WEEK 1

 
  Size of population (less than 1 million) 
 
  Less human and material resources 
  Weak economic scale 
 
  Role and strategy of states 
Defining small 
states  Perceptive based  

Small GDP 

Quantitative    Qualitative 

Material/variable   Structurally (international system) 

 
Cambodia as small state  Small states’ foreign policy 

+ Small geographical size in SEA  + Balancing (soft, hard, direct, indirect) 

+ Less population (roughly 16 million)  + Bandwagoning (soft,hard, limited) 
+ Less GDP  + Neutrality (nonalignment) 
+ Less human and material resources  + Alliance 
+ More vulnerable to others  + Limited alignment  
+ Hedging strategy  
⇒ preserving strategy 
⇒ forging limited security alignment  
⇒ self protection to superpower  
 
Three milestone to understand small state 
 
1646  - Westphalian system was created after the 30 years religious war (414 
out of 439 are small states) 
- 1646-1790: Laisse-faire + Mercantilism (if you are strong, you can 
protect yourself, if not ⇒ invasion) 

1815  - Congress of Vienna (Russia, Prussia, Australia, UK formed congress of 

 Vienna by looking at constitution and diplomacy ⇒ foundation of FP) 
- 1914: small states fall to 79 states 
- 1814-1914: Era of concert ⇒ hegemonic equilibrium (balance of power 
+ collective security) ⇒ small state form with one another through 
diplomacy 

1918-1919  - End of WWI and create LoN forming international system 

⇒ Collective security and good governance  
 
Two constraints for states  
1. International Organization ⇒ LoN & UN  
2. International Law  
⇒ However, these also support the survival of small states  
 
  1. Balancing Vs Alliance building 
 
  2. Bandwagoning: follow the others 
Strategies of small states  3. Admonishing: allow yourself to the bigger state meaning 
that you are not sure if you are strong so you need to align 
to powerful one  
 
China (BRI) ​⇒ hegemonic liberal order ⇒ modify and change international order challenging 
the US ⇒ try to be a part of global governance, build reputation/image, get trust/confidence, able 
to modify international order 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEEK 2 
 
Types of international system​: 
System determining   - Super power: strong in all level 

System influencing   - Secondary/Great power: weaker than superpower  

System affecting   - Middle power: weak at global level, strong at regional and 
sub-regional level 

System ineffectual   - Small states: weak at global level, but strong at sub-regional level 
- Micro-states: weak at all level 
   
How to determine state power? (Robert Kechane) 
 
1. Distribution of capacities  - Size of population and territory 
- Economic system  
- Military capabilities 
- Political stability 

2. Geopolitical proximities   

3. Offensive capacity   

4. Perception aggression   
intention (perception) 
 
The needs of small states  
1. Security guarantee ⇒ survival 
2. Open economy  
⇒ Tariff and non-tariff barrier 
⇒ Free trade agreement  
3. Peaceful environment/international system  
4. International organization/ law/ norms 
Foreign policy strategies of small states 
 
1. Subordination  Seek internal order: 
- To enhance their sovereignty and territorial integrity  
 - Economic growth/ property rights (internal & external) 
- Self-enforced standard of behavior  

2. Neutrality  Not taking side 

⇒ effective under the conditions 
⇒ economic strength (have cooperation) 
⇒ diplomatic strength 
⇒ Geography (barrier, isolation, strategic insignificant) 
Challenge of neutrality 
⇒ internal political stability 
⇒ great/major power competition (hard to stay neutral i.e.Cold War) 

3. Alliance   Types of alliance: 

- Bandwagoning: ally with large state 
- Balancing: ally with small states against larger states 
- Defensive alliance (strategic umbrella): want to be protected 
by major  
How to make alliances more effective? 
- Co-economic contribution 
- State visits 
- Training  
- Sharing technology & intelligence  
Why does the microstate need alliance? 
- Security protection: sovereignty protection  
- Economic gain (stability, more investment from other country, 
foreign aids) 
- Self reflection: guide to FP by studying about the past 
Shelter Theory​: ally with major power and IOs 
Benefit of shelter theory: 
- Forum for discussion and exchanging view 
- Discussing/integrating norms/rules 
- Monitoring norms/value/rules 
- Knowledge/Technology transfer 
- Protection + Security 
- Allocate resources 
- Mobilize force  
 
 WEEK 3
 
 
  Concept  Main instrument  Post-cold war 
policy  prediction 

  - International system is  Military +  Re-emerge of great 

  anarchy   Economic  power competition 
  - Survival and Security is the 
Realism  best (high politic) 
- Power competition: state 
compete for power and 
security 

  - Interdependence (state &  Cooperation  More cooperation due 

  non-state actors are all  to the economic and 
Liberalism  important)  democracy 
- Cooperation for prosperity   i.e.Democracy won't 
- Liberal value (Human rights,  fight each other 
economic, and democracy) 

Constructivism   - Norm, identity ⇒ shape  Discourse   No specific answer- 

behavior of state   depend on content of 
idea  
 
 
Theory   - Refers to formal general statement used to explain causes and effect 
if classes phenomena  
- Two things that make theory important: 
1. Simplifying: explain what is complex that people find it hard 
to understand   
2. Function as guide: to analyse international actor, structure or 
process 
- Three basic tasks of theory: 
1. To analyze the impact of rules and decisions on state 
behavior; 
2. To understand the changing dimensions and limits of power 
structures, institutions and order, including the role of greater 
 transparency (access to information) and accountability; and 
3. To promote the ideals of justice, greater social inclusion, and 
equality. 

Meta-theory/  - Refers to theory that explain about theory  

secondary order  1. Ontology: the study of the existence of something. It is the ​‘what’  
theory  Questions:  
- What can be said to exist? 
- What is a thing? 
- What is the meaning of being? 
- What is existence? 
2. Epistemology: the study of knowledge or study of justified belief. It 
studies about the relationship of​ ‘what’ and ’who’ 
Questions: 
- What counts as knowledge? 
- What are its sources? 
- What is the relationship between a knower and what is 
known? 
- What do we know what we know? 
- How do we understand the concept of justification? 
- What makes justified beliefs justified? 
- Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? 
3. Methodological: ​how​ can we make social reality be studied  
⇒ These questions are interrelated. 
- Three characteristic of research paradigm: 
+ Accepted by the community of scientist of given discipline 
+ Found in previous discipline  
+ Direct research thoughts of what to study 
 
Positivism   + Social reality​ is real and knowable like natural science where it exists 
outside individuals.  
+ Ontology​: what happens is independent from human interpretation  
+ Epistemology​: Dualist (scholars and object are independent)+ 
Objectivists (scholar can study about the object without any influence  
+ Methodology​:  
1. Inductive research methods (specific to general) 
2. Mathematical formulations: experiments with manipulation and 
control variable  
Interpretivism   + Developed as critique of positivism in social science 
+ Social reality​ is socially constructed (not fixed), and it does not exist 
independent of human interpretation ⇒ there could be multiple reality 
+ Ontology​: constructivism and relativism ⇒ the reality depends o n 
culture and practice  
+ Epistemology​: non-dualism and non-objectivity ⇒ separation between 
researchers and objects  
+ Methodology​: Qualitative method 

Post positive/  + The combination between positivist (ontology)/ interpretivist 

critical realists  (epistemology) 
+ Social reality ​corresponds with fact, defend the possibility of causal 
explanation, and accept that knowledge is communicatively 
constructed.  
+ Ontology​: critical realism- social reality is knowable cause and effect 
outside human mind (realism) and question the existence of knowledge 
(critical) 
+ Epistemology​: modified dualism-objectivism  
+ Methodology​: both quan and qual  
 
Criteria of good theory:  
First avenue (international  Second avenue (political  Third avenue (interpretive 
relation)  and normative theory)  theory) 

1. Accuracy  1. How we got to where  1. Cannot avoid 

2. Falsifiability   we are/ why things are  interpretation 
3. Explanatory power   this way  Two categories to determine 
4. Progressivity  2. Consider word we  good interpretive theory: 
5. Consistency  want to have  - First category: need to 
6. Parsimony  3. Judge how far/ what  be broad where it 
action/ risk we can  apply to all theories 
face to introduce this  - Second category: 
theory to the world   contain more specific 
feature  
 
 
WEEK 4: Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics and
International Relationship 
 
 
  1. Individual level​: motive, belief, intention, aim, characteristic, etc. 
 
Level of analysis  2. Domestic level​: Bureaucracy, party politics, leadership, domestic 
politics 

3. International level​: International system/ structure  

 
 
  Level I​: International level  
Two-level Game 
Level II​: Domestic level 
 
 
  Agents​: individual, group dynamics, institution, etc 
Agent-Structure 
Structure:​ international environment, bureaucracy, the cabinet, etc 
 
Foreign Policy Based:  
 
Mono-causal theory  Dualist  Dialectic interpretation 

- Rely on ​only one between  - Domestic + International  - Differ from mono causal 
domestic and international  to study FP  as it focus on how both 
I. Primat der  I. Additive conceptual:   domestic and international 
Aussenpolitik​ (how  - Characteristic:  variable contribute to 
international influence  + Non-hierarchy  FPM 
FP)  + Simple  - Differ from dialectical 
II. Primat der Innenpolitik  + Symmetric  approach as it is more 
(how domestic influence  II. Nested Game  dynamic by focusing on 
FP)   (international is more  the interaction and 
  important in shaping  feedback between levels  
FP)  Two types​: 
 - Characteristic​:  I. Morphogenetic 
+ Hierarchy  Conceptualization​: 
+ Simple   international politics 
+ Non-symmetrical  provides structural 
III. Pendulum Model   context of FP action, 
- Focus both domestic  then domestic politics 
and international, but it  emerge to shape the 
is more flexible on the  nature of FP.  
level of important   ⇒ FP can leave the 
- If domestic gives more  structure unaltered 
pressure ⇒ domestic is  (morphostasis) or alter 
important  the structural 
- If international gives  (morphogenesis)  
more pressure ⇒  II. Strategic Relational 
international important  approach​: FP is 
   elaborated through 
international context 
and actor’s own 
preferences (input) ⇒ 
when it is structured, 
it will receive the 
feedback from FP 
actors and 
international relation   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
‘ 
 
WEEK 5: Theoretical underpinnings IR theory and
small states in international system  
 
Realist basic  (1) Pessimistic view of human nature 
assumption:   (2) International relations are necessarily conflictual and that international 
conflicts are ultimately resolved by war 
(3) Value national security and state survival 
(4) There can be progress in international politics which is comparable to 
that in domestic political life.  
- Anarchical system ​⇒ state seeks​ power​ for ​security  
- Increase of power of one state lead to the perception of other states 
that their security is decreasing ⇒ ​security dilemma 
- Therefore, small state should​ balance and bandwagon​ with great 
power in international system  

Kenneth Waltz  Due to anarchy, state must have: 

(1979)  1. Self-help (can rely on other) 
2. Alliance (balancing and bandwagoning is the mean to survive) 
International organization/structure shapes states’ behavior 
1. Bad structure ⇒ bad state 
2. Good structure ⇒ good state 
International system are characterized in three polarities: 
1. Unipolar: one dominant superpower 
2. Bipolar: two superpowers divide planet into separate sphere of 
influence 
3. Multipolar: many actors involve  

Bipolar   Why is bipolar more stable? 

Long peace (1945-1990):  
- Balance of power ⇒ less opportunity that they would fight  
- Equal power ⇒ mutual destruction if they wage war 
- Less potential of miscalculation (only two) 
Policy for small state in bipolar system: 
- Small states have few choices ⇒ need to choose between the two  
- Neutrality is rarer than in multipolar ⇒ small states have great 
incentive in free riding those two major power 

Multipolar  Why is multipolar less stable? 

 - Uncertainty between great and middle power ⇒ security dilemmas 
Policy for small states in multipolar system: 
- Small states have more choices ⇒ bandwagon, alliance, balancing, 
neutrality  

Unipolar   Why is unipolarity rare? 

- Rare: only happened in the victory of US and the end of cold war  
- Last for short period of time ⇒ hard to define how system work and 
how it shapes small states’ behavior  
- Characteristic: a global hegemon 
* Hegemonic stability theory: international system is stable when 
hegemonic power exercise its leadership 
Defining hegemon: 
(1) Stronger than others in term of economic and military 
(2) Willing to shape international environment  
(3) Active in international institutions 
⇒ the definition implies to the relationship with unipolar system  
*Regional hegemon: states that meet the three criterias but only regards in 
its region  
Policy for small states in unipolar 
- Soft-balancing strategies (non-compliance, diplomat pressure, taking 
an argument or issue to international institution  
 
Buffer states  - Position between larger power with degree of threat ⇒ lose control 
over foreign policy ⇒ more limited set of options (balance or 
bandwagon) 
- Three elements of buffer state 
1. Geography: located between at least two belligerent states 
2. Capacity : less powerful than those two belligerent states 
3. Impartiality:independent foreign policy that is free from the 
influence of belligerent states  
- Critic:  
1. Geography: state can still be a buffer state even if they don't 
share border with belligerents ⇒ not land but sea (Stinnett et al, 
2002) 
2. Capacity: strong state can also be buffer state  
i.e. France was a buffer between Germany and UK even if it is 
strong 
 3. Impartiality:  
- If the impartiality really exist 
- Independent is never achieved ===> states are either 
two-sided buffers (they may consider independent) or 
one side buffer (allied or quasi-allied) 

Rim states/  - Located on the edge of one or two major power 

quasi buffer  - Not lie between the two but involve in the conflict due to its part in as 
states  defensive perimeter  
 
Realist’s conclusion: 
- Strong will use the weak neighbors to act as buffer states against potential enemy 
- Buffer states are under thread 
- FP of buffer state is narrow 
- Buffer state opt of balancing or bandwagoning 
 
  Change occur due to  Prediction 

Realist​ (structure ⇒  - Rise/decline of power capability  - Reaction​:​ :small states should 

change in FP )  of states  react to structural constraints 
- Rise/decline of power capability  through ​balancing or 
of neighboring states  bandwagoning 
- Rise/decline of threat from  - How FP is made​: small states 
neighbors  will ​act like realist​ due to the 
- Change of polarity   increase level of threat 
- Change of global hegemon  - FP choices​: small states are 
- Change of position of buffer or  constrained in FP choices  
rim states  

Domestic​ (domestic  - Change of the control of the  - Reaction​: small state will 
power ⇒ change in  government due to the change of  support international law and 
FP)  administration   org​ than big state 
- Change in domestic institutions  - How FP is made:​ small state 
⇒ change number of veto  foreign policy will ​serve the 
players  interest of domestic actors  
- Change in the power of  - FP choices: ​small state FP is 
non-governmental actors  constraint by domestic 
(military, court, public opinion..)  coalition​ ⇒ slowly respond to 
 change in international 
structure  

Social constructivists  - The beginning or ending of an  - Reaction:​ small states will 
(norms/identity ⇒  established norm  develop norms to support 
change in FP)  - The development of a new  their identity 
identity  - How FP is made:​ small 
- The changing of an identity   states’ FP choice will be 
consistence with these norms 
- FP choices​: small states’ FP 
choice will be ​constraint by 
norms ​⇒ slowly respond to 
change in international 
structure  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WEEK 6: Hedging strategies 
 
​Why do small states adopt hedging? 
- Inherent vulnerabilities ⇒ exposed to wide range of risk 
- Relatively limited resources and capabilities⇒ possess fewer foreign policy option  
Alignment behavior​: is defined as the manner and extent to which a state chooses to position 
either to align with or away from powerful player(s) in the regional and international system, 
based on the degree of convergence in interests and support among them across key policy 
domains. 
⇒ Hedging is one of alignment behavior, it is differentiate from other alignment choices  
in terms of ambiguous, mixed and opposite positioning. Those positions include 
1. Power acceptance (bandwagoning) 
2. Power rejection (balancing) 
 
  Definition​: hedging is defined as an insurance-seeking behavior under uncertain 
  situation or high stakes  
 
  Three policy elements​:  
  1. Not taking side among competing power​: being in the middle position 
  2. Adop opposite and countering measure:​ meaning that opposite position can take 
  place that include two set of counteracting policy: 
  a. Return maximizing:​ maximize economic, diplomatic, and political benefits 
  - Economic pragmatism:​ maximize economic to gain power 
  - Binding agreement:​ maximize diplomatic benefits by engaging in binding 
  document through ​institutionalize bilateral and multilateral platform 
  - Limited bandwagoning:​ ​ maximize political benefits by having partnership 
  with big power through selective collaboration/policy; however,​ without 
Hedging strategy   accepting subordinate position  
b. Risk contingency​: minimizing risk when things go wrong   
- Economic diversification:​ diversify trade and investment to avoid 
dependency on one single power 
- Dominance denial:​ using ​nonmilitary mean​ to minimize geopolitical risk 
and cultivate the balance of influence among power ⇒ ​Political hedge 
(diplomacy, NGOs,...) i.e.ASEAN+3  
- Indirect balancing:​ ​ using ​military means​ to minimize security risk by 
forging defense partnership or upgrade one’s own military; however, 
without directly target to any specific major power​ ⇒​ ​Military hedge  
3. Preserve gain while cultivating a fallback position: ​states project an image of 
 not ​siding, thereby avoiding the danger of putting all-the-eggs-in-one-basket, 
while keeping a fallback position for as long as the power structure at the systemic 
level remains uncertain. 
⇒ absence of any components resulted in shift to other form of strategies 
WEEK 7: Shelter Theory 
 
  Concept​: Shelter theory holds that  
  - Small states are uniquely vulnerable relative to large states 
  - They alleviate their political, economic and societal vulnerability by 
  allying with large states 
  - They seek membership in international organizations 
  - They promote and rely on international norms and rules 
Shelter  ➔ Shelter theory​ is a series of strategy adopted to alleviate the inherent 
Theory  vulnerability to yield control of its political decision making in specific 
area 
-  

Reasons that small state use shelter theory: 

- Small territories: not having enough power ⇒ need to depend 
powerful states 
- Reduce the risk that they might face 
 
Difference between hedging and seeking shelter 
Hedging   Seeking shelter 

- Play around ⇒ in between balancing  - Assume that small states need to give 
(power rejection) and bandwagoning  up/ scarify for protection  
(power acception)  - Size of the country matter ⇒ small 
- Does not think much about size ⇒ can  need to always depend on the big   
apply for medium power or great 
power  
 
Difference between alliance theories (Waltz) and alliance shelter theory 
 
Traditional theories   Shelter theory 

1. Accept that all states are​ functional   1. Reject that all state are ​functional 
because all states are not the same 

1. Focus on ​external   2. Focus on ​domestic  

3. Believe in ​relative gain​ within states’  3. No ​relative gain​ between states’ 

 relationship (one win, one lose)  relationship 

4. Political, economic, security  4. ​Protection 

5. Less attention to ​tangible social and  5. More attention to ​tangible social and 
cultural relationship  cultural relationship 

6. Not sacrifying ​control   6. Sacrify ​control​ over freedom and 

resources  
 
Case Studies [ Iceland ] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEEK 9: Politic and Security  
 
 
Framework that explain change in small states defence strategies: 
 
1. Independent  External shock/ Strategic shock  
variables   - Refers to an event that happens ​unexpectedly​ with deeply 
consequential and demands counter measure from political 
authority  
i.e.9/11; China’s land proclamation of SCS 
- The impact of strategic shocks is analyzed on two level: 
1. Political strategic level​: strategic shock imply the 
change in alignment strategic of state 
2. Military strategic level​: strategic shock change 

2. Dependent variables  Defence strategies  

- Refers as interconnected ideas on how politically defined 
military-strategic end should be achieved through 
alignment strategies ⇒​ alignment strategy + military 
mean (use of force) 
- This strategy includes:  
1. Idea on how current and future military capacities 
should be formed 
2. Arrangement for pooling and sharing of military 
resources to respond to external strategic shock 

3. Control variables  a. Strategic exposure​: situation where small state does not have 
any necessary national means to protect itself and open for 
cooperation between interdependent states ⇒ hedging, 
bandwagoning, balancing  
b. Capacity:​   
+ Kenneth Waltz​: capability refers to the ​combination o​ f size 
of population and territory, resource endowment, economic 
capability, military strength, political stability and 
competence. 
+ Morgenthau​: capability ​is elements of national power 
including geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, 
military preparedness (technology, leadership & quantity and 
 quality of armed forces), population, national character and 
morale, as well as quality of government and diplomacy. 
⇒ Three dimension related to Morgenthau’s argument: 
- If state has land or sea power 
- Strategic depth and natural defences 
- Friendly and threatening from great power  
+ John Mearsheimer​: defines capability as an aggregated 
capabilities approach​ ​by introducing a distinction between 
latent power (‘raw potential’, primarily population and 
wealth) and military power. 
+ Glenn Snyder​: argues capability is considered in terms of a 
relationship,​ that is, what a given state could accomplish in 
interaction with other states.  
c. Interests​: what are the purpose of the strategy  

4. Intervening variables   a. Geographical characteristic 

b. Historical experiences: military experience 
c. Membership in alliance  
 
 
  - ​ ith other 
Refers to the way of ​interacting on a political level w
  states/organizations under the topic of national security and 
  defence. i.e. isolation, balancing, bandwagoning, hedging 
  a. Isolation 
  - Active (distancing) 
  - Passive (hiding) 
  - Buck-passing  
Small states’  b. Balance of power 
alignment strategies   - Unilateral  
- Chain-ganging  
- Courting (informal) 
c. Bandwagoning 
- Offensive (for profit) 
- Defensive (appeasement)  
d. Hedging  
- Combination of alignment strategies involving 
cooperation with different states or alliance  
 
WEEK 13: Negotiation  
 
 
How can small states successfully punch above their weight in international negotiations? 
 
  1. Contact institutional actors (chairs, secretariats) ​⇒ to 
  increase level of expertise on subject and knowledge 
Small states’ capacity  about other actors 
building strategies  2. Receiving NGOs, industry lobby lists​ ⇒ gain expertise 
on subject matter 
3. Learn from past experience​ ⇒ know how negotiation 
work in specific setting and strengthen network 

  1. Re(framing)​ ⇒ influence negotiation processes through 

  persuasive and bargaining strategies 
  2. Causal/ Technical arguing:​ influence negotiation 
  outcome via persuasion using ​scientific expertise 
  3. Moral arguing​: influence negotiation outcome via 
  persuasion using ​moral argument  
Small states’ shaping  4. Legal arguing/shaming​: influence negotiation outcome 
strategy  via persuasion of third party on the basis of the ​legal 
expertise 
5. Coalition-building​: increase ​collective leverage ​(through 
either bargaining or discursive power) 
i.e.G77 ⇒ demand responsibility from rich state over 
colonization   
6. ​Bargaining:​ influence negotiation outcome via 
demand/threats/concession/offers 
7. Value-claiming​: influence the negotiation outcome via 
first mover advantages​ in bargaining process of 
negotiation  
 
How can small states influence the UNSC ? 
 
1. Internal competence  Knowledge, initiative, and diplomatic, coalition and leadership 
skills.  
 2. Image in international  perception of ​neutrality ​or reputation as a ​norm entrepreneur 
system   in particular policy fields.  
   
 
How can Cambodia punch above its weight in international negotiation? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEEK 14: Soft Power
 
Sources of power  
Natural sources of power  - Geographic size and position  
- Natural resources  
- Population  

Tangible sources of power  - Industrial development  

- Infrastructure 
- Military 

Intangible sources of power  - National image and public support 

- Leadership  
- Soft power  
 
Soft power  1. Informational power:​ getting others to want what one wants through 
attraction instead of coercion  
⇒ Rainbow application: national building, aid, reconstruction, 
image burnishing, fighting against terrorism or support conventional 
military campaign  
2. Public diplomacy​: using diplomatic methods to create favorable 
image of state or its people in the eyes of other states and their public  
i.e. student exchanges, media 
3. Celebrity diplomacy:​ using popular individual to gain attention on 
the issue ⇒ try to influence both public and decision maker to a 
course of action  
i.e. South korea using PSY (blackpink), US using Angelina Jolie 
 
Singapore Development Model: 
- Role in region  
- Strong political ⇒ leader is strong 
- Diplomatic mediation ⇒ NK and US submit 
- Open market