By Bruno Rukavina

In the study of international relations, small states are often overlooked due to the discipline’s preoccupation with analyzing conflicts, international crises, and other ad hoc events of perpetual unpredictability. Therefore, this analysis is dedicated to small states, their definition, and the foreign policy and diplomatic strategies they employ to survive in anarchic international relations.

What are small states (and small powers)?

The concept of the small state in international relations does not possess a single, universally accepted definition. Instead, it denotes a complex and multidimensional concept based on a combination of quantitative and relational (qualitative) criteria. Quantitative criteria include population size, territory, gross domestic product (GDP), and military resources. For example, the World Bank classifies small states as those with a population below 10 million, while the Commonwealth sets this threshold at 1.5 million inhabitants. The advantage of quantitative criteria lies in the use of clearly measurable data, which allows for visible markers and categorization of small states. However, while useful, quantitative criteria fail to capture the complexity of the role small states play in international relations.

The relational approach (based on qualitative criteria), which is theoretically more sophisticated, relies on mutual relations and the perception of power. According to this approach, small states are those that cannot independently shape the international order but must adapt to existing power structures. Hans Morgenthau, one of the classical realists, defines a small state as one that is unable to impose its will on a larger state. Robert Keohane points out that small states are those whose leaders believe they cannot, either independently or in small groups, significantly influence the global system.

Characteristics of small states include limited resources, lower defense capacities, restricted foreign policy reach, and vulnerability to external shocks and changes. Economically, they often depend on a few key export products and a small number of foreign trade partners. Politically, many small states build their international legitimacy through multilateralism, participation in international organizations, and the promotion of normative values such as human rights, democracy, and sustainable development. Furthermore, self-perception (auto-categorization) is extremely important for small states: they may choose to define themselves as small in order to be seen as peaceful, neutral, or reliable mediators. Such a symbolic position enables them to more easily build soft power and potential reputational capital in the international community.

To conclude, a small state is one with objectively limited resources: small territory, small population, weaker military, and economic power. However, a small state can exert influence in international relations, albeit limited, in which case it is referred to as a small power. This denotes a small state that has successfully developed the capacities and strategies to play an active and influential role in international relations, at least in certain areas or regions. Thus, being a small power is a status that a small state may acquire but does not automatically possess. That status is achieved through various foreign policy and diplomatic strategies available to small states—strategies aimed either at building themselves up as small powers or at achieving the most essential goal: survival in the anarchic system of international relations.

What foreign policy and diplomatic strategies do small states use?

The foreign policy and diplomatic strategies of states largely depend on the context of international relations, the national interests of the state, its resources, geopolitical position, and ambitions. Great powers strive to maintain or expand their influence in the global order (or to challenge the international order if they are revisionist), while small states tend to focus on survival, specialization, and the protection of national interest within a limited scope.

Political science literature distinguishes several foreign policy strategies of small states:

• Multilateralism as protection and a tool – This represents one of the most important foreign policy mechanisms for small states. Since they lack the individual capacity to shape global policies, small states rely on international organizations and multilateral forums (e.g., the UN, EU, WTO, Council of Europe) to institutionalize norms that protect them from the arbitrariness of great powers. Through membership in these organizations, they: reduce asymmetries of power; participate in the creation of international rules; and often act through thematic or regional alliances, such as the Scandinavian countries in certain international organizations, or small EU member states that band together to increase their bargaining power.
• Niche (specialized) strategy – Given their limited capacities, small states often invest in specific areas (niches) of foreign policy where they can develop expertise and a reputation. Such a niche might be the environment (e.g., Tuvalu in climate diplomacy), digital security (Estonia), or fisheries (Malta in the EU). By focusing resources on one area, small states can achieve above-average international influence, making themselves indispensable actors in certain global issues.
• Image-building – Many small states systematically work on building their international reputation, often promoting themselves as neutral, professional, reliable, and morally grounded. Through public diplomacy strategies, scientific cooperation, and cultural diplomacy, they cultivate the image of a state that is a mediator, a trusted partner, or a “voice of reason.” A classic example is Switzerland, which has used its neutrality and expertise to provide “good offices” and mediation in conflicts worldwide (though Switzerland is gradually losing this reputation due to its difficulty in maintaining strict neutrality regarding the interstate Russia–Ukraine conflict).
• Coalition strategy – Small states often act collectively through thematic or regional coalitions, thereby increasing their influence. Such coalitions allow them to speak with one voice on certain issues, making them more relevant partners on the international stage. Examples include Nordic cooperation, the Visegrád Group, the Group of Small States in the UN, or AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States), which wields significant influence in global climate negotiations.
• Diplomacy of flexibility and autonomy – Due to smaller bureaucratic structures and more room for individual initiative, diplomats from small states often operate more flexibly and quickly than their counterparts from larger states. For instance, Croatian diplomats often need to be highly adaptive: with limited resources, they cannot dedicate their entire careers to a single region (as is sometimes possible for diplomats from large states), but must be equally effective in Latin America during one posting, Scandinavia in another, and Asia in a third. This enables faster reactions, informal approaches, and the use of social networks, personal contacts, and discretionary action. In such a framework, diplomacy becomes a space of socio-administrative innovation and a demanding craft—not merely the formal representation of the state abroad.
• Quietism strategy (strategy of silence) – This denotes a foreign policy approach where a state deliberately chooses restraint and discretion in international relations. Instead of actively shaping global policies, small states retreat into a defensive and pragmatic position, avoiding conflicts and visible initiatives. This strategy stems from an awareness of their limited military, economic, and diplomatic capacities; priority is given to internal stability and security. The aim is not passivity but rather minimizing exposure and reducing the risk of unwanted reactions from great powers. Quietism often involves selective participation in international initiatives, while maintaining a neutral and moderate image. A good example is Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, due to internal divisions and its very state structure, often remains silent on certain international issues.
• Minimalist strategy (restrictive foreign policy) – This refers to the conscious choice of a small state to pursue a limited, restrained, and low-profile diplomacy, focused exclusively on vital national interests such as economic cooperation, security, and domestic development. Instead of active involvement in global initiatives or ideological debates, a minimalist foreign policy favors pragmatism and a defensive approach, often motivated by limited human and financial resources and a political culture of caution. Such states cultivate only a small number of bilateral relations, avoid conflicts, and operate outside the attention of great powers and international media. Classic examples include microstates such as Liechtenstein, Andorra, and San Marino, though elements of minimalism can also be found in certain phases of Montenegro’s or Luxembourg’s foreign policy. The advantages of this strategy include significantly reduced diplomatic costs, lower exposure to international crises, and a stronger focus on internal development and stability. However, minimalism also carries risks such as political invisibility, limited influence in international forums, and increased dependence on larger or neighboring states. Although it can be a rational response to objective weaknesses, in the long term it may lead to missed opportunities for strategic positioning and active involvement in shaping international norms. Minimalism thus balances between political security and international irrelevance, requiring careful strategic thought about when silence constitutes “golden diplomacy” and when it represents a missed opportunity.
• Neutrality strategy – This is a political and legal decision by a small state not to join military alliances or participate in armed conflicts of great powers, in order to preserve its sovereignty, internal stability, and international legitimacy. It is based on non-alignment with military blocs such as NATO, maintaining diplomatic distance in geopolitical conflicts, and playing an active role in promoting peace initiatives, humanitarian aid, and international law. Neutrality may have a formal legal foundation, such as Switzerland (permanent neutrality recognized at the Congress of Vienna in 1815) or Austria (constitutional neutrality since 1955). Finland and Sweden also traditionally pursued neutrality, although they shifted geopolitically after 2022 by joining NATO. Advantages of neutrality include increased credibility as mediators in conflicts, avoidance of direct involvement in wars, and a focus on multilateralism and normative consistency. Risks include limited access to security guarantees and potential credibility loss if hidden dependencies on a great power are revealed. Nevertheless, neutrality remains an important option for small states seeking to preserve autonomy, sovereignty, and stability in an unstable international environment, while simultaneously projecting an image of peacefulness and professional meritocratic diplomacy.
• Sheltering strategy – This refers to an approach in which small states seek protection, resources, and stability from great powers or international institutions to compensate for their weaknesses. Shelter may be military, political, economic, diplomatic, or otherwise, with the primary goal being access to security, markets, knowledge, and technology that the state cannot generate on its own. To pursue this strategy, a small state must be willing to cede part of its sovereignty, e.g., through membership in the EU or NATO, where decisions are made collectively. Successful sheltering also requires the existence of a willing and capable protector (such as the US, EU, or NATO), as well as political and value compatibility between the small state and its protector. A small state’s geopolitical significance increases its chances of obtaining shelter, especially if it is located in a strategic area or possesses resources of interest to the protector. Membership in international organizations allows small states to formalize such protection and participate in systems of collective security and economic integration. Examples include small European states that rely on NATO (or the US alone) as military shelter. This strategy allows small states to strengthen stability and security, though at the cost of some autonomy. It resembles the bandwagoning strategy in international relations, where a small state “jumps on the wagon” of a stronger actor, adopting its foreign policy goals, values, and orientation—usually for reasons of security, national interest, or threat avoidance.
• Hedging strategy – This denotes a foreign policy approach in which a state simultaneously builds relations with multiple powerful actors without fully aligning with any of them. The goal is to reduce risk, increase flexibility, and maximize benefits, especially under conditions of uncertainty and turbulence in relations among great powers. Instead of clearly positioning itself through sheltering, bandwagoning, balancing, or neutrality, the state “hedges”—keeping multiple options open. This strategy requires high diplomatic sophistication, since dual relations may create mistrust among great powers, but its strength lies precisely in its flexibility and in the meritocratic skills of diplomacy. Historically, the Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) exemplified such a strategy. Hedging is particularly common among states in geopolitically sensitive regions, such as Southeast Asia, the Middle East, or the post-Soviet space. Examples include Kazakhstan, which balances between Russia, China, and the West, or Serbia, which maintains relations with the West while also engaging Russia and China (even though geoeconomically it relies most on the West, especially the EU, its largest investor). Hedging enables small (and medium) states to avoid complete dependence on a single protector, preserve room for maneuver, and adapt to changes in the international system, while participating in multiple political and economic networks. Although risky, this strategy is becoming increasingly popular in today’s multipolar uncertainty. Interestingly, one could hypothetically argue that Croatia has elements of hedging in its foreign policy due to the current duality between the prime minister—who is oriented toward Euro-Atlantic institutions (EU/NATO)—and the president, who often voices positions closer to non-Euro-Atlantic narratives (including Russia). Such positioning may allow Croatia to preserve relations with any actor once the current “West vs. Rest” tensions begin to ease and stabilize. Of course, this would imply coordinated foreign policy between the prime minister and the president, which is a topic for a separate analysis. In practice, successful small powers often combine sheltering + hedging, thereby ensuring survival through sheltering (e.g., NATO, EU), while simultaneously developing hedging strategies externally to remain independent, competitive, and adaptable in terms of security and economics—always based on clearly defined national interests.

Switzerland is a small state success story

Consistent Foreign Policy Strategy

For a small state to become a small power, it must develop a coherent, recognizable, and consistent foreign policy strategy based on clear national interests and domestic political consensus. It is crucial to define specific niches where it can achieve comparative advantage, such as climate diplomacy, digital security, or peace mediation, thereby earning a reputation for expertise and trust. Building normative power through soft power, cultural influence, reputation, ethical diplomacy, and consistency in international engagements provides additional credibility that surpasses material resources. Small powers are particularly successful when acting through multilateral institutions and coalitions with similar states, where they can jointly influence international processes. A high level of professionalism and flexibility in the diplomatic service enables quick and effective responses, which is sometimes more important than the size of the staff. Furthermore, geostrategic position or a specific regional role can further increase the significance of a small state in the broader context. Finally, crisis management (or management in crises) and peace-building capabilities, combined with impartiality and expertise, allow small powers to establish themselves as reliable actors in sensitive international matters. Small powers can be key norm-makers and mediators in the international community, acting selectively but effectively if founded on meritocratic principles and values.

The Importance of Small States

Finally, it is important to note that in international relations, great powers often use small states as instruments to legitimize their own interests, particularly in the context of asymmetric power relations. Although quantitatively weaker, small states possess a certain normative, symbolic, and reputational capital that great powers can instrumentalize to reduce the reputational costs of their own actions, especially in the case of controversial “humanitarian” interventions, military operations, or global initiatives. Thus, involving neutral and credible states such as Norway, Switzerland, or Iceland in diplomatic processes creates the appearance of international consensus and participation by weaker actors, presenting the actions of great powers as legitimate and “multilateral.”

In practice, this manifests through several mechanisms: using small states as “moral cover,” especially in peace missions or negotiations; bargaining and co-opting votes in international organizations, where economic aid or political support is used as leverage; and forming “coalitions of the willing,” where the participation of a number of peripheral states creates the illusion of global support (e.g., the 2003 invasion of Iraq). Furthermore, small states can serve as testing grounds for different policies or as informal diplomatic channels for negotiations, thanks to their reputation for neutrality and professional diplomacy (formerly Switzerland, today certain Middle Eastern states such as Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia).

Although small states may gain benefits from such relations with great powers—such as access to resources, security protection, and political visibility—they simultaneously risk losing autonomy, diminishing normative and moral credibility, and experiencing domestic political tensions, especially if their instrumentalization becomes evident. In conclusion, the relationship between great and small states is not a simple relationship of domination but rather a complex process of mutual use and dependence, where small states often balance between the benefits of cooperation and the preservation of their own international credibility (and sovereignty), and most importantly—their survival in the anarchic international system.

Spec. pol. Bruno Rukavina is a specialist in foreign policy and diplomacy and a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb.

References

• Gartner, H. (2011). Small States and Alliances. In E. Reiter & H. Gartner (Eds.), Small States and Alliances (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer.
• Jakobsen, P. W. (2009). Small States, Big Influence. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(1), 86–87.
• Jović, D. (2010). “Croatian Foreign Policy Facing the Challenges of European Union Membership.” Politička misao, 48(2), 7–36.
• Kamrava, M. (2017). Qatari Foreign Policy and the Exercise of Subtle Power. International Studies Journal, 54(6), 91–123.
• Keohane, R. O. (1969). “Lilliputians’ Dilemma: Small States in International Politics.” International Organization, 23(2), 291–310.
• Kurečić, P. (2012). “Problematika definiranja malih država” [The Problem of Defining Small States]. Hrvatski geografski glasnik, 74(2), 89–112.
• Luša, Đ. (2019). Small States and the Big European Migration Crisis: The Open Borders Challenge. Teorija in Praksa, 56(2), 700–728.
• Thorhallsson, B., & Wivel, A. (2006). “Small States in the European Union: What Do We Know and What Would We Like to Know?” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(4), 651–668.
• Thorhallsson, B. (2012). Small States in the UN Security Council: Means of Influence? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2), 135–160.