estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

The Quiet Architects of Global Governance:

Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse

Authority

Os Arquitetos Silenciosos da Governança Global: A Agência

dos Pequenos Estados em uma Era de Autoridade Difusa

Los Arquitectos Silenciosos de la Gobernanza Global: La

Agencia de los Pequeños Estados en una Era de Autoridad

Difusa

1

Shamkhal Mammadov

2

Zeynalabdin Naghisoy

3

Muharrem Bagir

DOI: 10.5752/P.2317-773X.2025v13.n2.p216

Enviado em: 23 de agosto de 2025

Aceito em: 18 de novembro de 2025

ABSTRACT

This study undertakes a critical examination of the multifaceted eﬀects of

globalization on small states, engaging with the conceptual foundations of sove-

reignty, agency, and security within an increasingly interdependent global order.

It moves beyond traditional materialist paradigms by employing constructivist

and institutionalist perspectives to assess how small states, often marked by limi-

ted strategic depth and asymmetrical power relations, mitigate structural vulne-

rabilities through adaptive practices such as multilateral engagement, normative

entrepreneurship, and specialized diplomacy. Adopting a conceptual-analytical

approach, the analysis demonstrates how the erosion of conventional state bou-

ndaries, intensiﬁed by digitalization and expanding communication networks,

reconﬁgures security imperatives and constrains national autonomy, particularly

in contexts of weak institutional resilience. Rather than treating small states so-

lely as passive recipients of global transformations, the study underscores their

capacity to act as agents that shape emerging normative frameworks and exploit

institutional gaps. It further emphasizes the growing importance of intangi-

ble assets such as credibility, innovation, and normative leadership in shaping

inﬂuence. The ﬁndings suggest that within the dynamics of globalization, the

survival and relevance of small states depend less on material power capabilities

than on their ability to reconceptualize sovereignty, engage strategically with

international institutions, and innovate diplomatically.

1. Dr Shamkhal Mammadov, Associate Professor and Head, Department of International Relations, Nakhchivan

State University, Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan, ORCID: 0000-0002-6072-0312, samxalmammadov@ndu.edu.az.

2. Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Department of International Relations, Selçuk University, Konya, Türkiye, ORCID:

0009-0002-9058-6887, znaghisoy@gmail.com.

3. Dr Muharrem Bagir, Department of Sociology, Selçuk University, Konya, Türkiye, ORCID: 0000-0002-0895-

1340, bagirmuharrem@gmail.com.

216

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

Keywords: Small states, global governance, globalization, interdependence,

norm entrepreneurship

RESUMO

A globalização e o aprofundamento da interdependência remodelaram tanto as

vulnerabilidades quanto às oportunidades enfrentadas pelos pequenos Estados,

expondo-os a choques externos, como intrusões cibernéticas, interrupções nas

cadeias de suprimentos e pressões regulatórias transfronteiriças, ao mesmo

tempo em que ampliam os espaços institucionais e técnicos por meio dos quais

podem exercer inﬂuência. A crescente integração aos mercados globais e aos

sistemas de governança gera riscos assimétricos, mas também permite que pe-

quenos Estados convertam o entrelaçamento em vantagem estratégica ao diver-

siﬁcarem alinhamentos, fortalecerem capacidades de adaptação governamental

e investirem em formas de expertise que têm peso nos processos de formulação

de regras. À medida que a autoridade no sistema internacional se dispersa cada

vez mais entre órgãos regulatórios, comitês técnicos e instituições multilayer,

pequenos Estados passam a dispor de novas vias para moldar resultados por

meio de diplomacia ancorada na credibilidade, deﬁnição de padrões e iniciativas

especíﬁcas de mediação. A análise sugere que a ordem global contemporânea

não apenas impõe limitações aos pequenos Estados; ela também lhes oferece

mecanismos distintivos de agência, enraizados na resiliência, na especialização e

na capacidade de transformar a interdependência em inﬂuência estruturada.

Palavras-chave: Estados pequeños, gobernanza global, globalización, interde-

pendencia, emprendimiento normativo

RESUMEN

La globalización y el creciente grado de interdependencia han transformado

tanto las vulnerabilidades como las oportunidades que enfrentan los Estados

pequeños, exponiéndolos a choques externos como intrusiones cibernéticas,

interrupciones en las cadenas de suministro y presiones regulatorias transfron-

terizas, mientras amplían los espacios institucionales y técnicos a través de los

cuales pueden ejercer inﬂuencia. La integración cada vez mayor en los merca-

dos globales y en los sistemas de gobernanza genera riesgos asimétricos, pero

también permite que los Estados pequeños conviertan dicha interconexión en

una ventaja estratégica mediante la diversiﬁcación de alineamientos, el fortale-

cimiento de sus capacidades de adaptación gubernamental y la inversión en for-

mas de especialización que resultan decisivas en los procesos de elaboración de

normas. A medida que la autoridad en el sistema internacional se dispersa entre

organismos regulatorios, comités técnicos e instituciones multinivel, los Estados

pequeños disponen de nuevas vías para moldear resultados mediante diploma-

cia basada en la credibilidad, la deﬁnición de estándares y esfuerzos especíﬁcos

de mediación. El análisis sugiere que el orden global contemporáneo no solo

impone limitaciones a los Estados pequeños; también les proporciona mecanis-

mos distintivos de agencia, basados en la resiliencia, la pericia y la capacidad de

transformar la interdependencia en inﬂuencia estructurada.

Palabras clave: Estados pequeños, globalización, soberanía, adaptación estraté-

gica, agencia internacional

1 INTRODUCTION

The contemporary phase of globalization, particularly in its post-

-Cold War manifestation, acquired a more pronounced and institutiona-

lized character following the disintegration of the bipolar international

217

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

order and the subsequent collapse of communism (Bagir, 2024). While

the Cold War structure eﬀectively divided the international system into

two antagonistic ideological and geopolitical blocs, each orbiting around

a dominant superpower, namely the United States and the Soviet Union,

this dichotomy, despite its restrictive nature, paradoxically preserved the

autonomy of national governments, which retained near-exclusive autho-

rity over their domestic aﬀairs, including security, cultural orientation,

economic management, and the regulation of external relations. In that

conﬁguration, although states were aligned, either willingly or coerci-

vely, with one of the two hegemonic poles, the apparatuses of governance

and control remained primarily centered within the territorial nation-s-

tate, with national sovereignty and governmental authority functioning

as the principal locus of power (Gaddis, 2005; Held et al., 1999; Seyidbayli,

2025).

However, the post-Cold War transition toward a unipolar interna-

tional structure, dominated by the United States and facilitated by the

ideational expansion of liberalism (Fukuyama, 1992; Taylor, 1996), coin-

cided with the intensiﬁcation of globalization processes, which precipi-

tated fundamental transformations in the conceptualization of political

authority, economic interdependence, cultural exchange, and, critically,

national and international security (Held et al. 1999; Bagir, 2024). This

transformative shift was not merely institutional but also communica-

tive and epistemological, as the rapid proliferation of information tech-

nologies, digital networks, and satellite communications fundamentally

altered the dynamics of state-society relations and redeﬁned the spatial

and functional boundaries of state sovereignty. The global diﬀusion of

the Internet, along with the liberalization of media environments, con-

fronted states, particularly those with limited strategic depth and insti-

tutional resilience, with unprecedented challenges in managing external

inﬂuences and maintaining control over public discourse and informatio-

nal ﬂows (Deibert, 1997).

Historically, the conceptualization of security had been predomi-

nantly territorial, centered on the physical protection and surveillance of

borders, wherein the state functioned as the exclusive gateway through

which individuals could engage with the external world (Acharya; Buzan,

2019). Even before the modern period, the nature of security was actually

deﬁned in response to a situation of all-out war. Communication chan-

nels were limited, and interactions were often limited to meeting basic

needs such as preventing war or providing for war supplies. But as social

life progressed, states took control of everything, eﬀectively socializing

human life in an interconnected society.

Before the spread of globalization, nationalist narratives were lar-

gely conﬁned to state-owned or tightly controlled media outlets, which

functioned as instruments for transmitting oﬃcial discourses and rein-

forcing state authority. By contrast, the rise of a globally interconnected

digital environment has signiﬁcantly eroded these boundaries, allowing

individuals to access, disseminate, and engage with diverse sources of

information and ideological content across borders in real time, indepen-

dent of state structures or their mediation. Consequently, the security

218

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

paradigm has broadened to encompass non-traditional and transnatio-

nal dimensions, compelling states, and particularly small nation-states,

to reconceptualize their strategic posture in response to a fundamentally

transformed informational and geopolitical context.

Small states are generally deﬁned by their limited material and geo-

political capabilities, such as small populations, territorial size, economic

resources, or global inﬂuence, which shape their strategic behavior in the

international system. Thorhallsson (2018) characterizes small states as

entities with constrained administrative and economic capacities, often

relying on international cooperation and institutions to pursue their in-

terests, particularly in a globalized world. Similarly, Maass (2009) deﬁnes

small states by their relative power asymmetry compared to larger states,

emphasizing their vulnerability to external pressures and their strategic

use of diplomacy to mitigate risks. Additionally, Baldacchino and Wivel

(2020) argue that small states are distinguished not only by quantitative

metrics like GDP or population but also by their ability to leverage niche

roles, such as mediation or innovation, to enhance their global presen-

ce despite limited resources. These deﬁnitions highlight the interplay of

measurable attributes and strategic adaptability in conceptualizing small

states.

This research seeks to advance the literature on small state beha-

vior in the context of globalization by highlighting how these actors exer-

cise agency and shape global governance beyond conventional measures

of power. While much of the existing research emphasizes the material

limitations of small states or their dependence on multilateral institu-

tions, this study introduces a nuanced conceptualization that highlights

the strategic use of normative authority, specialized expertise, and proce-

dural inﬂuence. By examining how small states use regulatory, technical,

and institutional arenas to embed their preferences in global norms, this

article addresses a gap in understanding the mechanisms through which

smaller actors can exert sustained inﬂuence despite structural asymme-

tries. In doing so, it contributes theoretically by redeﬁning agency not as

a derivative of material capacity but as a function of strategic adaptation,

credibility, and innovative engagement with institutional processes, the-

reby oﬀering a fresh window into the analysis of power and inﬂuence in

a fragmented global order.

This study attempts to answer a set of research questions that at-

tempt to shed light on how small states cope with the challenges posed

by their structural constraints. Speciﬁcally, it asks how globalization af-

fects fundamental conceptual foundations such as governance, economi-

cs, and security for states with limited strategic depth and asymmetric

power relations. It also examines the extent to which adaptive strategies

such as multilateralism, entrepreneurship, and special diplomacy enable

small states to reduce vulnerabilities and ensure a degree of cooperation

and adaptation in a system dominated by super powers. Furthermore,

the analysis examines how the erosion of conventional state boundaries

through digitalization and the expansion of communication networks

has transformed the nature of classical security imperatives and impo-

sed new constraints on national sovereignty, especially for small states.

219

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

Ultimately, the central question revolves around whether the survival of

small states in the globalization era depends less on traditional material

power capabilities and more on their capacity to reconceptualize sove-

reignty, engage strategically with international institutions, and innovate

diplomatically.

To avoid conceptual confusion, this study distinguishes between

the key concepts of sovereignty, autonomy, agency, and resilience in re-

lation to small states. Sovereignty refers to the formal-legal authority

of a state to make independent decisions and exercise control within its

recognized borders, while autonomy indicates the practical dimension

of that sovereignty, its capacity to act freely within the structural cons-

traints imposed by great powers and global institutions (Krasner, 1999).

In contrast, agency refers to the ability of small states to act purposefully

and inﬂuence outcomes beyond their material capabilities, often through

strategies such as coalition building, normative entrepreneurship, or di-

plomatic expertise (Braun, 2019). Finally, resilience refers to the institu-

tional and normative ﬂexibility that enables these states to resist external

pressures, adapt to systemic changes, and maintain both their autonomy

and agency over time (Bourbeau, 2015). By drawing on these related but

distinct concepts, this paper aims to provide greater analytical rigor in

examining how globalization is changing the strategic behavior of small

nation-states.

Based on these questions, this research hypothesizes that in the

current globalized order, the survival of small states is determined not

primarily by their material capabilities, but rather by their ability to adapt

to global governance, strengthen governance adaptability, and pursue

adaptive strategies such as multilateral engagement, normative entre-

preneurship, and special status diplomacy, which collectively allow small

states to reduce systemic fragility and maintain a degree of autonomy.

2 METHODOLOGY

The methodological approach of this study combines conceptual and

analytical reasoning with a structured bibliographic strategy. The sources

reviewed include peer-reviewed journal articles, monographs, and institu-

tional reports published primarily between 1990 and 2025, selected based

on their relevance to three related areas of globalization, small state theory,

and international political economy. Relevant scholarly books, including

Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen (2009) and also Andres Wivel publications

preceding this period, are employed as foundational theoretical sources.

The bibliographic collection was reﬁned through thematic relevance and

theoretical saturation rather than through quantitative sampling. The

analytical categories of sovereignty, agency, autonomy, resilience, and

adaptation were extracted through interpretive study and conceptual co-

ding, allowing the study to trace the evolving meanings and operational

meanings of these terms in scholarly discourse. The analytical process is

therefore aligned with constructivist and institutionalist perspectives, em-

phasizing how the strategic behavior of small states in a globalized interna-

tional order is shaped by institutional ideas, norms, and practices.

220

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

This method is informed by the logic of structured, focused com-

parison (George; Bennett, 2004), in which select dimensions; namely,

sovereignty, security, and strategic agency, are explored in light of their

interaction with globalization-induced structural pressures. The theore-

tical grounding relies primarily on constructivist international political

theory, supplemented by ideas on small state literature, global gover-

nance studies, and critical security theory. This framework allows for an

analysis that transcends materialist deﬁnitions of power, focusing instead

on ideational agency, institutional adaptation, and the reconﬁguration of

strategic behavior in the face of complex interdependence (Keohane; Nye,

1977). Given the paper’s ambition to function as a reference study rather

than an empirical report, the emphasis is placed on the interpretive syn-

thesis of existing knowledge, critical examination of current and emer-

ging conceptual debates, and proposition of future research trajectories

grounded in normative and institutional transformations aﬀecting small

states under globalization.

3 SOVEREIGNTY, ADAPTATION AND STRATEGIC AGENCY IN AN

INTERDEPENDENT WORLD

From a neoliberal institutionalist perspective, the enduring role of

state actors remains intact amidst the proliferation of supranational regi-

mes and organizations that are shifting the locus of governance and nor-

mative innovation away from national capitals. But this fragmentation is

eroding the monopoly of state power structures and strengthening the

inﬂuence of supranational institutions and supranational institutions in

shaping actors’ national and international policies (Keohane, 1984). Thus,

rather than eroding into oblivion, sovereignty, as a temporary and in-

terwoven structure, is deeply embedded in networks of legal, market-

-based, and ideological linkages. All actors, especially small states that

are constrained by limited resources due to pursuing individual strate-

gies, are initially constrained by their location in global architectures.

But along with this, it opens up avenues for strengthening the voice of

small states through common international platforms (Thorhallsson,

2018; Ingebritsen, 2006).

The increasing entanglement of states in dense networks of econo-

mic, technological, and normative interdependence has made sovereig-

nty a much more ﬂexible and negotiable condition than classical interna-

tional relations theory once assumed. For small states in particular, so-

vereignty no longer means a static set of territorial or coercive attributes

but rather a dynamic capacity to manage confrontation, foster strategic

partnerships, and exercise measured forms of agency in various arenas

of governance. Rather than seeing globalization as a unilateral force that

diminishes their autonomy, many small states have begun to reinterpret

its pressures as opportunities for strategic repositioning, using institu-

tional partnerships, regulatory innovation, and credit capital to consoli-

date their authority at home while increasing their presence abroad. In

this space, sovereignty is better understood not as a dual asset, but as a

relational practice shaped by adaptability, credibility, and the ability to

221

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

navigate asymmetrical structures without ceding decision-making au-

thority (Baker, 2021; Long, 2017).

National sovereignty is now subject to a set of new changes cente-

red on “the shifting distribution of state power and the frequent occur-

rence of transnational crises” (Faude; Karlsrud, 2025). This transforma-

tion in governance is particularly evident in how small states reconﬁgure

agency through selective engagement with global governance mechanis-

ms. By strategically aligning themselves with issue-speciﬁc regimes such

as international humanitarian action, digital regulation, environmental

governance, maritime security, or ﬁnancial transparency, these states

use institutional inﬂuence as a source of insulation and inﬂuence. Their

participation in such regimes aims to create international legitimacy to

shape legislative processes, gain technical leverage, and cultivate a credi-

ble authority that compensates for limited material capabilities. In doing

so, small states transform their structural vulnerabilities into platforms

for self-expression, often becoming agenda-setters in areas where exper-

tise and normative clarity matter more than economic or military power.

This strategic realignment emphasizes that agency in a globalized system

is increasingly exercised through institutional skill, not through the accu-

mulation of hard power (Tonon, 2020; Wijaya et al., 2024).

From a constructivist standpoint, sovereignty is not merely a legal

status but a socially constructed institution, the legitimacy and meaning

of which are contingent upon intersubjective recognition and normative

consensus within the international community (Wendt, 1992; Bartelson,

1993). In this view, the agency of small states is not solely determined

by material capability, but also by their capacity to engage in ideational

contestation, norm entrepreneurship, and diplomatic innovation, thereby

inﬂuencing the constitutive rules of the international system. As such,

small states can wield disproportionate normative inﬂuence when they

successfully position themselves as credible advocates of global norms,

mediators in regional disputes, or innovators in international governance

(Cooper; Shaw, 2009).

4 RESILIENCE AMID ASYMMETRY

Small states today navigate a complex arena in which structural

vulnerability to external shocks, market volatility, coercive diplomacy,

and transboundary threats is a persistent constraint and at the same time

a catalyst for new strategic processes. Rather than viewing vulnerability

as an unchangeable state, contemporary research increasingly emphasi-

zes how vulnerability stimulates institutional learning, accelerates policy

innovation, and leads small states to diversify their external engagements

in ways that enhance resilience. For example, ﬁnancial fragility often for-

ces these states to establish strong regulatory frameworks, improve trans-

parency, and build their credibility with international investors and ra-

ting agencies. Similarly, limited military capacity encourages investment

in non-traditional security tools such as cyber defense architectures, in-

formation-sharing networks, and diplomatic de-escalation mechanisms.

These adaptive capacities are not created against structural vulnerability,

222

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

but emerge because of it. That is, adaptive capacities represent a strategic

reconﬁguration in which resource constraints encourage eﬃciency, fore-

sight, and expertise (Briguglio, 2014; Vaicekauskait , 2017).

At the same time, adaptive behaviors among small states have in-

creasingly expanded beyond traditional domains of statecraft toward

predictive governance that encompasses risk assessment, technological

literacy, and regional coordination. This shift reﬂects the recognition

that multifaceted exposures span economic, environmental, digital, and

geopolitical domains and therefore require multidimensional policy res-

ponses. Small states are responding by institutionalizing early warning

mechanisms, nurturing innovation ecosystems to reduce dependence

on foreign technology actors, and embedding their domestic agendas in

transnational networks that provide both protection and visibility. Such

practices suggest that structural exposure does not necessarily diminish

sovereignty; rather, it can transform the concept of sovereignty by em-

phasizing agility, strategic diversity, and the capacity to transform vulne-

rability into long-term adaptive advantage (Lutmar 2025; Briguglio, 2022).

Exposure to information and technology threats has become one

of the most important constraints shaping the strategic horizons of small

states, as their limited resources make them particularly vulnerable to

disruptions in digital infrastructure and the politicization of information

ﬂows. Unlike larger powers that can absorb cyber shocks or maintain

diverse technology ecosystems, small states often rely on foreign provi-

ders for cloud services, data storage, telecommunications hardware, and

artiﬁcial intelligence applications, leading to dependencies that expose

them to vulnerabilities ranging from cyber sabotage to foreign surveil-

lance and algorithmic manipulation. However, this same exposure to in-

formation is also pushing small states to adopt forward-looking strategies

that combine regulatory innovation with technological experimentation

(UNDP, 2024).

Some states, such as Estonia, have begun to develop sovereign data

frameworks, invest in secure digital identity systems, and participate in

regional cybersecurity alliances to mitigate asymmetric risks (Hardy,

2024). Others are experimenting with public and private digital innova-

tion labs that nurture domestic technological competencies and thereby

gradually reduce dependence on foreign suppliers. By turning informa-

tion exposure into an incentive for institutional modernization, small

states are demonstrating that technological dependence has presented

them with an opportunity to strengthen infrastructure. It can also serve

as a catalyst for rethinking digital governance, increasing resilience, and

emphasizing a more meaningful presence in emerging global technology

regimes (Kuulmann, 2024).

Therefore, in response to these growing information and technologi-

cal vulnerabilities, like great powers, small states are increasingly adopting

multi-layered strategies that combine institutional innovation, regulatory

tightening, and strategic partnerships to counter external shocks and re-

gain some of their digital autonomy. Many are developing comprehensi-

ve national cybersecurity architectures, such as integrating early warning

systems, encrypted government communications, and centralized incident

223

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

response units, while strengthening data protection regimes to limit undue

inﬂuence by foreign technology providers. Others are pursuing selective

diversiﬁcation by partnering with multiple technology providers rather

than relying on a single great power ecosystem, thereby reducing the poli-

tical risks inherent in technological dependency. At the same time, regional

cooperation platforms, joint cyber training programs, and joint digital fo-

rensics initiatives are helping small states share expertise that they cannot

develop on their own. Small states are increasingly investing in domestic

innovation ecosystems by supporting digital startups, university research

partnerships, and autonomous cloud initiatives to cultivate indigenous ca-

pacities that gradually reduce their asymmetric exposure. Thus, through

this combination of defensive, regulatory, and developmental measures,

some small states have transformed structural vulnerability into a more

manageable strategic position (Areng, 2014; Wu, 2025).

5 THE FADING DOMINION OF STATE-CENTRIC AUTHORITY

The erosion of purely state-centered authority in the era of globa-

lization has transformed the security environment in ways that dispro-

portionately aﬀect small states, exposing them to pressures that they are

structurally less equipped to withstand. As security is the core for sta-

te survival, states are highly vulnerable in the new global environment

(Sadri Alibabalu, 2022). No longer isolated by geography or traditional

notions of territorial control, small states now face security challenges

stemming from transnational economic ﬂuctuations, global market de-

pendencies, changing alliance structures, and the increasing assertiveness

of great powers. Their limited military capabilities make them highly

vulnerable to coercive diplomacy, great power competition, and regional

instability. The openness of their economies increases their exposure to

external shocks, sanctions, and supply chain disruptions that can quickly

translate into political or social stress. At the same time, participation

in global institutions and normative regimes, while oﬀering avenues for

protection, also limits their political autonomy by imposing standards

and expectations often shaped by larger states. In this transformed en-

vironment, security for small states is no longer primarily limited to the

concept of territorial defense, but is deﬁned by the capacity to manage

interdependence, maintain decision-making space, and mitigate the risks

posed by a system in which authority is diﬀuse and asymmetrical power

relations remain deeply entrenched (Wivel et al., 2014: 4-8, Bagir, 2024).

At the same time, the dispersion of authority in international ins-

titutions, regulatory regimes, and transnational networks forces small

states to navigate security environments in which power lies as much in

rules and dependencies as in military might. Their participation in global

markets, ﬁnancial systems, and multilateral agreements that are essen-

tial for economic survival inevitably ties their security to external actors

whose priorities they cannot fully shape. This creates a security paradox.

Accordingly, the same mechanisms that provide stability and legitimacy

also create new vulnerabilities, from exposure to geopolitical conditio-

nality to vulnerability to political constraints imposed by international

224

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

lenders or powerful regional blocs. Moreover, the increasing securitiza-

tion of trade, infrastructure, and strategic resources means that small sta-

tes often ﬁnd themselves at the intersection of competing agendas of great

powers, forced to balance rather than choose sides. As a result, their main

security challenge is to maintain independence in increasingly dense pat-

terns of interdependence, which requires ongoing diplomatic coordina-

tion to prevent external pressures from eroding the foundations of their

sovereignty and long-term strategic choice (Samardžija and Šabi, 2014).

Beyond traditional military considerations, all states, especially

small ones, now face a growing range of unconventional threats, particu-

larly cybersecurity risks, digital espionage, and the weaponization of in-

formation, which increase their structural vulnerabilities in a globalized

environment. Unlike conventional threats, which typically involve identi-

ﬁable actors and tangible forms of coercion, these emerging threats operate

through dispersed networks, ambiguous attribution, and low-cost disrup-

tion, placing disproportionate pressure on states with limited technologi-

cal infrastructure and defense capacities. Cyberattacks targeting ﬁnancial

systems, energy networks, and critical public services can cause strategic

paralysis without a single shot being ﬁred. Disinformation campaigns and

digital interference also undermine social cohesion, electoral integrity, and

the credibility of public institutions. For small countries that rely heavily

on digital governance, open economies, and external connectivity, these

threats pose a profound challenge, as they undermine domestic stability

and complicate foreign policy independence in ways that blur the bounda-

ries between domestic and external security (Li, 2024; Tan, 2020).

In response to these security challenges, some small states have

demonstrated remarkable adaptive capacity by integrating resilience into

their technological infrastructure and governance practices. For exam-

ple, Estonia has emerged as a global example after the massive attacks on

its digital infrastructure in 2007 by developing a comprehensive cyber-

security architecture, including the X-Road data exchange platform,

advanced digital identity systems, and the establishment of the NATO

Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence. These measures not

only protected critical national functions from cyber disruption, but also

positioned Estonia as a knowledge hub and normative actor in internatio-

nal cybersecurity governance (Carmichael, 2025; Marak, 2025). By leve-

raging expertise, institutional innovation, and multilateral engagement,

the country has demonstrated how small states can turn vulnerability

into strategic advantage and ensure that limited material resources do

not prevent meaningful inﬂuence in a security environment increasingly

deﬁned by technological interdependence and information disclosure.

6 THE IMPERATIVES OF INTERDEPENDENCE IN ENTANGLED

ECONOMIES

The deep interdependence of global markets has transformed the

strategic security, especially security of small countries, forcing them to

navigate an economic environment in which domestic stability is deeply

tied to foreign policy, international ﬂows of capital, trade, and investment.

225

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

In such interconnected economies, even minor disruptions such as war

between other states, ﬁnancial shocks, supply chain disruptions, or com-

modity price ﬂuctuations can disproportionately aﬀect national outco-

mes and expose small countries to vulnerabilities that go far beyond their

territorial or demographic limits. The imperative is therefore not isola-

tion but calculated integration. Many small countries in Europe and Asia

have developed diverse economic linkages, protecting themselves against

dependence, and actively participating in multilateral trading regimes to

reduce asymmetric pressures from larger economic actors (Lupel et al.,

2024; Sadri Alibabalu, 2018).

Beyond risk management, then, interdependence opens avenues

for strategic leverage. By gaining specialized positions in global economic

networks, small states can turn connectivity into bargaining power and

inﬂuence in agenda-setting. For example, small states such as the UAE,

Qatar, and Singapore, which have acted as vital logistics hubs, ﬁnancial

intermediaries, or suppliers of unique natural resources, have acquired

asymmetric importance despite their limited overall material capacity.

This strategic use of economic connectivity allows small states to shape

outcomes in ways that compensate for their size, suggesting that agency

in the contemporary global economy derives as much from position and

relational advantage as from absolute power.

At the same time, interdependence has intensiﬁed the need for ins-

titutional complexity and adaptive governance. Small states increasingly

rely on ﬂexible policy frameworks, forward-looking regulatory regimes,

and public-private coordination to manage the cascading eﬀects of ex-

ternal shocks. Singapore exempliﬁes this approach through its proactive

economic diversiﬁcation strategies, strong sovereign wealth manage-

ment, and regional trade leadership, which collectively ensure resilience

while maximizing the country’s inﬂuence in Southeast Asian and global

markets (Cheang; Lim, 2023). Such practices demonstrate that taking the

right measures can reduce the risks of entangled and restrictive economic

relationships and can also strategically contribute to enhancing security

and agency in an era deﬁned by global solidarity.

7 SMALL STATES AS PIONEERS OF GLOBAL NORMS AND

STANDARDS

Amid the architecture of global governance, small states have be-

gun to cultivate alternative avenues for inﬂuence that go beyond the con-

ventional emphasis on multilateral engagement or moral support. Their

strategic behavior increasingly reﬂects a form of collective governance

engineering in which groups of small actors coordinate to shape the pro-

cedural norms, administrative standards, and issue-speciﬁc regimes that

structure international cooperation. This approach enables them to em-

bed their preferences in the operating routines of global institutions and

to create forms of inﬂuence that are subtle but durable. Small states are

redeﬁning how authority is exercised in institutional settings by setting

coalition-based agendas in thematic areas ranging from maritime regu-

lation and digital certiﬁcation standards to biodiversity protection and

226

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

cross-border ﬁnancial transparency. Rather than positioning themselves

as norm entrepreneurs in the traditional sense, many of them now act as

regime architects, using their regulatory authority, technical expertise,

and credit capital to guide institutional design in ways that reduce vulne-

rability and expand their diplomatic presence. In doing so, they demons-

trate that the strategic value of small states increasingly lies not in sym-

bolic leadership or reliance on multilateral support, but in their capacity

to shape the procedural DNA of global governance itself (Lutmar, 2025).

Multilateral organizations, particularly the United Nations, the

World Trade Organization, and regionally embedded regimes such as

the European Union, the African Union, or ASEAN, provide small states

with arenas in which formal equality of representation and procedural le-

gitimacy can be leveraged to constrain the unilateralism of larger powers

and advance normatively grounded foreign policy agendas. Through ac-

tive participation in committees, voting procedures, and agenda-setting

mechanisms, small states have been able to exercise inﬂuence that trans-

cends their limited material power, often acting as brokers, mediators,

or coalition-builders in contexts where consensus-based decision-making

prevails.

Drawing on this institutional leverage, a growing number of small

states have begun to specialize in highly technical regulatory areas whe-

re competence carries more weight than coercive capacity. For exam-

ple, Singapore’s leadership in maritime safety and port control regimes,

Estonia’s pioneering role in digital identiﬁcation systems and cross-bor-

der e-governance interoperability, Luxembourg’s and some Caribbean

countries’ authority in sustainable ﬁnance frameworks and green taxo-

nomy, and Iceland’s prominence in climate risk metrics and environmen-

tal monitoring illustrate how small states with technical expertise are

increasingly shaping the international standards governing these areas

(Lutmar, 2025).

Alongside these monitoring functions, several small states, such

as Norway and Qatar, have expanded their inﬂuence by participating in

peacebuilding and mediation initiatives, using diplomatic credibility and

normative authority to shape conﬂict resolution processes (Harpviken

and Barakat, 2018). Consequently, these states have garnered internatio-

nal public favor and cultivated soft power through astute public diploma-

cy initiatives (Alibabalu & Sarkhanov, 2023). Their inﬂuence is exerted

through specialized committees, certiﬁcation bodies, and rulemaking

platforms where decisions are made based on technical credibility rather

than geopolitical power. This specialization allows small states to enshri-

ne their preferences in globally applied rules, often without overt political

competition. By deﬁning the criteria by which compliance is measured,

they eﬀectively distribute authority within global governance framewor-

ks, ensuring that their strategic interests are maintained not through

hard balancing but through soft regulatory power.

In sum, the multilateral arena serves not merely as a defensive

shield against systemic marginalization, but as an active site of agency

formation for small states. Through norm promotion, strategic alliances,

and discursive interventions, small states are able to transcend material

227

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

limitations and assert themselves as consequential actors in shaping the

rules, norms, and institutions that govern international life. This phe-

nomenon challenges the conventional realist presumption that agency

is coterminous with capability, oﬀering instead a constructivist-inﬂected

vision of power rooted in persuasion, legitimacy, and institutional embe-

ddedness (Posazhennikova, 2023).

8 DISCUSSION: SMALL STATES IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD

The contemporary global order confronts small states with an intri-

cate blend of challenges and possibilities, especially in the Global South,

where enduring legacies of dependency collide with the ﬂuid forces of

globalization. Far from mere bystanders on the periphery of world af-

fairs, these states, especially in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa,

are proving that scant material resources need not diminish their strate-

gic weight. Actors such as Uruguay and Costa Rica illustrate how smaller

actors can navigate a landscape riddled with power imbalances to bolster

their independence (Lupel et al., 2024). Their stories imply that the tra-

jectory of small states hinges less on shielding themselves from outside

forces and more on artfully steering the web of mutual dependencies.

Handled with foresight, this approach can transform economic fragility

and geopolitical obscurity into springboards for enduring clout and norm

authority on the world stage.

Building on this dynamic, the agency of small states in the Global

South increasingly stems from their capacity to cultivate adaptive go-

vernance models that blend domestic resilience with outward-looking

engagement. Their collective cooperation in areas such as innovation,

sustainable development, and institutional reliability allows these states

to move beyond structural constraints and exercise distinctive forms of

inﬂuence within an international system historically tilted toward great

powers. Panama’s strategic deployment of its logistics and ﬁnancial sec-

tors, bolstered by the enduring global relevance of the Panama Canal,

illustrates how small economies can convert geographic advantage and

infrastructural capacity into diplomatic visibility amid asymmetrical

power relations (Ruiz-Hernández, Berg, 2025). Likewise, Paraguay’s

growing focus on renewable energy diplomacy, particularly through its

hydroelectric partnerships with Brazil and Argentina, underscores how

small states can transform energy interdependence into leverage for re-

gional inﬂuence (Berkhout, 2024). Together, these examples reveal that

the strategic posture of small Latin American states lies not in opposing

globalization but in reframing it as a vehicle for sustained participation in

the normative and institutional environment of global governance.

Conversely, the intensiﬁcation of systemic volatility, marked by geo-

political realignments, rising great power competition, and the securitiza-

tion of domains once considered benign (e.g., data, health, environment),

threatens to constrain the maneuverability of small states. Particularly

troubling is the increasing use of economic statecraft, cyber intrusion,

and disinformation campaigns by larger powers, which disproportiona-

tely aﬀect states with limited governance adaptability and constrained

228

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

counter-coercion capacities (Balfour, Ülgen, 2024). Additionally, the re-

treat from rules-based multilateralism and the resurgence of transactio-

nalism in international aﬀairs could marginalize small states, whose le-

verage often depends upon the predictability and normative legitimacy

of international institutions. Therefore, multilateralism and international

institutions are keys in the future for the small states in uncertain world

geopolitics.

Looking ahead, the role of small states in the global South is likely

to depend on their ability to position themselves at the intersection of

emerging global transformations such as digitalization, the green tran-

sition, and multipolarization. As technological infrastructure, data ma-

nagement, and climate adaptation become central to international legi-

timacy, small states that can institutionalize innovation, maintain policy

coherence, and form transregional alliances will play a crucial role in

shaping the moral and practical conditions of global governance. This

may translate into a new generation of strategic partnerships that trans-

cend traditional North-South hierarchies and lead to shared commit-

ments to sustainability, equitable development, and digital governance.

Ultimately, the future of small states will depend not on their capacity to

emulate great powers, but on their ability to anticipate systemic change

and adapt to credible visions for a more pluralistic world order.

Globalization has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of sta-

te sovereignty, imposing new constraints and redistributing inﬂuence

across a wider range of actors. In this interconnected environment, in-

dividuals, transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations,

and other private entities have increasingly become involved in interna-

tional exchanges and decision-making processes, reducing the monopoly

of state authority. As a result, states are forced to adopt proactive and

cooperative mechanisms and reassess their traditional privileges. In ef-

fect, globalization has undermined the concept of absolute sovereignty

and has required nation-states, especially smaller ones, to cooperate and

develop adaptive strategies that reconcile domestic priorities with the re-

quirements of a new global system.

Globalization has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of state so-

vereignty, imposing new constraints and redistributing inﬂuence across

a wider range of actors. In this interconnected environment, individuals,

transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and other

private entities have increasingly become involved in international ex-

changes and decision-making processes, reducing the monopoly of state

authority. As a result, states are forced to adopt proactive and cooperative

mechanisms and reassess their traditional privileges. In eﬀect, globaliza-

tion has undermined the concept of absolute sovereignty and has requi-

red nation-states, especially smaller ones, to cooperate and develop adap-

tive strategies that reconcile domestic priorities with the requirements of

a new global system (Long, 2017).

The present analysis is primarily conceptual, but gains further

analytical depth when embedded in comparative examples that connect

theory to the empirical realities of small states in diﬀerent regions. The

Estonian digital governance model demonstrates how technological

229

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

innovation can turn structural vulnerability into strategic advantage by

enhancing administrative eﬃciency and cyber resilience, while Qatar’s

normative entrepreneurial practices, manifested through brokered di-

plomacy and the display of inﬂuence through global media platforms,

demonstrate how soft power can eﬀectively oﬀset material and geogra-

phical asymmetries. Similarly, Singapore’s comparative economic go-

vernance highlights the institutional agility that allows small states to

maintain their competitiveness despite limited strategic depth, while

Barbados’ sustained multilateralism highlights the potential for institu-

tional engagement to amplify the voices of smaller actors in the global

order (UN, 2025). The extension of this framework to the Global South,

Latin America and the Caribbean, such as Uruguay’s commitment to

multilateral rule of law, Costa Rica’s environmental diplomacy and the

participation of small Caribbean states in international institutions, de-

monstrates that small states’ adaptation strategies are not geographically

limited but are structurally shaped by the asymmetries of globalization.

Collectively, these examples conﬁrm that small states, through innovati-

ve governance, diplomatic sophistication and normative leadership, can

not only reduce their inherent vulnerabilities but also reconceptualize

agency and resilience as dynamic tools for survival and inﬂuence in the

international system (Cooper; Shaw, 2009).

Expanding this conceptual framework further requires recognizing

that the global environment is generating new arenas in which small sta-

tes can exercise agency that was previously inaccessible. As geopolitical

competition intensiﬁes and global governance becomes increasingly issue-

-fragmented, opportunities emerged for smaller actors to insert themsel-

ves into specialized domains, ranging from climate adaptation ﬁnancing

and cybersecurity coordination to global health governance and norma-

tive standard-setting in emerging technologies. In these spaces, expertise,

credibility, and institutional reliability often outweigh material capabili-

ties, allowing small states to inﬂuence regulatory trajectories and shape

discursive outcomes. As these domains expand, small states are poised

not merely to adapt to structural asymmetries but to participate in the

normative and institutional directions of the international system, thereby

demonstrating that the future of global governance will be determined as

much by agile innovators as by traditional great powers (Long, 2017).

In general, although the sovereignty of today’s states has been

limited by globalization in most areas, especially the Internet and the

virtual world, this does not mean the end of the age of states. It means

that nation-states continue to operate as the most important actors in the

international system. In doing so, they must modernize themselves by

abandoning some of their old habits in the economic, political, and social

ﬁelds. While some nation-states carry out this modernization within the

framework of the democratic system and in a timely manner, others do

so with delay. While nation-states that can keep up with globalization can

maintain their existence by restructuring their spheres of sovereignty,

nation-states that try to resist it are weakened and weakened in the face of

the international system. The task of national states here is not to wait to

beneﬁt from the opportunities provided by globalization without doing

230

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

anything, but to try to conduct this competition on equal terms, to pro-

tect themselves from the harms of globalization and, if necessary, even to

shape the concept of sovereignty in line with the interests of the country.

As a result, although the nation-state, which has been the main political

actor since the French Revolution, still exists, it has lost many of its foun-

dations, has largely lost its sovereign authority in the classical sense, and

has undergone signiﬁcant transformation in the process of globalization.

9 SUGGESTIONS

9.1 Leveraging institutional and organizational power

Small states can increase their inﬂuence by actively shaping the

agendas of international and regional organizations. By promoting rule-

-of-law mechanisms, developing protective norms, and advancing regu-

latory frameworks, they can reduce asymmetries with larger powers. For

example, building coalitions of like-minded states or leading norm-set-

ting initiatives allows them to protect their sovereignty through institu-

tional rather than material means.

9.2 Investing in digital and artiﬁcial intelligence capacities

Given the digitization of global power structures, small states

should prioritize investments in artiﬁcial intelligence, cybersecurity, and

data governance. By developing digital infrastructure and AI-based in-

novation hubs, they can create comparative advantages that overcome

material constraints while securing critical infrastructure from external

vulnerabilities.

9.3 Expanding Specialized Diplomacy

Small countries can specialize in subject areas such as climate chan-

ge, maritime governance, humanitarian aid, or digital ethics, positioning

themselves as essential actors in global debates. This form of “specialized

diplomacy” allows them to wield inﬂuence disproportionate to their size.

9.4 Building strategic partnerships and networks

Rather than aligning exclusively with a single great power, small

states should build ﬂexible networks across regions and organizations,

thereby reducing dependency and increasing bargaining power.

9.5 Prioritizing human capital and knowledge-based economies

Investing in education, innovation, and knowledge production ena-

bles small countries to rely on intellectual and normative inﬂuence. By

transforming themselves into laboratories of policy innovation, they can

become global authorities in specialized areas.

231

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

10 CONCLUSION

The preceding analysis has sought to illuminate the recently emer-

ged transformations that globalization has imposed upon the structural

conditions, strategic behavior, and survival imperatives of small states in

the post-Cold War international system. It has become abundantly clear

that traditional conceptions of state power, predicated predominantly on

material capabilities, territorial expanse, and geostrategic leverage, are

increasingly inadequate for capturing the operational realities of small

states in a world characterized by transnational interdependence, epis-

temic ﬂuidity, and normative contestation. As globalization accelerates

the diﬀusion of power across non-territorial domains, digital, ideational,

ﬁnancial, and informational, small states are compelled to adopt not only

their external strategies but also the very meaning of agency, autonomy,

and resilience within a new complex world.

The synthesis of the empirical and theoretical ideas across this stu-

dy suggests that small states must continuously negotiate the dual logics

of vulnerability and opportunity. While globalization undeniably expo-

ses them to economic volatility, cyber threats, and strategic coercion by

more powerful actors, it simultaneously oﬀers platforms through which

they can amplify their inﬂuence, project normative authority, and engage

in agile, issue-speciﬁc diplomacy. Hence, survival and relevance in this

context are not reducible to defensive posturing or alignment-seeking

alone; rather, they require proactive forms of agency, ranging from norm

entrepreneurship and institutional coalition-building to digital innova-

tion and strategic narrative construction.

Future research should explore the conceptual evolution and prac-

tical manifestations of digital sovereignty as a critical dimension of small

state autonomy in the 21st century, particularly as issues of data gover-

nance, algorithmic control, and cybersecurity increasingly intersect with

national security. Likewise, the growing salience of minilateralism, is-

sue-based, ﬂexible, and often informal cooperation among small groups

of states, warrants systematic examination, as it presents a potentially

transformative alternative to the constraints of formal multilateralism.

Finally, greater scholarly attention must be devoted to adaptive governan-

ce models that emphasize anticipatory capacity, institutional elasticity,

and cross-sectoral integration, all of which are indispensable for small

states surviving in a global order surrounded by persistent uncertainty,

systemic disruption, and normative ﬂux. In sum, small states should not

be deﬁned solely by perceptions of weakness or passivity. Rather, they

demonstrate strategic agency by adapting to challenges, reshaping power

dynamics, and maintaining relevance in an increasingly interconnected

yet fragmented global order.

In light of the research questions and guiding hypothesis, this

analysis substantiates the argument that small states, while structurally

constrained in an international system dominated by larger powers, have

not been reduced to mere passivity or dependency; rather, they are ac-

tively aligning their survival strategies with global changes, taking ad-

vantage of the ﬂuid and multidimensional opportunities aﬀorded by

232

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

globalization. Thus, the evidence suggests that material power, while

still relevant, no longer serves as the exclusive determinant in world po-

litics. Instead, survival and inﬂuence increasingly depend on the ability

of small states to exercise agency through adaptive governance, issue-ba-

sed coalitions, and the creation of strategic positions that allow them to

transcend traditional vulnerabilities. Thus, the hypothesis that survival

is less dependent on mere size or material capability and more tied to ins-

titutional innovation, strategic ﬂexibility, and normative engagement is

conﬁrmed. By embracing multilateralism, pursuing digital governance,

and advancing normative agendas in international forums, small states

such as Singapore, the UAE, and Qatar have not only reduced asymmetry

vis-à-vis great powers but have also positioned themselves as active parti-

cipants in shaping global norms and practices. This suggests that the logic

of small state behavior is not reducible to reactive alignment or defensive

shielding, but rather reﬂects proactive engagement with the structural

changes of globalization.

REFERENCES

ACHARYA, Amitav; BUZAN, Barry. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins

and Evolution of IR at its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

ALIBABALU, Sayyad Sadri; SARKHANOV, Teynur. Iran’s public diplomacy and religious

soft power in Africa. Politics and Religion Journal (Political science of religion) 2, 2023, p. 411-

433. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.54561/prj1702411a. Acesso em: 23 June 2025.

ARENG, Liina. Lilliputian States in Digital Aﬀairs and Cyber Security. NATO Cooperative

Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE), 2014.

BAGIR, Muharrem. Globalization’s Challenge to Nation-State Sovereignty and Conﬂicts in

the Middle East.Nous Academy Journal. p. 66–80. 2024. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.5281/

zenodo.13920057. Acesso em: 27 June 2025.

BAKER, Kerryn. Independence, interdependence and ﬂexible sovereignty in the small sta-

tes of the Paciﬁc. Small States & Territories, 4(2), p. 369–374. 2021.

BALDACCHINO, Godfrey; WIVEL, Anders. Small states: Concepts and theories. In Godfrey

Baldacchino and Anders Wivel (Eds.), Handbook on the politics of small states(pp. 3–20). Ed-

ward Elgar Publishing, 2020.

BALFOUR, Rosa; x ÜLGEN, Anders. Geopolitics and Economic Statecraft in the European

Union. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024.

BARTELSON, Jens. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1993.

BERKHOUT, Pelle. The role of Brazilian consensual hegemony in the Itaipu hydropo-

wer dam renegotiation. E-International Relations, 2024. Disponível em: https://w w w .e-ir.

info/2024/07/07/the-role-of-brazilian-consensual-hegemony-in-the-itaipu-hydropower-dam-re-

negotiation /. Acesso em: 7 July 2025.

BOURBEAU, Philippe. Resilience and international politics: Premises, debates, agenda.

International Studies Review 17(3), p. 374-395. 2015. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.1111/

misr.12226. Acesso em: 9 June 2025.

BRAUN, Benjamin; SCHINDLER, Sebastian; Wille, Tobias. Rethinking agency in Internatio-

nal Relations: performativity, performances and actor-networks. J Int Relat Dev 22, p. 787–

807. 2019. Disponível em:https://d oi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0147-z. Acesso em: 4 August 2025.

BRIGUGLIO, Lino. A vulnerability and resilience framework for small states. In Bynoe-Le-

wis, D. (Ed.), Building the resilience of small states: a revised framework, p. 1-102. London:

Commonwealth Secretariat, 2014.

233

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 13, n. 2, (jun. 2025), p. 216-235

BRIGUGLIO, Lino. Economic Growth of Small Developing States – A Literature Review.

IEO Background Paper BP/22-01/12, Independent Evaluation Oﬃce of the International Mone-

tary Fund, 2022.

BUZAN, Barry; HANSEN, Lene. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambrid-

ge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

CARMICHAEL, Logan. Lessons from small and highly-digitalised Estonia: Decision-ma-

king in the aftermath of cybersecurity crises. Internet Policy Review, 14(3), 2025. Disponível

em: https://d oi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2028. Acesso em: 15 October 2025.

CHEANG, Bryan; LIM, Hanniel. Institutional diversity and state-led development: Singapo-

re as a unique variety of capitalism. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 66, p. 207–

218. 2023. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.07.007. Acesso em: 23 July 2025.

COOPER, Andrew F.; SHAW, Timothy M. The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulne-

rability and Resilience. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

DEIBERT, Ronald. Parchment, printing, and hypermedia: Communication in world order

transformation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

FAUDE, Benjamin, and John Karlsrud. The institutional dynamics of global governance in

hard times: Innovation or decline? Ethics & International Aﬀairs 39(2), p. 114-129. 2025.

FUKUYAMA, Francis. The end of history and the last man. Free Press, 1992.

GADDIS, John Levis. The Cold War: A New History. London: Penguin Books, 2005.

GEORGE, Alexander L.; BENNETT, Andrew. Case Studies and Theory Development in the

Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.

HARDY, Andrew. Estonia’s digital diplomacy: Nordic interoperability and the challenges

of cross-border e-governance. Internet Policy Review 13(3), 2024. Disponível em: h t t p s ://d o i .

org/10.14763/2024.3.1785. Acesso em: 20 July 2025.

HARPVIKEN, Kristian Berg; BARAKAT, Sultan. Comparing Qatari and Norwegian Models

of Small State Conﬂict Mediation. PRIO Paper. Oslo: PRIO, 2018.

HELD, David; MCGREW, Anthony G.; GOLDBLATT, David; PERRATON, Jonathan. Global

transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Stanford University Press, 1999.

INGEBRITSEN, Christine. Scandinavia in World Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littleﬁeld,

2006.

KEOHANE, Robert O. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political eco-

nomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

KEOHANE, Robert O.; NYE, Joseph S. Power and interdependence: World politics in transi-

tion. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977.

KRASNER, Stephen D. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press, 1999.

KUULMANN, Anna. Digital Symphony: Assessing the Synergy of Digital Development and

Nation Branding on a Country’s Global Standing. Master’s Thesis, Tallinn University of Te-

chnology, 2024.

LI, Tony Yuan. Asymmetry in the Digital Age: Cyber Deterrence Strategies for Small States.

Journal of Strategic Security 17(4), 2024, p. 71-88. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.5038/1944-

0472.17.4.2268. Acesso em: 11 July 2025.

LONG, Tom. Small States, Great Power? Gaining Inﬂuence through Intrinsic, Derivative,

and Collective Power. International Studies Review, 19(2), p. 185–205. 2017. Disponível em:

https://d oi.org/10.1093/isr/viw040. Acesso em: 20 August 2025.

LUPEL, Adam; PITAKDUMRONGKIT, Kaewkamol; NG, Joel. Small States and the Multi-

lateral System: Transforming Global Governance for a Better Future. International Peace

Institute, 2024.

LUTMAR, Carmela. Perspective Chapter: Small States – A New Research Agenda. IntechO-

pen. 2025.

MAASS, Matthias. The elusive deﬁnition of the small state. International Politics, vol. 46(1),

p. 65–83. 2009.

MARAK, Sunanda. X-Road Technology: A digital backbone of Estonia’s Cyber security and DPI.

Future Shift Labs, 2025. Disponível em: https://f utureshiftlabs.com/x-road-technology-a-digi-

tal-backbone-of-estonias-cyber-security-and-dpi /. Acesso em: 8 December 2025.

234

Shamkhal Mammadov, Zeynalabdin Naghisoy, Muharrem Bagir The Quiet Architects of Global Governance: Small State Agency in an Era of Diffuse Authority

POSAZHENNIKOVA, Anna. Small States in Multilateral Negotiations: Actorness Increa-

se Strategies. 2023. Disponível em:http://d x.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4673850. Acesso em: 17 June

2025.

RUIZ-HERNÁNDEZ, Carlos; BERG, C. Ryan. Panama’s port lawsuits reshape great power

competition in the Americas: The Mulino Doctrine in action. Center for Strategic and In-

ternational Studies (CSIS), 2025. Disponível em: https://w w w .csis.org/podcasts/audio-briefs/

panamas-port-lawsuits-reshape-great-power-competition-americas-mulino. Acesso em: 20 De-

cember 2025.

SADRI ALIBABALU, Sayyad. The Relationship between Economy and Foreign Policy: The

Case of Iran (2011-2016). InTraders International Trade Academic Journal 1(1), 2018, p. 66-76.

SADRI ALIBABALU, Sayyad. Turkey’s security policy towards Northern Syria and Iraq amid

regional chaos (2011–2019). Bilig 102, 2022, p. 147-170. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.12995/

bilig.10207. Acesso em: 15 May 2025.

SAMARDŽIJA, Višnja; ŠABI, Senada Šelo. Security challenges in the Western Balkans: Building

‘soft’ security after conﬂict. In ARCHER, Clive, BAILES, Alyson J. K.; WIVEL, Anders (Eds.).

Small States and International Security: Europe and Beyond (130-148). London: Routledge,

2014. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.4324/9781315798042. Acesso em: 25 August 2025.

SEYIDBAYLI, Toghrul. U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and Realignment of Eurasian

Rival Powers. Journal of Strategic Security 18(2), 2025, 215-239. Disponível em: h t t p s ://d o i .

org/10.5038/1944-0472.18.2.2499. Acesso em: 26 November 2025.

TAN, Eugene E.G. A Small State Perspective on the Evolving Nature of Cyber Conﬂict: Les-

sons from Singapore. PRISM Futures, 8(3), 2020, p. 158–171.

TAYLOR, Frank F. Whose world order? Cuba vs. Pax Americana in the Persian Gulf. Socialism

and Democracy 10(1), p. 21–45. 1996. Disponível em:https://d oi.org/10.1080/08854309608428175.

Acesso em: 23 June 2025.

THORHALLSSON, Baldur. Small states and shelter theory: Iceland’s external aﬀairs. Rout-

ledge, 2018.

TONON, Clément. GovTech, the New Frontier in Digital Sovereignty. French Institute of

International Relations (Ifri), 2020. Disponível em: https://w w w .ifri.org/sites/default/ﬁles/

migrated_ﬁles /d ocuments/atoms/ﬁles/tonon_govtech_digital_sovereignty_2020.pdf. Acesso

em: 2 June 2025.

UN. Sustainable Development Report 2025. The Sustainable Development Report, 2025. Dis-

ponível em: https://d ashboards.sdgindex.org /c hapters /. Acesso em: 20 November 2025.

UNDP. Small Island Digital States: How digital can catalyse SIDS development. New York:

UNDP Global SIDS Team, 2024.

VAICEKAUSKAIT , Živil Marija. Security Strategies of Small States in a Changing World.

Journal on Baltic Security, 3(2), 2017, p. 7–15. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.1515/jobs-2017-

0006. Acesso em: 2 May 2025.

WENDT, Alexander. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power

Politics. International Organization 46(2), p. 391– 425. 1992.

WIJAYA, Trissia; LIAO, Jessica, C; BAIK, Ewon; KATADA, Saori N. Pivotal Power of Small

States to Save the International Liberal Economic Order: The Case from East Asia.The Pa-

ciﬁc Review 38(2), p. 285–316. 2024. Disponível em: https://d oi.org/10.1080/09512748.2024.2369

700. Acesso em: 12 May 2025.

WIVEL, Anders; BAILES, Alyson J.K. and ARCHER, Clive. Setting the scene: Small states and

international security. In ARCHER, Clive, BAILES, Alyson J. K.; WIVEL, Anders (Eds.). Small

States and International Security: Europe and Beyond. P. 3-25. London: Routledge, 2014. Dis-

ponível em: https://d oi.org/10.4324/9781315798042. Acesso em: 9 September 2025.

WU, Pong Soon. The Strategic Use of Artiﬁcial Intelligence by Small States. Rajaratnam

School of International Studies (RSIS), 2025. Disponível em: https://r sis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/

rsis/the-strategic-use-of-artiﬁcial-intelligence-by-small-states /. Acesso em: 17 October 2025.

235