Abstract
External freedom of manoeuvre (action space) is a meaningful concept, although it is difficult to “measure”—which is often the case with crucial concepts. Scandinavian countries testing the limits of their freedom of manoeuvre will be analysed, learning about it the “hard way” by being subject to great power disciplining. Subsequently, the contours of a theory are sketched, in which freedom of manoeuvre is the missing link between (locational) power polarity and states’ foreign-policy profile. The theory involves a medium “explanatory leap”. A distance from systemic polarity to foreign policies is mostly too long for a systematic pattern to occur. By contrast, constructivist approaches often entail too short a leap, making them almost truistic. A theory of freedom of manoeuvre would be useful for prescriptive purposes. Rather than merely describing and interpreting their discourse, it can offer policy advice to decision-makers. This will seldom be about the positive line of action to be chosen in any given situation, but rather about the outer limits of what they can do. On the other hand, they should not be docile and desist from occasionally challenging the limits of freedom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1970). Power and poverty. Oxford University Press.
BBC̣ (2015, September 17). Nobel secretary regrets Obama Peace Prize. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960.
Beukel, E. (1974). Socialdemokratiet og stationeringsproblemet 1952–53. En sikkerhedspolitisk beslutning. Odense University Press.
Boulding, K. (1962). Conflict and defense. Harper.
Brun Pedersen, R. (2020). Jumping on the Bandwagon: status seeking as a driver for Sweden’s involvement in NATO-led operations? International Politics, 57(1), 41-56.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Free Press.
Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
De Carvalho, B., & Neumann, I. (eds.). (2015). Small states and status seeking. Norway’s quest for higher standing. Routledge.
Dunér, B. (1979). Autonomy: What do we mean, and what do we know? In K. Goldmann & G. Sjöstedt (Eds.), Power, capabilities, interdependence (pp. 193–208). Sage.
Fiammenghi, D. (2019). Anarchy is what states make of it: True in a trivial sense; otherwise, Wrong. International Politics, 56(1), 17–32.
Folketinget. (2009). UPN. https://www.ft.dk/samling/20091/almdel/UPN/bilag/24/index.htm
Friedrich, C. J. (1937). Constitutional government and politics. Harper.
Goldmann, K. et al. (1986). Democracy and foreign policy. The case of Sweden. Gower.
Hall, T. (2015). Emotional diplomacy: Official emotion on the international stage. Cornell University Press.
Hamidi-Nia, G. (2019, November 15). Statsminister Stefan Löfven (S): Vi tänker inte falla för den här typen av hot. SVT Nyheter. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/statsminister-stefan-lofven-s-vi-tanker-inte-falla-for-den-har-typen-av-hot
Hanrieder, W. (1967). Compatibility and consensus: A proposal for the conceptual linkage of external and internal dimensions of foreign policy. American Political Science Review, 61(4), 971–982.
Hansen, B. (2011). Unipolarity and world politics. Routledge.
Haugevik, K. (2015). Status, small states, and significant others: Re-reading Norway’s attraction to Britain in the twentieth century. In B. de Carvalho & I. Neumann (Eds.), pp. 42–56.
Heurlin, B. (2019). China-US confrontations in the arctic region: Strategies and policies. Asian Studies International Journal, 1(1), 8–15.
ICAN. (2021). Sweden. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from https://www.icanw.org/sweden.
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press.
Kaur, R. (2013). In the shadow of Kim Davy: India-Denmark relations in the early 21st century. In Danish foreign policy yearbook 2013 (pp. 53–78). DIIS.
Keohane, R. (1971). The big influence of small allies. Foreign Policy, 2, 161–182.
Kristensen, P. M. (2017). After abdication: America Debates the future of global leadership. Chinese Political Science Review, 2(4), 550–566.
Lafraniere, S., & Cowell, A. (2009). French and Chinese leaders meet to end Tibet friction. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/world/europe/02france.html
Lobell, S., Ripsman, N., & Taliaferro, J. (eds.). (2009). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
Lobell, S., Ripsman, N., & Taliaferro, J. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford University Press.
Mariager, R., & Wivel, A. (2019). Denmark at war: Great power politics and domestic action space in the cases of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Danish foreign policy review 2019 (pp. 48–73). DIIS.
May, E. (1973). “Lessons” of the past. Princeton University Press.
McGowan, P., & Shapiro, H. (1973). The comparative study of foreign policy. Sage.
Mellander, M., & Mouritzen, H. (2016). Learning to assert themselves: Small states in asymmetrical dyads. Two scandinavian dogs barking at the Russian Bear. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(4), 447–467.
Moravscik, A. (1999). Is something Rotten in the state of Denmark? Constructivism and European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(4), 669–681.
Mouritzen, H. (1997). Denmark in the post-Cold War era: The salient action spheres. Danish foreign policy yearbook 1997 (pp. 33–52). DUPI.
Mouritzen, H. (1999). External danger and democracy. Old Nordic lessons and new European challenges. Ashgate.
Mouritzen, H. (2016). Combining “incompatible” foreign policy explanations. How a realist can borrow from constructivism. In Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(3), 631–658.
Mouritzen, H. (2017). Small states and finlandisation in the age of Trump. Survival, 59(2), 67–84.
Mouritzen, H., & Wivel, A. (2005). Comparative analysis meets theory. In H. Mouritzen & A. Wivel. (Eds.), The geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic integration (pp. 167–206). London: Routledge.
Patey, L. (2017). Denmark’s China challenge (DIIS Policy Brief). DIIS.
Petersen, N. (1979). International power and foreign policy behavior: The formulation of Danish security policy in the 1870–1914 period. In I. K. Goldmann & G. Sjöstedt (Red.). Power, capabilities, interdependence. Sage.
Petersen, N. (2006). Efter Muhammed: Handlerummet for den borgerlige udenrigspolitik.
Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
Qiu, L. (2019, January 11). The many ways Trump has said Mexico will pay for the wall. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/trump-mexico-pay-wall.html
Rathbun, B. (2007). Uncertain about uncertainty: Understanding the multiple meanings of a crucial concept in international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 533–557.
Ripsman, N. (2009). Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups. In E. Lobell, M. Ripsman & W. Taliaferro (Eds.), pp. 170–194.
Runge Olesen, M. (2020). The end of Arctic exceptionalism? A review of the academic debates and what the Arctic prospects mean for the Kingdom of Denmark. Danish foreign policy review 2020 (pp. 103–127). DIIS.
SIPRI. (2020). Fact sheet. Trends in world military expenditure. SIPRI https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/fs_2104_milex_0.pdf
Smith, S. (2001). Foreign policy is what states make of it: Social constructivism and international relations theory. In V. Kubalkova (Ed.), Foreign policy in a constructed world (pp. 38–55). Sharpe.
Sprout, H., & Sprout, M. (1957). Environmental factors in the study of international politics. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1(4), 309–328.
Sverdrup-Thygeson, B. (2018). The Norway-China relationship: For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer. In B. Sverdrup-Thygeson et al. (Eds.), China and Nordic diplomacy (pp. 77–100). Routledge.
Ulfstein, G., & Holtsmark, S. G. (2020). Svalbardtraktaten. I Store norske leksikon. http://snl.no/Svalbardtraktaten.
Vibjerg, T., & Maressa, J. E. (2020). Ny model skal bane vejen for udlevering af Niels Holck. Jyllands-Posten. https://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE12469206/ny-model-skal-bane-vej-for-udlevering-af-niels-holck/
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Random House.
Welch, D. (2005). Painful choices. A theory of foreign policy change. Princeton University Press.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Wishnick, E. (2017). China’s interests and goals in the arctic: Implications for the United States (The Letort Papers). Carlisle: US Army War College.
Wivel, A. (2005). Explaining why state X made a certain move last tuesday: The promises and limitations of realist foreign policy analysis. Journal of International Relations and Development, 8(4), 355–380.
Wohlforth, W., van Carvalho, B., Leira, H., & Neumann, I. B. (2018). Moral authority and status in international relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking. Review of International Studies, 44(3), 526–546.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mouritzen, H. (2022). Between Polarity and Foreign Policy: Freedom of Manoeuvre Is the Missing Link. In: Græger, N., Heurlin, B., Wæver, O., Wivel, A. (eds) Polarity in International Relations. Governance, Security and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05504-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05505-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)