Small State as a Third State: Switzerland and Asia-Europe Interregionalism

  • Heiner Hänggi


Small states have become so numerous as to seem commonplace in the contemporary international system. The standard state is a small state nowadays, while large states are rather the exception. This, of course, undermines the notion of a small state at all and makes it difficult to use the concept as a category of analysis. Moreover, the concept of the state itself is being challenged by the dominant process of globalization. And yet, the notion of a small state is still widely used, and a large number of states perceive themselves or are perceived as small states. Switzerland is such a small state, though its economic strength is that of a middle-ranking power.


Member State Small State Asia Pacific Region Regional Grouping Relational Perspective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hans Geser: Die ‘neue Weltordnung’ im Spannungsfeld zwischen Kleinstaatlichkeit und internationalen Organisationen, in: Alois Riklin, Luzius Wildhaber and Herbert Wille (eds.) (1993): Kleinstaat und Menschenrechte. (Festgabe fur Gerard Batliner zum 65. Geburtstag), Basle/Frankfurt a.M. (Helbling & Lichtenhahn), pp. 201–226, here pp. 202–204. See also: Thomas Bernauer and Peter Moser (June 1995:10/11): Sind grosse Staaten politische Dinosaurier? Wirtschaftliche Globalisierung und das Paradox der politischen Zersplitterung, in: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, p. 31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Spain are regarded as large states while the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, and Luxembourg are considered small states.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For overviews on the small state literature: Wilhelm Christmas-Möller: Some Thoughts on the Scientific Applicability of the Small State Concept. A Research History and a Discussion, in: Otmar Höll (ed.) (1983): Small States in Europe and Dependence, Vienna (Braumüller), pp. 35–53; Sören Z. von Dosenrode (1993): Westeuropäische Kleinstaaten in der EG und EPZ, Chur/Zurich (Rüegger), pp. 50–61 and Jürgen Kortmann (1994): Die Aussenpolitik westeuropäischer Kleinstaaten am Beispiel Irlands und Dänemarks, Bochum (Brockmeyer), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hans Vogel: Small States Efforts in International Relations. Enlarging the Scope, in: Höll (1983), pp. 54–68 (see note no. 3), here p. 56 and Hans Vogel (1979): Der Kleinstaat in der Weltpolitik. Aspekte der schweizerischen Aussenbeziehungen im internationalen Vergleich, Frauenfeld (Huber).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Margret Sieber: Dimensions of Small States’ Dependence. The Case of Switzerland, in: Höll (1983), pp. 107–129, here p. 110 (see note no. 3); for a list of such indicators see p. 112; Vogel (1983), p. 59 (see note no. 4).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michael Handel (1981): Weak States in the International System, London (Frank Cass).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dosenreode (1993), pp. 60–61; Kortmann (1994), pp. 4–6 (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kortmann (1994), pp. 4–6; Dosenrode (1993), p. 61 (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walther Hofer: Die Schweiz als ‘Kleinstaat’ oder wie klein ist die Schweiz nun wirklich?, in: Ewald R. Weibel and Markus Feller (eds.) (1992): Schweizerische Identität und Europäische Integration, Berne (Paul Haupt), pp. 51–65, here p. 51; Jürg Martin Gabriel (1995:240): Kleinstaatlichkeit und Identität — oder das Problem der Kontextlosigkeit, in: Beiträge und Berichte des Instituts für Politikwissenschaft, St.Gallen (Institute of Political Science), pp. 2–3, 14.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietrich Schindler (1996): Veränderte Stellung der Kleinstaaten in der Staatengemeinschaft, in: Endzeit für Kleinstaaten? Rieden (Utzinger/Stemmle), pp. 39–65, here pp. 51–57. See also article by Martin Zbinden in this book.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Handel (1981), p. 31 (see note no. 6).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Handel (1981), pp. 47–48 (see note no. 6); Commonwealth Secretariat (1985): Vulnerability. Small States in the Global Society (Report of a Commonwealth Consultative Group), London, p. 8–9. In the latter study, the term “small states” is used for micro states while in the first one the term “mini states” is used.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    In most studies on common patterns among small states, the sample is limited to a group of similar countries such as the highly developed Western European small states. See, among others, Dosenrode (1993); Höll (1983); Kortmann (1994) (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bericht über die Aussenpolitik der Schweiz in den 90er Jahren, Berne (29 November 1993), pp. 18–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofer (1992), p. 59 (translation by the author) (see note no. 9).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hans Geser (1992:44/4): Kleinstaaten im internationalen System, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, pp. 627–654, here p. 629.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vogel (1983), p. 55 (see note no. 4); Handel (1981) (see note no. 6).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Following Robert O. Keohane’s proposal of a definition. See Christmas-Möller, pp. 43–44 (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Handel (1981), pp. 68–70 (see note no. 6).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Geser (1993), pp. 212–221 (see note no. 1); Geser (1992:44/4), pp. 643–646 (see note no. 16).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Elfriede Regelsberger: The Dialogue of the EC/Twelve with Other Regional Groups. A New European Identity in the International System?, in: Geoffrey Edwards and Elfriede Regelsberger (eds.) (1990): Europe’s Global Links. The European Community and Interregional Cooperation, London (Pinter), pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Member states: Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Regarding trade relations with East Asian countries, Switzerland usually ranks among the top six or seven European countries. Regarding foreign direct investment stocks in East Asian countries, Switzerland often ranks among the top three or four European countries.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    For overviews on ASEM see Heiner Hänggi: Interregionale Beziehungen am Beispiel des asiatisch-europäischen Dialogs, in: Mario A. Corti and Peter Ziegler (eds.) (1997): Diplomatische Negoziation. (Festschrift für Franz A. Blankart zum 60. Geburtstag), Berne/Stuttgart/Wien (Paul Haupt), pp. 163–178; Jacques Pelkmans and Hiroko Shinkai (eds.) (1997): ASEM. How Promising a Partnership?, Brussels (European Institute of Asian Studies); Victor Pou Serradell (1996): The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM): A Historical Turning Point in Relations Between the Two Regions, in: European Foreign Affairs Review 1/2, pp. 185–210; Lay Hwee Yeo (1997): The Bangkok ASEM and the Future of Asia-Europe Relations, in: Southeast Asian Affairs, 1997, Singapore (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    “Europe is well linked to North America through history and rich network of trans-Atlantic institutions. East Asia and North America are linked by APEC and a growing dense web of Pacific Basin networks. The missing link is the one between Asia and Europe. The first and most fundamental purpose of the ASEM is to bridge this missing link.” Extract of the Asia-Europe Meeting. An Asian Discussion Paper, (19 December 1995), (mimeo), p. 1.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Towards a New Asia Strategy, (COM(94) 314 final), (13 July 1994), Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. Member states: Australia, Brunei, Chile, China, Hongkong, Indonesia, Japan, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, United States.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chairman’s statement at the Asia-Europe Meeting in Bangkok (2 March 1996), in: Asien 59 (April 1996), pp. 207–12.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ivo Sieber (1996:2): The First ‘Asia Europe Meeting’ in Bangkok. A New Impetus to Political and Economic Relations Between Asia and Europe, in: SEA, pp. 20–3, here p. 23. During a parliamentary debate in 1995, the Swiss Minister of Economics offered the fact that Switzerland was denied participation in ASEM as clear evidence of Switzerland’s non-membership in the EU having negative implications even outside Europe. See Der Bund, (27 September 1995), pp. 1, 13.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chairman’s Statement (April 1996), p. 211 (see note no. 28).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    North American Free Trade Agreement. Member states: Canada, Mexico, United States.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mercado Comun del Sur. Member states: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay. Associate member state: Chile.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The PMC comprising the ASEAN foreign ministers and their counterparts from the dialogue partner countries are held after the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ASEAN’s traditional dialogue partners comprise the EU (since 1972), Japan (1973), Australia (1974), New Zealand (1975), United States and Canada (1977) as well as the United Nations Development Program UNDP (1972). South Korea was admitted as a “sectoral” dialogue partner in 1989 and elevated to a full dialogue partner in 1991.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Interviews (March 1997), ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Interview (November 1997), Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Berne.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Member states: Australia, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    European Free Trade Association. Member states: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiner Hänggi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations