The Diplomacies of Small States at the Start of the Twenty-first Century: How Vulnerable? How Resilient?

Abstract

While there are now more small states than ever, the analytic and policy attention towards these states has not matched their proliferation. Hence the timeliness of this collection, which is designed as a catch-up exercise from both an academic and practical perspective and concentrates on the Caribbean. Reflective of a structurally imposed condition, small states continue to be disconnected from the most salient debates in International Relations (IR). Current theoretical shifts in IR to the regional-global architecture are almost universally perceived to be due to the emergence of the so-called BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) — or alternative acronyms such as the Next 11 (N11) — at the upper middle of the international hierarchy, and not to any relocation among small actors.

Small states are mostly acted upon by much more powerful states and institutions … Vulnerabilities rather than opportunities … come through as the most striking manifestations of the consequences of smallness in global politics.

(Payne 2004: 634)

Resilience can be defined in many ways, but here it is defined as the ability to recover from or adjust to change. This definition is associated with the coping ability of an economically vulnerable country … Resilience may be inherent or nurtured … Nurtured resilience is that which is developed and managed, often as a result of some deliberate policy … resilience building. On the other hand, a country can adopt policies which exacerbate its inherent vulnerability.

(Briguglio 2007: 105)