Great Powers to the Left of Me, Small States to the Right...Explaining the foreign policy behavior of states "stuck in the middle"

Abstract

In principle, ‘international relations' is the study of the foreign policy behavior, commitments, interactions, and power dynamics of all states in the existing international order. In practice, however, this subject has focused almost exclusively on five or six great powers, which are the basis for most seminal theories about state behavior. These theories posit non-great powers lack the resources needed to assert themselves on an international stage, and thus deem them irrelevant actors. Existing research characterizes a group of secondary – or more commonly "middle" – powers. These states are expected to act as a homogenous block because of their similarly limited capabilities. Why, then, does the foreign policy behavior of middle powers vary widely in reality? My thesis addresses this question by developing a theoretical framework for "middle power behavior." The framework is two-part: first, it tests the legitimacy of the "secondary state" distinction itself, establishing a small group of middle powers defined by their shared participation in international collective action. Second, it determines middle power behavior is motivated by existing commitments (alliances), state status, and future expectations of status. The research presented below is highly theoretical; future work should test the framework in both quantitative and further qualitative studies.