The article analyzes means by which small states can influence decisions within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It argues that traditional measures of state size alone, such as population and GDP, provide an incomplete picture and that qualitative factors must also be considered. These include a state's administrative competence and skills in diplomacy, coalition-building, and leadership, as well as its reputation and image internationally. The article examines how small states can utilize soft power resources to shape outcomes within the UNSC. It also emphasizes the importance of qualitative factors in international relations theories to better understand the potential influence of small states.

1. Small States in the UN Security
Council:
Means of Influence?
(An article by Baldur Thorhallsson)

2. • Small States in the UN Security Council: Means of
Influence? is a persuasive analysis of the schemes for
small states to become active and efficacious
participants in the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC). The article underscores on the argument that
the quantitative standards, such as population,
territorial size, gross domestic product (GDP) and
military capacity need to be combined with qualitative
factors to obliterate the categorization and
classification of small states as politically, economically
and strategically vulnerable and incapable of exerting
any real influence in world affairs.

3. • The article hence identifies two comprehensive
sorts of qualitative factors that determine the
ability of small states to influence the UNSC: the
first is administrative or internal competence to
the extent of intensifying knowledge, initiative,
and diplomatic, coalition and leadership skills;
the second is image-building in the international
arena, specifically being able to be perceived as
more neutral than others or develop a reputation
as a norm entrepreneur in particular policy fields.

4. •
• Baldur Thorhallsson, a Professor of Political
Science and Jean Monnet Chair in European
Studies at the Faculty of Political Science at the
University of Iceland, reminds readers that “the
‘traditional’ quantitative variables that are
normally used to define state sizes and to predict
state behaviours in the international system do
not completely grasp the role that small states
can play in the decision-making process of the
UNSC.” (p. 140).

5. • This is a vital point and one that is prevalent
throughout the article. Equally noteworthy, as
Thorhallsson explains, is the importance of qualitative
factors as “the international relations (IR) theories
need to consider the administrative competence and
perception of states, along with the traditional
variables, in order to produce a fuller picture of the
power potential of small states in the international
system.” (p. 160). In operational terms, in a system
dominated by large and powerful states, “small states
can use their soft-power resources to shape outcomes,
such as at the UNSC, and do not need to have great
hard power resources.” (p. 143).

6. • Hence, small states can demonstrate that,
powerful though the five permanent members
(P5) may be, they are not the only effective actors
in the international community. (Lupel and
Mälksoo, 2019: p. 10). One cannot thus forget the
sensible combinations between traditional
quantitative criteria and qualitative factors
reflected in the article. Thorhallsson’s article is
the product of many years of research experience
focusing primarily on small state studies:
accordingly, he presents an undoubted account of
subject matter that is inescapable.

7. •
• Each section of the article addresses the issue
that are best suited to explaining a small
state’s ability to participate in, and influence,
the UNSC decision making process. The article
incorporates an account, showing how small
states shifts the focus from the power that
states possess to the power that they exercise.

8. • Correspondingly, from Other docs three of
them … “The examination of each of the main
IR theories,” Lawson explains, “has also
shown that they are largely derivative, taking
their cue from political theory more generally,
with elements of social theory and economic
theory adding additional insights” (p. 246).

9. • Lawson clearly illustrates how one discipline
interacts with others, while also
demonstrating that IR theory is indeed a
matter of normative thinking. “Even realism,”
she notes, “which purports to eschew
normative theorizing, is attuned to themes of
tragedy in political affairs, thereby indicating a
clear normative sensitivity” (p. 247).

10. • The article is divided into various sections,
including an introduction and conclusion. The
first section introduces readers to the theoretical
considerations and opportunities for small states
within the UN by addressing some of the
shortfalls of current IR theories in order to grasp
and account for the role that small states play in
the international system. Accordingly, the author
conferred on previous ideas and perceptions of
small states in the UN system and its predecessor,
the League of Nations.

11. • Following this, he presents a discussion of traditional IR theories
which commonly maintain the idea that a state’s size is closely
associated with the concept of capabilities despite the fact that
small states comprise a large proportion of the world’s states. The
article thus provides the basis of a highly informative insight
displaying state’s similar and different reasons, interests and
motivations for participating and becoming members of
international organizations. It is important to point out that these
interests are neither homogeneous nor bound merely to realist
interests with regard to survival or military strength. On the other
hand, interest among states cannot be reduced to the liberal
institutionalist assertion that small states seek membership in
international institutions solely on the grounds that laws, norms
and treaties constrain larger states. (p. 143).

12. • The second section with a title “From a
Beneficiary to a Contributor and an Active
Member” provides one of the main foundations
of the book by way of scrutinizing the role of
small states as non-permanent members of the
Security Council. A central feature of a small
state’s ability to contribute to, rather than merely
receiving benefits from, the UN needs domestic
and external administrative competence and
knowledge in a particular policy area though this
is not to say that economic and military resources
are unimportant (p. 151).

13. • From there, Thorhallsson steps into discussion vis-à-vis the
importance of small states’ administrative competences
and their activity in the UN work that can be demonstrated
by the number of times that countries have been invited as
outsiders to the UNSC meetings on the basis of Rule 37.
According to the rule, states that either have a particular
interest in issues being discussed in the UNSC or have
brought the matter to the Security Council’s attention may
be invited, or request an invitation, to the UNSC without
the right to vote (p. 148). The article subsequently
identifies small states that often participate in the Council’s
proceedings and those that can be deemed particularly
active within it and the UN in general.

14. • In section three, the key aspects of the factors
that determine the ability of small states to be
influential in the UNSC are explained, particularly
those identified by Hansson. Consequently,
Hansson acknowledged three factors that are of
key importance in determining whether small
states become active, influential participants in
the UNSC: knowledge; diplomatic skills; and
initiatives. In addition to these, there appear to
be four other important factors: the ability to
prioritize; leadership; coalition; and image- or
perception-building (p. 152).

15. • As Thorhallsson writes, the failure of IR theories
to take seriously these factors undermines their
ability to understand and explain the role of small
states in the UNSC (p. 160). From this point
readers are exposed immediately to the article’s
acclimation regarding the need for the IR theories
to consider the administrative competence and
perception of states, along with the traditional
variables, in order to produce a bursting picture
of the power potential of small states in the
international system. (Ibid).

16. • As one would expect, one of the main issues
in international relations is a significant lack of
agreement pertaining to how to define a small
state (Lingevicius, 2018, p. 73 --NO. 3). The
lack of consensus and agreement in
categorizing states within and between
international organizations and IR theories
make it even more difficult to determine a
state’s ability to influence decisions on the
basis of quantitative criteria alone (p. 136).

17. • However, even in spite of the difficulty, Thorhallsson
has given equitable focus to both quantitative and
qualitative criterions. This is no easy task, but
Thorhallsson has written knowledgably and critically on
an inclusive spectrum of those factors with remarkable
brevity. As small state’s power potential varies
according to the subject area, he very neatly and
commendably portrays that it is not useful to
categorize states generally according to quantitative
criteria or to come up with a definite category of small
states as, very often, the factors depend on context.

18. • Nonetheless, curious absence in the article, either
ignored or unnoticed, is the inclusion of more analysis
of small states’ identities and the dominant meanings
related to being a small state from the perspective of
other IR theories and discourse analysis (for instance,
constructivism and poststructuralism). Moreover, the
cumulative definition that can be made not mentioned
……other docs………. This indeed would have placed the
article as unique with a pluralism of theoretical
explanations and offers up a number of shared
positions.
•

19. • The several factors that determine the
activeness and influence of small states in the
UNSC within this article will easily attract
readers’ attention. Accordingly, knowledge;
diplomatic skills; and initiatives in
combination with the four other important
factors: the ability to prioritize; leadership;
coalition; and image- or perception-building
are the indispensable fundamentals identified.

20. • As Thorhallsson puts it “in order for a country
to be elected to the UNSC, it has to have the
support of a large part of the international
community. The other UN members have to
regard the state in question as capable of
participating in the Council’s work, presenting
its positions and views, and/or representing
other states’ or actors’ interests.

21. • States that wish to be elected to the UNSC hence
have to set up a programme of work for their
period in the Council, lobby their case and
demonstrate their commitment to the other UN
member states.” (p. 152). The example of Nordic
states (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland) is
used to illustrate how support is crucial for small
states to be able to influence the UNSC. Those
states always support each other by opting for
one Nordic country in the Security Council every
other two-year term.

22. • Moreover, Nordic strategies are grounded in a
commitment to pursue interests through ‘soft
power’ and attempt to influence by active
participation and contribution towards
humanitarianism, world peace and burden
sharing. (p. 143). Thorhallsson has produced an
overview of the seven factors that determine the
activeness and influence of small states quite
remarkably, which has been discussed somewhat
differently by assimilating the factors into four
points without being unfairly dismissive of their
analytical weight.

23. • Indeed, he very separately and commendably deliberate each of
the seven factors with a brief discussion in the concluding remark.
However, when discussing the relationship between small states
and the Security Council, it is important to think not only of how
small states act on the Council but also of how the council’s actions
affect all small states in the international community. (NO. 1 A
necessary voice p…). Thus, this point from the prespective of the
council’s action is not addressed that one-sided argument is made
in the article. Therefore, the approaches to…. ////such approaches
to the factors, can be summarized, for the purpose of clarification in
to one element, i.e., diplomatic skill as diplomacy is an instrument
to govern international relation between among sovereign states
whether big or small.

24. • Thus, diplomatic skill is the major factor…. +++
merge once 4 once 7 factors… and I believe all
can be put in one box “Diplomatic skill” as the
factors of knowledge; diplomatic skills; and
initiatives and ability to prioritize; leadership;
coalition; and image- or perception-building all
relate to skill, once ability or expertise to
influence other. The factors can be summarized
into internal and external wherein the latter is
the result of the former.

25. • Most importantly, the approaches discussed in
the article determining whether small states
become active, influential participants in the
UNSC are shown to have significant value and
to have made and continue to make
significant contributions to fields of small state
studies because of the real-world issues
provided as cases/examples.

26. • The article is made accessible in terms of its
clear language and is aptly partitioned with
guiding subheadings, but also through its
illustrations to the practical situations make
this article a very useful tool of instruction. A
rich selection of case studies provide insight
into proactive applications of approaches that
enable readers to understand the role of small
states in the UNSC.

27. • These are precisely the qualities that one
would hope to find in such an article, which
therefore lends itself readily to undergraduate
and graduate students, as well as instructors
looking for a concise, easily accessible, and
authoritative account of the core idea of small
states means of influence in the UNSC.

28. • Consulted Articles
• Berhe Yonas. (2003) ‘No peace No war’ situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea:
Perspectives of Eritrean and Ethiopian students and local people, Adigrat Town,
Ethiopia’. The Netherlands. Un published MA Thesis, Submitted In Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Development Studies, ISS,
the Netherland.
• Kidanu Atinafu, & Endalkachew Bayeh. (2015). “The Ethio-Eritrean Post-war
Stalemate: An Assessment on the Causes and Prospects”. Journal of Political
Sciences & Public Affairs. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015, pp. 96-101.
• Redie Bereketab (2009). “The Ethio-Eritrea Conflict and the Algiers Agreement:
Eritrea’s March Down the Road to Isolation” The Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala,
Sweden.
• Terefe Beshana (2019).’ The recent Ethio-Eritrea rapproachment: challenges and
prospects’. Addis Ababa University.
• Tschirgi, Neclâ (2004). “Post-Conflict Peace Building Revisited: Achievements,
Limitations, Challenges”. International Peace Academy Prepared for the WSP
International/IPA Peace building Forum Conference. New York.