Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Future for Small States After Unipolarity? Strategic Opportunities and Challenges in the Post-American World Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Polarity in International Relations

Part of the book series: Governance, Security and Development ((GSD))

Abstract

After three decades of US unipolarity, the international system may be on the brink of transformation. Although the combined capabilities of the United States remain stronger than those of any other state in the international system and the United States remains unrivalled in defence spending and research and development, the American superpower no longer has the same ability to set agendas and impose preferences as in the immediate post-Cold War era. This chapter provides an overview of existing knowledge of links between different types of polarity and the challenges and opportunities of small states. We use this overview of existing knowledge as starting point for a comparative discussion of small state strategy under continued (weakened) unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity and non-polarity. We argue that in a world dominated by US- and China-led bounded orders, small states must choose their battles wisely, prioritize their resources and build networks with like-minded small states.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamsen, R., Riis-Andersen, L., & Sending, O. J. (2019). Introduction: Making liberal internationalism great again? International Journal, 74(1–2), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2017). After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agius, C., & Devine, K. (2011). Neutrality: A really dead concept? A Reprise. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(3), 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Art, R. J. (2004). Europe hedges its security bets. In T. V. Paul, J. J. Wirtz, & M. Fortmann (Eds.), Balance of power: Theory and practice in the 21st century (pp. 179–213). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailes, A. J., Thayer, B. A., & Thorhallsson, B. (2016). Alliance theory and alliance ‘shelter’: The complexities of small state alliance behaviour. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 1(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldacchino, G. (2009). Thucydides or Kissinger? A critical review of smaller state diplomacy. In A. Cooper & T. Shaw (Eds.), The diplomacies of small states between vulnerability & resilience (pp. 21–40). Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baldacchino, G., & Wivel, A. (2020). Small states: concepts and theories. In G. Baldacchino & A. Wivel (Eds.), Handbook on the politics of small states (pp. 2–19). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banka, A. (2021). Reclaiming a good ally status: Baltic coping strategies in the America First world. European Security, 30(2), 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (1980). Alliance strategy: US-Small Allies relationships. Journal of Strategic Studies, 3(2), 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjøl, E. (1968). The power of the weak. Cooperation and Conflict, 3(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjøl, E. (1971). The small state in international politics. In A. Schou & A. O. Brundland (Eds.), Small states in international relations (pp. 29–39). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S. (2008). The influence of external actors in Central Asia. In T. N. C. Asia (Ed.), Kavalski (pp. 281–302). World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of balance. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2016). America abroad: The United States’ global role in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueger, C., & Wivel, A. (2018). How do small island states maximize influence? Creole diplomacy and the smart state foreign policy of the Seychelles. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 14(2), 170–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, G. H. (1990, September 11). Address to Joint Session of Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, G. H., & Scowcroft, B. (1999). A world transformed. Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B. (1993). From international system to international society: Structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47(3), 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contessi, N. P. (2015). Foreign and security policy diversification in Eurasia: Issue splitting, co-alignment, and relational power. Problems of Post-Communism, 62(5), 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, A. S. (1997). To be or not to be neutral: Swedish security strategy in the post-Cold War Era. In E. Inbar & G. Sheffer (Eds.), The National security of small states in a changing world (pp. 175–196). Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Carvalho, B., & Neumann, I. B. (Eds.). (2015). Small state status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawn, R. (2006). Alliance behaviour, the absentee liberator and the influence of soft power: Post-communist state positions over the Iraq war in 2003. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(3), 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A. B. (1959). The power of small states: Diplomacy in World War II. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, C. L. (2011). Why unipolarity doesn’t matter (much). Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 24(2), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, E. (2007). Southeast Asian perspectives on the China challenge. Journal of Strategic Studies, 30(4–5), 809–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Græger, N. (2015). From “forces for good” to “forgives for status”? In B. de Carvalho & I. B. Neumann (Eds.), Small state status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing (pp. 86–107). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Græger, N. (2019). Illiberalism, geopolitics and middle power security—Lessons from the Norwegian Case. International Journal, 74(1–2), 84–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grøn, C. H., & Wivel, A. (2011). Maximizing influence in the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: From small state policy to smart state strategy. Journal of European Integration, 33(5), 523–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R. N. (2008). The age of nonpolarity: What will follow US dominance. Foreign Affairs, 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handel, M. I. (1981). Weak states in the international system. Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. (2002). Globalization and European State formation 1900–2000. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(3), 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. (2011). Unipolarity and world politics: A theory and its implications. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B., Toft, P., & Wivel, A. (2009). Security strategies and American world order: Lost power. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. A. K. (2003). Introducing small state foreign policy. In J. A. K. Hey (Ed.), Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behaviour (pp. 1–11). Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huldt, B. (1977). Små stater i internationell politik. In T. Högberg (Ed.), Aktörer i internationell politik idag och imorgon (pp. 38–56). Projektgruppen ”Sveriges internationella villkor”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, E. (1997). Israel’s predicament in a new security environment. In E. Inbar & G. Sheffer (Eds.), The national security of small states in a changing world (pp. 155–174). BESA Studies in International Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, E., & Sheffer, G. (Eds.). (1997). The national security of small states in a changing world. BESA Studies in International Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingimundarson, V. (2003). Fighting the Cod Wars in the Cold War: Iceland’s challenge to the Western Alliance in the 1970s. The RUSI Journal, 148(3), 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. H. (1993). Quasi-states: Sovereignty, international relations and the Third World. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 172–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. M., & Jenne, N. (2021). Hedging and grand strategy in Southeast Asian foreign policy. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsh, E. (1997). Cold War, post-Cold War: Does it make a difference for the Middle East? Review of International Studies, 23(3), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1971). The big influence of small allies. Foreign Policy, 2, 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuik, C.-C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 30(2), 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuik, C.-C. (2020, June 6). Hedging in post-pandemic Asia: What, how, and why? The Asan Forum. http://www.theasanforum.org/hedging-in-post-pandemic-asia-what-how-and-why/

  • Lindell, U., & Persson, S. (1986). The paradox of weak state power: A research and literature overview. Cooperation and Conflict, 21(2), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liska, G. (1968). Nations in alliance. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, M. (2014). Small states: Survival and proliferation. International Politics, 51(6), 709–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, M. (2017). Small states in world politics: The story of small state survival, 1648–2016. Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. 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 

  • Monteiro, N. P. (2011). Unrest assured: Why unipolarity is not peaceful. International Security, 36(3), 9–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau, H. J. (1939). International affairs: The resurrection of neutrality in Europe. The American Political Science Review, 33(3), 473–486.

    Article  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 

  • Neumann, I. B., & De Carvalho, B. (2015). Introduction: Small states and status. In B. de Carvalho & I. B. Neumann (Eds.), Small state status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing (pp. 1–21). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I. B., & Gstöhl, S. (2006). Introduction: Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World? In C. Ingebritsen, I. B. Neumann, S. Gstöhl, & J. Beyer (Eds.), Small states in international relations (pp. 3–36). University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J. S., Jr. (2002). Limits of American power. Political Science Quarterly, 117(4), 545–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V. (2018). Restraining great powers: Soft balancing from empires to the global era. Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V. (2019). When balance of power meets globalization: China, India and the small states of South Asia. Politics, 39(1), 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedi, R. (2020). Small states in Europe as a buffer between East and West. In G. Baldacchino & A. Wivel (Eds.), Handbook on the politics of small states (pp. 168–188). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pedi, R. (2021). Small EU member states and the European security and defence integration. In G. Voskopoulos (Ed.), European Union security and defence (pp. 55–73). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedi, R., & Sarri, K. (2019). From the “small but smart state” to the “small and entrepreneurial state”: Introducing a framework for effective small state strategies within the EU and beyond. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 9(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedi, R., & Wivel, A. (2020). Small state diplomacy after the corona crisis. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(4), 611–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, D. (1996). Crucible of beliefs: Learning. In Alliances, and World Wars. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickli, J. M. (2008). European small states’ military policies after the cold war: From territorial to niche strategies. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickli, J. M., & Almezaini, K. S. (2017). Theories of small states’ foreign and security policies. In K. S. Almezaini & J. M. Rickli (Eds.), The small Gulf states: Foreign and security policies before and after the Arab Spring (pp. 8–30). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostoks, T. (2010). Small states, power, international change and the impact of uncertainty. In R. Steinmetz & A. Wivel (Eds.), Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 87–101). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, R. L. (1966). Alignment, nonalignment, and small powers: 1945–1965. International Organization, 20(3), 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, R. (1968). Alliances and small powers. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarapuu, K., Thorhallsson, B., & Wivel, A. (2021). Analysing small states in crisis: Fundamental assumptions and analytical starting points. In T. Joensen & I. Taylor (Eds.), Small states and the European migrant crisis: Politics and governance (pp. 19–40).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smed, U. T., & Wivel, A. (2017). Vulnerability without capabilities? Small state strategy and the international counter-piracy agenda. European Security, 26(1), 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, P., & Payne, A. (1993). Lilliput under threat: The security problems of small island and enclave developing states. Political Studies, 41(4), 579–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B. (Ed.). (2019). Small states and shelter theory: Iceland’s external affairs. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., & Kirby, P. (2012). Financial crises in Iceland and Ireland: Does European Union and Euro membership matter? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(5), 801–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., & Steinsson, S. (2017). Small state foreign policy. In Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Politics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbosch, A. (1964). The small states in international politics and organization. Journal of Politics, 26(2), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Väyrynen, R. (1971). On the definition and measurement of small power status. Cooperation and Conflict, 6(1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Väyrynen, R. (1997). Towards effective conflict prevention: A comparison of different instruments. International Journal of Peace Studies, 2(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vital, D. (1967). The inequality of states: A study of the small power in international Relations. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitsman, P. A. (2013). Waging war: Alliances, coalitions, and institutions of interstate violence. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. (1992). Mediation by small states: Some lessons from the CSCE. Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, 6(1), 52–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A. (2021). The grand strategies of small states. In T. Balzacq & R. R. Krebs (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grand Strategy (pp. 490–515). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A., & Crandall, M. (2019). Punching above their weight, but why? Explaining Denmark and Estonia in the transatlantic relationship. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 17(3), 392–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security, 24(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W. C., De 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International and European Studies, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Revecca Pedi

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anders Wivel

Authors
  1. Revecca Pedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anders Wivel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Wivel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Nina Græger

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Bertel Heurlin

  3. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ole Wæver

  4. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anders Wivel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pedi, R., Wivel, A. (2022). What Future for Small States After Unipolarity? Strategic Opportunities and Challenges in the Post-American World Order. 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_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation