ABSTRACT
In the International Relations literature on small states it has been maintained that they have demonstrated wisdom (Baker Fox, 2006, p. 53), they have responded intelligently to change (Katzenstein, 2006, p. 213), and that, given their flexibility and their adaptability to new and challenging conditions, “small could become a synonym for smart in the post-Cold War era” (Joenniemi, 1998, pp. 61–62). While always keeping in mind that small states remain small in capabilities, we should further consider what the concept of “smart” may add to our understanding of international politics. To this end, I argue that, first, the concept of smartness should be attributed to an actor within the small state, such as a leader, and hence, the personification of the small state should be abandoned; secondly, it should be given a broader meaning than just flexibility (Joenniemi, 1998, p. 62) or adaptability (Katzenstein, 2006, p. 212); and thirdly, as related with persons and capabilities, it is limited in time. More specifically, as smartness has to do with humans and their decisions, we should consider as “smart” a capable and decisive leadership that enables the small state to “punch above its weight,” pursue its objectives, and satisfy its interests against those of stronger actors.
