SMALL STATES RECONSIDERED: SMALL IS WHAT WE MAKE OF IT.

• Author: Theys, Sarina
• Position: ARGUMENTS

"They are big and I am small, and that is not fair, oh no!" The quote above is from Calimero, an Italian animated television series about an anthropomorphized chicken. The chicken, Calimero, finds himself in situations where other people decide for him what to do and where to go. Calimero is not happy with his limitations but does not believe he can make any changes, so he complains and gets angry. However, nobody is listening to what he has to say Calimero relates this to his size and famously utters: "They are big and I am small, and that is not fair, oh no!" (1)

INTRODUCTION

Calimero's quote serves as an analogy of how some states came to be known as small states. Over the years, much has been written about small states and their conceptualization. This scholarship has sparked a debate between objectivists that focus on neutral criteria such as population size and subjectivists that focus on personalized criteria such as individual perceptions. This article critically engages with both approaches and in so doing identifies their shortcomings, which in turn formalizes a gap in the existing literature on small states. It argues that the scholarship on small states lacks an intersubjective approach. This intersubjective approach builds on existing studies and is informed by qualitative data collected at the 25th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP25) in Madrid. (2,3)

An intersubjective approach for defining small states is important, as the concept of small states is socially constructed and contentious. This means that there needs to be a shared understanding of when a state can be classified as small or otherwise. Without consensus, the concept of small states loses its significance and meaning--as demonstrated by current myriad definitions of small states. The polysemy of the term "small states" has undermined the credibility of the concept, leading to distortive appropriations of the term. The socially-constructed nature of small states further entails that the concept is subject to change--depending on how state actors identify their own and other states. These perceptions can be systematically investigated by analyzing official discourses and state practices.

The social construction of small states also implies that the concept does not have meaning unless we understand the social context in which it emerged. (4) In fact, what it means to be a small state is historically contingent and shaped by power. The origin of the concept can be traced back to the rise of the modern state system, which was established in 1648 in Western Europe as an element of the two treaties constituting the Peace of Westphalia. The Westphalian state system is based on the principles of state sovereignty, equality among states, and non-intervention of one state in another state's domestic affairs. Although the international state system is a Western European construct, developed without the involvement of non-Western states, it now encompasses every region in the world through Western territorial expansionism. (5)

Western European practices constructed the concept of small states. Rothstein noted that the first endeavor to categorize states was the Treaty of Chaumont, which was signed in 1817 after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. (6) These wars had a dual effect on the European state system, as they created both unity and division. Due to their victory, France and the winning alliance of European states, including Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, and the Habsburg Empire, gave these states special status as great powers. (7) The other states were "deemed too inconsequential" and "came to be known as small states," (8) that is, states "left to obey the rules of the game, because they were too weak to be taken seriously when the rules were negotiated." (9)

The classification principle used in the Treaty of Chaumont is still in effect today as states continue to be defined as great powers and small states. This shows that the concept of small states has become so entrenched that it is taken for granted as natural. However, we can notice a few changes. First, whereas the category of small states was initially generated indirectly--as the focus was on big states while all other states were subsequently being characterized as small--states are now defined as small in relation to objective (e.g. population size) and subjective (e.g. individual perceptions) criteria. This shows that what it means to be a small state has changed over time. Second, and related to the first point, the conventional great power-small states dichotomy has been broadened to include other types of states. These days, states are labeled as one of the following five categories: superpowers, great powers, middle powers, small states, and mini or microstates. (10) Although this categorization suggests clear boundaries between each category, the way in which states are differentiated remains vague and contentious.

The first section of this article critically engages with the classification of small states with a focus on the objective and subjective approaches for classifying states as small. Building on this discussion, the second section discusses the identification of small states while introducing an intersubjective approach that should be used to define states as small. This approach highlights the importance of a shared understanding among state actors of whether a state is small. The third section explains the implications of the intersubjective approach. Lastly, the concluding section points out the importance of an intersubjective approach for scholarship on small states.

CLASSIFICATION OF SMALL STATES: OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE APPROACHES

The academic literature shows that there is no consensus on what constitutes a small state. This incongruity has led some scholars to question the usefulness of the concept as an analytical tool. Baehr, for example, argued that most authors who want to use the concept struggle with the problem of definition and which criteria to adopt, as well as where to draw a line between large and small states. He explained that there are two main types of definitions: a clear and unambiguous definition, which he perceives as "arbitrary and intellectually difficult to defend;" and a more sophisticated definition, which is "more ambiguous and difficult to apply to concrete cases." (11) Both types of definitions have been adopted by scholars. They are detailed in this article as the objective and subjective approaches, respectively The former foregrounds quantitative variables, whereas the latter highlights qualitative characteristics. Both approaches will be discussed below.

Objective Approach

The objective approach to defining states as small focuses on tangible and quantifiable criteria. The criterion applied in these studies is size, manifested through the area of a state's territory, its population, economy, and military Of these, the most applied criterion has been population size. (12) These criteria are problematic, as they have often been applied in arbitrary ways. For instance, writing half a century ago, Marriott and Masaryk classified European states with a population of less than 20 million as small. (13) Vital, on the other hand, distinguished between economically advanced and underdeveloped countries. He set the demarcation line at 10 to 15 million for the former and increased it to 20 to 30 million for the latter. (14) Vellut combined a population limit of 10 to 50 million and/or a per capita gross domestic product level of no more US$2,000, (15) whereas Clarke and Payne defined a state as small if it has a population under one million. (16) Likewise, in the contemporary era, international organizations such as the Commonwealth and the World Bank have adopted an objective approach, as they classify countries with a population under 1.5 million as small. (17)

These studies show that the criteria and cut-off points used by scholars are both straightforward and yet subjective, as they vary from one study to another. This can be explained by the nature of the approach...