|
The international system is for the most part made up by small powers or small states. While a small power in the international system may never equal or surpass the impact of larger powers, they can nevertheless influence the workings of the international system together with others. The formalization of the division between small and great powers came about with the signing of the Treaty of Chaumont in 1814. Before that the assumption had been that all independent states were in theory equal regardless of physical strength and responsibilities. From the second half of the twentieth century, the bipolar power blocs decreased the strategic room for manoeuvre for smaller actors. ==Powers great and small== Almost all studies of power in international relations focus on great power politics and it will for this reason not be discussed here. For, as László Réczei noted, power status hinges on the capacity for violence: "If the notion of war were unknown in international relations, the definition of ‘small power’ would have no significance; just as in the domestic life of a nation it has no significance whether a man is less tall or has a weaker physique than his fellow citizen.〔Réczei, (1971). The Political Aims and Experiences of Small Socialist States. In Schou, A. & Brundtland, A. O. (eds) Small States in International Relations. New York: Wiley Interscience Division, p. 76.〕 Most of the small-state studies that make up the backbone of the small power research tradition were carried out in the heyday of non-alignment by scholars such as David Vital,〔Vital, D. (1967). The Inequality of States: a Study of Small Power in International Relations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.〕 Robert Rothstein,〔Rothstein, R. L. (1968). Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia University Press.〕 Maurice East〔East, M. A. (1973). Size and Foreign Policy Behaviours: a Test of Two Models. World Politics, 25 (4), pp. 556–576.〕 and Robert Keohane.〔Keohane, R. O. (1969). Lilliputian’s Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization, 23 (2), pp. 291–310.〕 The weakening of the non-alignment movement during the 1970s coincided with a gradual decline in small-state studies, culminating in Peter Baehr’s critical appraisal of the research tradition in which he questioned smallness as a useful framework for analysis. The small-power category was first taken into serious account with David Mitrany’s study on world government (pax oecumenica) in 1933.12 Mitrany argued that the international community consisted only of two tiers of state powers: great and small.〔Mitrany, D. (1933). The Progress of International Government. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, p. 9.〕 Asle Toje takes a view where great powers and small powers distinguish themselves through patterns of behaviour. Small powers are not down scaled great powers – or oversized microstates.〔Toje, A. (2010). The European Union as a small power: After the post-Cold War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「small power」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|