, pp. 236–82, AlgerChadwickBramsSteven, ‘Patterns of Representation in National Capitals and Intergovernmental Organizations’, World Politics, 1967, No. 4, pp. 646–63 and BramsSteven, ‘The Structure of Influence Relationships in the International System’, in RosenauJames (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy. A Reader in Research and Theory (2nd rev. ed.). New York, 1969, pp. 583–99.
10.
AlgerBrams op. cit. 1967, pp. 659–62 and VäyrynenRaimo, ‘Homogeneity Interaction and Knowledge in Interstate Relations’, in VäyrynenRaimo (ed.), Peace Research Today 1. Tampere, 1970, pp. 88–100 (in Finnish).
11.
RothsteinRobert, Alliances and Small Powers, New York, 1968, pp. 27–29. See also SjaastadAnders, Småstater i studiet av internasjonal politikk. NUPI-Rapport 3, Oslo, Dec. 1970 (mimeo.), pp. 10–13.
12.
Benoit op. cit. 1944, pp. 151–62 and DahlströmEdmund, Maktstruktur och social kontroll. Sociologisk Forskning1, 1968, pp. 11–12.
13.
See e.g. SchwartzmanSimonMora y AraujoManuel, ‘The Images of International Stratification in Latin America’, Journal of Peace Research, 1966, No. 3, pp. 225–43. EtzioniAmitai, ‘International Prestige. Competition and Peaceful Coexistence’, Archives Europèennes de Sociologie, 1962, No. 1, pp. 21–41 and ShimbouriMichiya, ‘Measuring a Nation's Prestige’, American Journal of Sociology, 1963, No. 1, pp. 63–68.
14.
SchwartzmanMora y Araujo op. cit 1966, pp. 233–5.
15.
Cf. e.g. GaltungJohan‘East-West Interaction Patterns’, Journal of Peace Research1966, No. 2, pp. 146–77 and CobbRogerElderCharles, International Community: A Regional and Global Study, New York, 1970.
16.
See RosenauJames, ‘Theories and Pre-Theories of Foreign Policy’, in FarrelBarry (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, Evanston, 1966, pp. 27–92. ScottAndrew, The Revolution in Statecraft. Informal Penetration, New York, 1965. GaltungJohan, ‘On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions with the Examples from the Case of Rhodesia’, World Politics, 1969, No. 3, pp. 378–406 and RobinsonA., The Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations, London, 1963.
17.
RussettBruce, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, New Haven, 1964, table 52 and DeutschKarlBlissChesterEcksteinAlexander, ‘Population, Sovereignty and the Share of Foreign Trade’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1962. No. 4, pp. 363–4. See also Vital op. cit. 1967, pp. 39–57 and pp. 87–114.
18.
Rosenau op. cit. 1966, pp. 27–92 and Scott op. cit. 1965.
19.
Vital op. cit. 1967, p. 55. For some relevant research findings see WallensteenPeter, Ekonomiska sanktioner, Stockholm1971.
20.
The ability of small powers to resist outside pressures in general has been emphasized by PatersonWilliam, ‘Small States in International Politics’, Cooperation and Conflict, 1969, No. 2, pp. 121–2. See also Galtung op. cit. 1967 and Wallensteen op. cit. 1971.
21.
Rothstein op. cit. 1968, passim. Cf. also discussion in Sjaastad op. cit. 1970, pp. 45–50.
22.
SmallMelvinSingerDavid, ‘Formal Alliances, 1816–1965: An Extension of the Basic Data’, Journal of Peace Research, 1969, No. 3, pp. 257–82.
23.
ArosaloUolevi, ‘Game Theory and Alliances: A Comparison of Model and Practice’ (in Finnish) forthcoming in Politiikka, 1971, No. 2.
24.
HolstiKalevi J., ‘National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly, 1970, No. 3, p. 242.
25.
SmallMelvinSingerDavid, ‘Patterns in International Warfare, 1816–1965’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 391, Sept. 1970, pp. 145–55.
26.
BenkoValdo, ‘Theses on European Security’, Review of International Affairs, 1969, No. 471, pp. 1–4. See also BaumsgaardHilmar, ‘The Small and Medium-Sized Countries Can Help to Shape the Future of our Continent’, Review of International Affairs, 1971, No. 498, p. 7.
27.
KalelaJaakko‘Finland in the UN Security Council, 1969–1970’, Ydin, 1971, No. 1, pp. 20–23 (in Finnish). Kalela points out, however, that this kind of policy may lead to the situation in which attention is paid to the resolution of metaconflict in the Council, not to the resolution of the original conflict.
28.
See e.g. BernsteinRobertWeldonPeter, ‘A Structural Approach to the Analysis of International Relations’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1968, No. 2, pp. 159–81 and VäyrynenRaimo, ‘Stratification in the System of International Organizations’, Journal of Peace Research, 1970, No. 4. MichaelyMichael, Concentration in International Trade, Amsterdam, 1962, pp. 23–30, has developed ‘a coefficient of geographic concentration of exports’ and the application of this technique demonstrated that this concentration is much stronger in the case of small powers, and even more so in the case of underdeveloped small powers, which again points out the significance of the distinction between developed and developing countries. See also Vital op. cit. 1967, pp. 42–49.
29.
HveemHelge, ‘Foreign Policy Thinking in the Elite and General Population’, Journal of Peace Research, 1968, No. 2, pp. 146–70.
30.
See e.g. Galtung op. cit. 1966, pp. 146–77 and AlgerChadwick, ‘Interaction and Negotiation in a Committee of the United Nations General Assembly’, Peace Research Society (International) PAPERS, Vol. 5, 1966, pp. 141–60.
31.
Holsti op.cit. 1970, p. 254.
32.
LeninV. I., On the Right of Self-Determination of Nations, Moscow, 1954.
33.
Ch. 2, ‘Global Powers and Small Nations’ in BhuttoZulfikar Ali, The Myth of Independence, London, 1969. The fact that Bhutto regards Pakistan as a small nation emphasizes to my mind the significance of perceptions, because many authors consider it a medium power (e.g. Vellut op. cit. 1967, p. 255).
34.
EulauHeinz, Tradition and Innovation: On the Tension between Ancient and Modern Ways in the Study of Politics' in EulauHeinz (ed.), Behavioralism in the Political Science, New York, 1969, p. 17. In sociology differences between these approaches have been commented upon by HageJeraldMarwellGerald, ‘Towards an Empirically Based Theory of Role-Relationships’, Sociometry, 1968, No. 2, pp. 200–12.
35.
Holsti op. cit. 1970, pp. 233–309.
36.
JarvadIb, ‘Power versus Equality. An Attempt at a Systematic Analysis of the Role and Function of the International Court of Justice, 1945 to 1966’, Proceedings of the IPRA Second Conference, Vol. I. Assen, 1968, pp. 297–314.
37.
KaplanMorton, System and Process in International Politics, New York, 1968 (paperback ed.), pp. 17–18.
38.
See e.g. DeutschKarl W., ‘External Influences on the International Behavior of States’ in FarrellBarry (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, Evanston, 1966, pp. 5–26.
39.
KeohaneRobert, ‘Lilliputian's Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics’, International Organization, 1969, No. 2, pp. 295–7.
40.
One, and perhaps not very good example, is the suggested pool of some neutral countries (Switzerland, Austria and Sweden) to take care of the arms sales of these countries. The establishment of this pool was proposed by Switzerland in connection with the so-called Oerlikon-Bührle scandal, see KleinJean, ‘Internationell vapenhandel: Två exempel’, Strategisk Bulletin, 1969, No. 5, pp. 5–15.
41.
See BjølErling, ‘The Power of the Weak’, Cooperation and Conflict, 1968, No. 3, pp. 157–68 and Paterson op. cit. 1969, pp. 120–1. In sociology these effects have been analyzed, using reference group theory, by HymanHerbert, ‘Psychology of Status’ in HymanHerbertSingerEleanor (eds.), Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, New York, 1968, pp. 147–65.
42.
For one example see note 8.
43.
An attempt, partly related to this proposal, is made by RussetBruce M., ‘Is There a Long-Run Trend towards Concentration in the International System’, RussettBruce M., (ed.), Economic Theories of International Politics, Chicago, 1969, pp. 305–22. Annette Baker Fox offers a more qualitative description of changes in the position of small powers in her article ‘The Small States in the International System, 1919–1969’, International Journal, 1969, No. 4, pp. 751–64.
