Explaining the diversity of small states’ foreign policies through role theory

Abstract

This paper challenges the notion that small states adopt similar foreign policies. I argue that variations also exist within cases whereby small states have undergone significant foreign policy shifts. To explain these differences and variations, I develop a theoretical framework around the concept of national role which provides an insight into the social dimension of being a small state. It builds upon constructivist precepts, introduces agency and challenges the consensus assumption in the study of small states. The paper aims to offer the theoretical foundation for future empirical works and take the small state research in novel directions.

Keywords:

• Small states
• non-Western
• actors
• foreign policy analysis
• role theory
• domestic politics

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the workshop ‘Non-Western Small States: What Agency in an Unequal World?’ at the Annual Conference of the British International Studies Association, London, 16 June 2015. I thank Marie Gibert and Virginie Grzelczyk for their organisation of the workshop and their support throughout the publication of this manuscript, the workshop participants and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. I am also highly grateful to Professor Juliet Kaarbo and Dr. Daniel Kenealy for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

1. East, “Size and Foreign Policy Behavior,” 576; Neumann and Gstöhl, “Introduction,” 11; Papadakis and Starr, “Opportunity, Willingness, and Small States,” 428 and Waltz, Theory of International Relations, 184.

2. The matter of defining a ‘small state’ has been widely discussed in numerous studies. For a concise review see Thorhallsson and Wivel, “Small States in the European Union”. Because the role approach gives weight to both states’ material capabilities and leaders’ own interpretations in the process of role location, it is adequate to consider a small state as being defined by material and perceptual elements. The role approach is argued here to give additional insight into these perceptual elements of small states. This article takes the view that power disparities between states are increasing rather diminishing and that small state research is now established enough to consider the very notion of ‘small state’ useful.

3. See Wivel’s article in this special issue.

4. See Rickli’s article in this special issue.

5. See Bailes, Thayer, and Thorhallsson’s article in this special issue.

6. Ibid.

7. See Styan’s article in this special issue.

8. Schultz, “Theorising Australia-Pacific Island relations,” 554.

9. Gvalia et al., “Thinking Outside the Bloc,” 100, 130.

10. Hudson, “Foreign Policy Analysis,” 3.

11. Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” 246.

12. Barnett, “Institutions, Roles, and Disorder,” 275 and Thies, The United States, Israel and the Search for International Order.

13. Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy,” 733.

14. Krotz, “National Role Conception and Foreign Policies,” 7.

15. Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy,” 736.

16. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 17 and Harnisch, “Role Theory,” 7–8.

17. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 17.

18. Ibid.

19. Ingebritsen, “Norm Entrepreneurs Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics”.

20. Goetschel, “Introduction to Special Issue,” 263.

21. De Carvalho and Neumann, Small State Status Seeking, 2.

22. Wehner, “Role Expectations as Foreign Policy,” 435–9.

23. Aggestam, “Role Theory and the European Foreign Policy,” 14.

24. Neumann and Gstöhl, “Introduction,” 15 and Ingebritsen, “Norm Entrepreneurs Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics”.

25. Goetschel, “Introduction to Special Issue,” 262.

26. Ingebritsen, “Norm Entrepreneurs Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics”.

27. Lee, How Do Small States Affect the Future Development of the EU, 23.

28. Goetschel, “The Foreign and Security Policy Interests of Small States,” 28.

29. Wivel, “The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States,” 395.

30. Lee, How Do Small States Affect the Future Development of the EU, 23.

31. Gstöhl, Reluctant Europeans and Waever, “Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy,” 21.

32. Waever, “Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy,” 22.

33. Lee, How Do Small States Affect the Future Development of the EU, 24.

34. Thorhallsson and Wivel, “Small States in the European Union,” 657.

35. Gstöhl, Reluctant Europeans, 6.

36. Gustavsson, “How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change?”, 84.

37. Campbell and Hall, “National Identity and the Political Economy of Small States,” 553.

38. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 20.

39. Kaarbo, “Foreign Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century,” 160.

40. Harnisch, “Role Theory,” 9 and Nabers, “Identity and Role Change in International Politics,” 82.

41. Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy” and Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 418.

42. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 21.

43. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 418.

44. Ibid., 419.

45. McCourt, “Role-Playing and Identity Affirmation in International Politics,” 1605.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., 1608.

48. Goetschel, “Introduction to Special Issue,” 263.

49. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 419.

50. Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy,” 736.

51. Aggestam, “Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identify in Foreign Policy”.

52. Aggestam, “Role Theory and the European Foreign Policy,” 22 and Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy,” 736.

53. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 31.

54. Bengtsson and Elgström, “Conflicting Role Conceptions?”, 94.

55. Barnett, “Institutions, Roles and Disorder,” 276.

56. Cantir and Kaarbo, “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics” and Kaarbo and Cantir, “Role Conflict in Recent Wars”.

57. Aggestam, “Role Theory and the European Foreign Policy,” 22.

58. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 428.

59. Barnett, “Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change,” 6.c.

60. Ibid., 7.

61. See Rickli’s article in this special issue.

62. See Bailes, Thayer, and Thorhallsson’s article in this special issue.

63. See Lanteigne’s article in this special issue.

64. Aggestam, “Role Theory and the European Foreign Policy” and Cantir and Kaarbo, “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics”.

65. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 414 and McCourt, “The Roles States Play”.

66. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 18.

67. Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” 260.

68. Thies, “International Socialization Processes vs. Israeli National Role Conceptions,” 31.

69. Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” 254.

70. Adigbuo, “Beyond IR Theories,” 91; Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy,” 736 and Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” 254.

71. Aggestam, “Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identify in Foreign Policy”.

72. Bengtsson and Elgström, “Conflicting Role Conceptions?”.

73. Ingebritsen, “Norm Entrepreneurs Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics”.

74. Bengtsson and Elgström, “Conflicting Role Conceptions?”.

75. Ibid.

76. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 425.

77. Ibid., 421.

78. Breuning, “Words and Deeds”.

79. Barnett, “Institutions, Roles and Disorder,” 276.

80. Aggestam, “Role Theory and the European Foreign Policy,” 15.

81. Barnett, “Institutions, Roles and Disorder,” 273.

82. Barnett, “Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change,” 9.

83. Wivel, “The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States,” 395.

84. Thorhallsson and Wivel, “Small States in the European Union,” 652.

85. Thorhallsson, “Small States in the UN Security Council,” 142–3.

86. Wivel, “The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States” and Thorhallsson and Wivel, “Small States in the European Union”.

87. Kaarbo and Cantir, “Role Conflict in Recent Wars,” 466.

88. Cantir, “The Roles of Weak States: Post-Soviet Moldova’s National Role Conceptions,” 6.

89. Aggestam, “Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identify in Foreign Policy” and Barnett, “Institutions, Roles and Disorder,” 276.

90. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 414 and McCourt, “The Roles States Play,” 378.

91. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 414.

92. Elman, “The Foreign Policies of Small States,” 176.

93. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 18–19.

94. Ibid., 17.

95. Petrova, “Small States as International Agenda-Setters and Law-Makers,” 3.

96. Ibid.

97. Gvalia et al., “Thinking Outside the Bloc,” 107 (original emphasis).

98. Ibid., 100.

99. Aggestam, “Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identify in Foreign Policy” and Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy”.

100. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 431.

101. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 17.

102. Elman, “The Foreign Policies of Small States,” 212.

103. Mouritzen and Wivel, “Contrasting Allison, Challenging Waltz,” 14.

104. Katzenstein, “Small States in World Markets,” 35–6.

105. Ibid.

106. Hey, “Luxembourg’s Foreign Policy,” 221.

107. Thorhallsson, “The Corporatist Model and Its Value in Understanding Small European States in the Neo-Liberal World of the Twenty-First Century,” 379.

108. Cantir and Kaarbo, “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics,” 6.

109. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 28.

110. Aggestam, “Role Theory and the European Foreign Policy,” 21.

111. Le Prestre, Role Quests in the Post-Cold War Era, 9.

112. Breuning, “Words and Deeds,” 246.

113. Ibid., 236.

114. Cantir and Kaarbo, “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics,” 6–8.

115. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 29.

116. Cantir and Kaarbo, “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics”.

117. Aras and Gorener, “National Role Conceptions and Foreign Policy Orientation,” 81.

118. Breuning, “Role Theory in International Relations,” 29.

119. Kaarbo and Cantir, “Role Conflict in Recent Wars,” 465.

120. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 422–4.

121. Cantir, “The Roles of Weak States,” 4–12.

122. Ibid., 39.

123. Aras and Gorener, “National Role Conceptions and Foreign Policy Orientation,” 77.

124. Cantir and Kaarbo, “Contested Roles and Domestic Politics”.

125. Ibid., 6.

126. Wehner and Thies, “Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation,” 413.

127. Jaschik, “Small States and International Politics,” 287–8.

128. Hey, “Luxembourg’s Foreign Policy,” 222.

129. Doeser, “Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Change in Small States,” 233.

130. Chafetz, Abramson, and Grillot, “Role Theory and Foreign Policy,” 749.

131. Barnett, “Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change,” 7.

132. Bengtsson and Elgström, “Conflicting Role Conceptions?”.