Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Small power strategies under great power competition

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical argument, defined as tension theory, to explain how the strategies of small powers during eras of great power competition are influenced by (i) the level of tensions between the great powers, and (ii) the availability of a great power ally. The explanatory power of tension theory will be demonstrated through a re-examination of Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish diplomatic history from the early Cold War era. The findings strongly suggest that small powers desire low tensions between the great powers as this provides them with the opportunity to position themselves as neutral bridgebuilders to advance their vital and value interests. During periods marked by high tensions, which turn the relations between the great powers into a zero-sum competition, vital and value interests become of secondary importance to survival interest for small powers and force them to integrate with a protective great power to deter the threatening great power. In the absence of a protective great power during periods marked by high tensions, a small power will instead be forced to accommodate the threatening great power and screen itself from the latter’s adversaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I follow Goldmann (1975) and Mouritzen (1991) in defining level of tension between the great powers as the expectation of conflict behavior to occur between them. A rough qualitative estimate based on the existing primary and secondary literature is made to observe level of tension.

  2. For a review of the theoretical literature on small powers in the academic field of international relations (IR), see Willis (2021).

  3. The definition “small power” is used rather than “small state” because, in international politics, relative strength matters more than size. For an overview of alternative definitions of small powers in the IR literature, see Thorhallsson (2019) and Radoman (2018).

  4. For a discussion on the relative influence of different factors on small power strategies, see Williams et al. (2012).

  5. For an excellent outline of balance of threat theory, see Walt (1987).

  6. Importantly, the scope of tension theory is to explain how conditions external to small powers influence their strategies. For this reason, unit and individual and unit-level factors have been kept aside.

  7. For valuable works from alternative frameworks and levels of analysis, see, for example, Elman (1995), de Carvalho and Neumann (2015), Gstöhl (2002), Ingebritsen (1998, 2002), Ingebritsen and Larson (1997), Karsh (1988), Katzenstein (1985), Keohane (1969), and Wohlforth et. al. (2017).

  8. Bandwagoning refers to a small power’s alignment with the source of danger. For more on this, see Walt (1987).

  9. For other theoretical approaches, see fn. 4 and 6. Also see Thorallsson (2018) for a review of the study of small powers in the IR literature.

  10. For an excellent theoretical discussion on bandwagoning for profit, see Schweller (1994).

  11. Balancing refers to a small power’s alignment with other powers against the source of threat. For more on this, see Walt (1987).

  12. See also Maass (2020).

  13. Worth noting is that Mearsheimer (2001: 163) similarly argues that “bandwagoning is employed…by minor powers that stand alone (emphasis added) against hostile great powers,” suggesting that they would balance if provided defensive capabilities, or assistance, by a protective great power.

  14. For a comprehensive outline of the former, see Mouritzen (1988).

  15. For more on states as reasoning and responsive units, see Harknett and Yalcin (2012).

  16. Paraphrasing Waltz (1996), the value of tension theory, however, should not be measured by its parsimony but explanatory power.

  17. The same definition is also used by Can (2021).

  18. Wiring about World War II, Fox (1959: 1) does further argue that “it was widely asserted that the day of the small power was over…such a state have no security under modern conditions of war.”.

  19. Thucydides recorded 20 years of the war in The Peloponnesian War, while the last 7 years of the war is recorded by Xenophon in History of My Times (1966).

  20. See also Eckstein (2006).

  21. In the case of Norway in the run-up to WWII, Oslo was not aware that the region would be of strategic importance to the great powers and that they had developed plans on the strategic use of the region for war purposes. For more on this, see Furre (2006). This case is therefore outside of the explanatory framework provided by tension theory as other factors influenced the strategic decision-making of Oslo. As expected by tension theory, however, Norway quickly aligned with the Allied Powers when neutrality failed.

  22. For more on this definition of alignment, see Walt (1987)

  23. Thus, Nehru’s argument that alignment with a great power equals a “reversal of the process of liberation (Liska 1962: 209).” Rothstein (1966: 415) likewise argue that alignment with a great power “constitutes a serious derogation of independence.”.

  24. As mentioned earlier, tension theory should be expected to be able to explain the strategies of small powers located in regions of strategic importance to the competing great powers.

  25. For more on bounded orders, see Mearsheimer (2019).

  26. A similar development occurred in Boeotia in the fourth century BC, although Thebes, in order to prevent Plataea from being used as a springboard by Sparta to attack the former, finally destroyed Plataea completely because of the city’s staunch support for Sparta. For more on this, see Buckler (1980: 22). The causes of the Theban invasion of Plataea remind one of the Winter War, when the Soviet Union was concerned about Finland being used as a springboard by Nazi Germany and finally decided to invade the country as it refused to enter into any agreement.

  27. On the definition of “cornerstone balancer,” see Colby (2021).

  28. Finnish and Swedish gravitation towards NATO did in fact accelerate in 2008, following Russia’s invasion of Georgia and further in 2014, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and occupation of Crimea when both Helsinki and Stockholm upgraded their relations with NATO to become Enhanced Opportunity Partners (EOP’s)..

References

  • Allison, G.T. 1971. The essence of decision: Explaining the cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G.T. 2020. The new spheres of influence. Foreign Affairs 99 (2): 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. 1985. Finland’s relations with the Soviet Union, 1944–1984. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amersfoort, H., and W. Klinkert. 2011. Introduction: Small states in a big world. In Small powers in the age of total war, 1900–1940, ed. H. Amersfoort and W. Klinkert, 1–25. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aunesluoma, J. 2003. Britain, Sweden, and the cold war, 1945–54. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldacchino, G., and A. Wivel. 2020. Small states: Concepts and theories. In Handbook on the politics of small states, ed. G. Baldacchino and A. Wivel, 2–19. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barston, R.P. 1973. Introduction. In The other powers: Studies in foreign policies of small states, ed. R.P. Barston, 13–28. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartmann, B. 2002. Meeting the needs of microstate security. The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs 91 (365): 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjøl, E. 1971. The small state in international politics. In Small states in international relations, ed. A. Schou and A.O. Brundtland, 29–37. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brands, H. 2022. The twilight struggle: What the cold war teaches us about great power rivalry today. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buckler, J. 1980. The Theban hegemony, 371–362 BC. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Can, C.M. 2021. Great power politics and small power strategies in the Nordic region, 1945–1956. Chinese Political Science Review 6 (2): 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, E.A. 2021. The strategy of denial. American defense in an age of great power conflict. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cottey, A. 2013. The European neutrals and NATO: Ambiguous partnership. Contemporary Security Policy 34 (3): 446–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarny, R.M. 2018. Sweden: From neutrality to international solidarity. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dalsjö, R. 2014. The hidden rationality of Sweden’s policy of neutrality during the Cold War. Cold War History 14 (2): 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Carvalho, B., and I.B. Neumann. 2015. Small state status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense. United States of America (2022) National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF. Accessed 2 Feb 2023.

  • Eckstein, A.M. 2006. Mediterranean anarchy, interstate war, and the rise of rome. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edström, H., D. Gyllensporre, and J. Westberg. 2019. Military strategy of small states: Responding to external shocks of the 21st century. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgström, O. 2000. Images and strategies for autonomy: Explaining Swedish security policy strategies in the 19th century. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, M.F. 1995. The foreign policies of small states: Challenging neorealism in its own backyard. British Journal of Political Science 25 (2): 171–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, K.E., and H. Pharo. 1993. Norway and the early cold war: Conditional atlantic cooperation, 8. Oslo: Institutt for Forsvarsstudier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, K.E., and H.Ø. Pharo. 1997. Kald Krig og Internasjonalisering, 1949–1965. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, T. 2018. Finland and NATO: Strategic choices and identity conceptions. In The European neutrals and NATO: Non-alignment, partnership, membership?, ed. A. Cottey, 97–127. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A.B. 1959. The power of small states: Diplomacy in world war II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A.B. 1969. The small states in the international system, 1919–1969. International Journal 24 (4): 751–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J.A. 2022. Is US grand strategy dead? The political foundations of deep engagement after Donald Trump. International Affairs 98 (4): 1289–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furre, B. 2006. Norsk historie: 1914–2000. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L. 2005. The cold war: A new history. New York: The Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • German, R.K. 1982. Norway and the bear: Soviet coercive diplomacy and Norwegian security policy. International Security 7 (2): 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giles, K., and S. Eskola. 2008. Waking the neighbor—Finland, NATO, and Russia. Shrivenham: Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B.R., and C. Talmadge. 2022. Then what? Assessing the military implications of Chinese control over Taiwan. International Security 47 (1): 7–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gstöhl, S. 2002. Reluctant Europeans: Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland in the process of integration. Boulder London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gulick, E.V. 1955. Europe’s classical balance of power. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärtner, H. 2001. Small states and alliances. In Small states and alliances, ed. E. Reiter and H. Gärtner, 1–9. New York: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, K. 1975. Tension and Détente in Bipolar Europe. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R. 2022. The dangerous decade. Foreign Affairs 101 (5): 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handel, M. 1990. Weak states in the international system. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, R.J., and H.B. Yalcin. 2012. The struggle for autonomy: A realist structural theory of international relations. International Studies Review 14 (4): 499–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J.A.K. 2003. Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behavior. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herodotus. 1955. The histories. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, J.J. 1967. Norsk Sikkerhetspolitikk i Strategisk Perspektiv. Bind 1: Analyse. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, J.J. 1981a. Norwegian security policy and peace in Nordic Europe. The World Today 37 (1): 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, J.J. 1981b. Norway’s search for a Nordpolitik. Foreign Affairs 60 (1): 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holst, J.J. 1983. Norsk Sikkerhetspolitikk i Internasjonal Perspektiv. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, J.J. 1984. The pattern of Nordic security. Daedalus 113 (2): 195–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, J.J. 1985. Norway’s role in the search for international peace and security. In Norwegian foreign policy in the 1980s, ed. J.J. Holst, 144–165. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G.J. 2022. Why American power endures. Foreign Affairs 101 (6): 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingebritsen, C. 1998. The nordic states and European unity. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingebritsen, C. 2002. Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict 37 (1): 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingebritsen, C., and S. Larson. 1997. Interest and identity: Finland, Norway and European Union. Cooperation and Conflict 32 (2): 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insall, T., and P. Salmon. 2012. Preface to the Nordic countries: From war to Cold War, 1944–1951. Scandinavian Journal of History 37 (2): 136–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, V. 2020. Understanding spheres of influence in international politics. European Journal of International Security 5 (3): 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, V. 2023. The problem with primacy. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/asia/problem-primacy. Accessed Jan 10 2024.

  • Jesse, N.G., S.E. Lobell, G. Barnathan-Press, and K.P. Williams. 2012. The leader can’t lead when the followers don’t follow. In Beyond great powers and hegemons: Why secondary states support, follow, or challenge, ed. K.P. Williams, S.E. Lobell, and N.G. Jesse, 1–30. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. 2023. A free world, if you can keep it. Foreign Affairs 102 (1): 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kansikas, S. 2017. Dismantling the Soviet security system. Soviet-Finnish negotiations on ending their friendship agreement, 1989–1991. The International History Review 49 (1): 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, B. 1996. Sweden and the OEEC, 1947–1950: Walking the tightrope. Scandinavian Economic History Review 44 (3): 222–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, J.P. 1985. Small states in world markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, R.G. 1992. “To balance or to bandwagon?” Alignment decisions in 1930s Europe. Security Studies 1 (3): 417–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsh, E. 1986. Finland: Adaptation and conflict. International Affairs 62 (2): 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsh, E. 1988. International co-operation and neutrality. Journal of Peace Research 25 (1): 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsh, E. 2011. Neutrality and small powers. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karvonen, L., and R. Väyrynen. 1978. Finlands Utrikespolitik: Riktlinjer och Framtidsperspektiv. Helsingfors: Utrikespolitiska Institutet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. 1969. Lilliputian’s dilemmas: Small states in international politics. International Organization 23 (2): 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. 2006. Lilliputian’s dilemmas: Small states in international politics. In Small states in international relations, ed. C. Ingrebritsen, I. Neumann, S. Gstöhl, and J. Beyer, 55–79. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuusisto, A.A. 1959. The Paasikivi line in Finland’s foreign policy. Political Research Quarterly 12 (1): 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, V.J., and D.J. Singer. 2001. Minor powers, alliances, and armed conflict: Some preliminary patterns. In Small states and alliances, ed. E. Reiter and H. Gärtner, 15–25. New York: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kronvall, O., and M. Petersson. 2012. Svensk Säkerhetspolitik i Supermakternas Skugga: 1945–1991. Stockholm: Santérus Academic Press Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labs, E.J. 1992. Do weak states bandwagon? Security Studies 2 (3): 383–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFeber, W. 2008. America, Russia, and the cold war, 1945–2006. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, H.M. 1952. Norsk Utenrikspolitikk Siden 1945. Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, H.M. 1966. Norges Vei til NATO. Oslo: Pax Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liska, G. 1962. Nations in alliance: The limits of interdependence. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobell, S.E., N.G. Jesse, and K.P. Williams. 2015. Why do secondary states choose to support, follow or challenge? International Politics 52 (2): 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundestad, G. 1986. Empire by invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945–1952. Journal of Peace Research 23 (3): 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, M. 2020. Small states: Surviving, perishing and proliferating through history. In Handbook on the politics of small states, ed. G. Baldacchino and A. Wivel, 20–37. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majander, M. 2008. The limits of sovereignty. Scandinavian Journal of History 19 (4): 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makko, A. 2012. Sweden, Europe, and the cold war. Journal of Cold War Studies 14 (2): 68–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, T. 1971. The functions of small states in the strategies of great powers. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mares, D.R. 1988. Middle powers under regional hegemony: To accept challenge or acquiesce in hegemonic enforcement. International Studies Quarterly 32 (4): 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2019. Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security 43 (4): 7–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer JJ 2022. Playing with fire in Ukraine. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine. Accessed Jan 10 2024.

  • Monteiro, N.P. 2014. Theory of unipolar politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, V.B. 1964. Soviet-Norwegian relations since 1945. The Western Political Quarterly 17 (4): 659–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosser, M.W. 2001. Engineering influence: The subtile power of small states in the CSCE/OSCE. In Small states and alliances, ed. E. Reiter and H. Gärtner, 63–84. New York: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritzen, H. 1988. Finlandization. Towards a general theory of adaptation. Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouritzen, H. 1991. Tension between the strong and the strategies of the weak. Journal of Peace Research 28 (2): 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, W. 2012. Small nations under the gun. Europe 1914–1940. In Small powers in the age of total war, 1900–1940, ed. H. Amersfoort and W. Klinkert, 183–200. Brill: Leiden and Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, M. 2010. Aligning the non-aligned. Scandinavian Journal of History 35 (3): 290–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ørvik, N. 1953. The decline of neutrality, 1914–1941. Oslo: Tanum Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ørvik, N. 1973a. Norwegian foreign policy. In The other powers: Studies in the foreign policies of small states, ed. R.P. Barston, 29–60. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ørvik, N. 1973b. Defence against help—a strategy for small states? Global Politics and Strategy 15 (5): 228–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penttilä, R.E.J. 1991. Finland’s search for security through defense, 1944–89. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penttilä, R.E.J. 1994. Finland’s security in a changing Europe. A historical perspective. Helsinki: National Defense College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersson, M. 2012. Sweden and the Scandinavian defense dilemma. Scandinavian Journal of History 37 (2): 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersson, M., and H.L. Saxi. 2013. Shifted roles: Explaining Danish and Norwegian alliance strategy, 1949–2009. Journal of Strategies Studies 36 (6): 761–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharo, H. 2008. Bridgebuilding and reconstruction. Scandinavian Journal of History 1 (1–4): 125–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharo, H. 2012. Together again: Anglo-Norwegian relations and the early cold war. Scandinavian Journal of History 37 (2): 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polybius. 2012. The histories. Books 16–27. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polvinen, T. 1986. Between East and West: Finland in international politics, 1944–1947. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radoman, J. 2018. Small states in world politics: State of the art. Journal of Regional Security 13 (2): 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentola, K. 2000. From half-adversary to half-ally: Finland in Soviet policy, 1953–1958. Cold War History 1 (1): 75–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentola, K. 2012. Great Britain and the Soviet Union in Finland, 1944–1951. Scandinavian Journal of History 37 (2): 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, E.N. 2022. Interests, ideologies, and great power spheres of influence. European Journal of International Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221098217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripka, H. 1939. Munich: Before and after. London: Victor Gollancz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripsman, N.M., J.W. Taliaferro, and S.E. Lobell. 2016. Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riste, O. 1985. The historical determinants of Norwegian foreign policy. In Norwegian foreign policy in the 1980s, ed. J.J. Holst, 12–25. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, G. 1998. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics 51 (1): 44–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, R.L. 1966. Alignment, non-alignment, and small powers: 1945–1965. International Organization 20 (3): 379–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, R.L. 1968. Alliances and small powers. New York and London: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxi, H.L. 2019. The rise, fall, and resurgence of Nordic security cooperation. International Affairs 95 (2): 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R.L. 1994. Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security 19 (1): 72–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, D. 2021. Where great powers meet: America & China in Southeast Asia. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, D.J. 1961. The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. World Politics 14 (1): 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skodvin, M. 1971. Norden eller NATO? Utenriksdepartementet of Alliansespørsmålet, 1947–1949. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, G. 1997. Alliance politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standish, R. 2017. Wary of Russia, Finns take another look at NATO. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/finland-russia-nato-wary-finns-take-another-look/.

  • Szymanski, P. 2018. With Russia Right Across the Border. Warsaw: Center for Eastern Studies. https://aei.pitt.edu/94234/1/with_russia_right_across_the_border_net.pdf.

  • Tangredi, S.J. 2002. Assessing new mission. In Transforming America´s military, ed. H. Binnendjik, 3–30. Washington DC: National Defense University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A.J.P. 1964. The origins of the second world war. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamnes, R. 1987. Integration and screening: The two faces of Norwegian. In Defence studies IV, ed. R. Tamnes, 59–100. Oslo: TANO.

    Google Scholar 

  • The White House. United States of America. 2022. National Security Strategy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2023.

  • Thorallsson, B. 2018. Studying small states: A review. Small States and Territories 1 (1): 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., and S. Steinsson. 2019. A theory of shelter. In Thorhallsson, ed. Small States and Shelter Theory, 24–58. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., and S. Steinsson. 2021. Shelter theory and smallness in international relations. In Iceland’s shelter-seeking behavior: From settlement to Republic, ed. B. Thorhallsson, 7–20. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thucydides. 1951. The Peloponnesian War. Translated by John H. Finley, Jr. New York: The Modern Library.

  • Vital, D. 1967. The inequality of states: A study of small power in international relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vital, D. 1971a. The survival of small states. Studies in small power/great power conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vital, D. 1971b. The analysis of small power politics. In Small states in international relations, ed. A. Schou and A.O. Brundtland, 15–27. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vukadinovic, R. 1971. Small states and the policy of non-alignment. In Small states in international relations, ed. A. Schou and A.O. Brundtland, 99–114. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S.M. 1985. Alliance formation and balance of world power. International Security 9 (4): 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S.M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S.M. 1992. Alliances, threats, and US grand strategy: A reply to Kaufmann and Labs. Security Studies 1 (3): 448–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K.N. 2001. Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K.N. 1996. International politics is not foreign policy. Security Studies 6 (1): 54–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. 2021. Breaking the paradigm(s): A review of the three waves of international relations small state literature. Pacific Dynamics 5 (1): 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W.C., B. de Carvalho, H. Leira, and I.B. Neumann. 2017. Moral authority and status in international politics: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking. Review of International Studies 44 (3): 526–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xenophon. 1966. A history of my times. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Janko Scepanovic and the anonymous referees for their review and valuable comments on the earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Geopolitical Analysis, Oslo, Norway

    Ciwan M. Can

Authors
  1. Ciwan M. Can
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ciwan M. Can.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Can, C.M. Small power strategies under great power competition. Int Polit 61, 296–321 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00552-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00552-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation