The borders defining today’s nations may seem permanent, but over a broader historical lens, they are fluid and ever-changing. In the last two centuries alone, almost no international boundary has remained fixed. The early 20th Century saw a world largely dominated by European Empires, with the Ottoman and Qing Dynasties controlling much of the remaining land. However, the aftermath of World Wars and the wave of Decolonisation gave birth to numerous new nation-states, often small and emerging from former colonies. The United Nations (UN), with only 51 members in 1945, now includes 193 states, many of which were once parts of vast empires. Today’s international system, with its small and relatively homogeneous states, is a far cry from the expansive, diverse empires that dominated history.

Despite the dissolution of empires, the era’s imperial mindset persists, particularly in the concept of Superstates. These are the largest political entities today, including China, India, the United States and the European Union (EU). By 2050, these superstates will house 40% of the global population. Unlike historical empires, superstates bear greater responsibilities for citizen welfare. However, they face similar challenges in managing vast and diverse populations. Their size, economic power and complexity distinguish them from smaller states and fundamentally influence contemporary geopolitics. The emerging international order is marked by stark differences in state scales, creating a world where superstates dominate.

While superstates command attention, the experiences and ambitions of the smaller states are equally significant. Historically, small states have often been deemed disposable, yet many have thrived. These nations demonstrate that small size can be advantageous on the global stage, leveraging technological and strategic savvy to assert influence and build prosperous economies. The resilience and agency of these smaller states counter the prevalent bias favouring large states and highlight their potential to succeed in a superstate-dominated world.

Superstates, though powerful, are not invincible. Their vastness and internal diversity make them susceptible to numerous threats, including external attacks, internal rebellions, Climate Change and economic shifts. The governance of such large entities is fraught with challenges and their survival is not guaranteed. Historical examples, like the erstwhile Soviet Union, show how over-centralisation can lead to brittleness and eventual collapse. By contrast, the EU’s model of consensus-based governance, lacking coercive enforcement, demonstrates a unique resilience that might make it more durable than other superstates.

On the other hand, small states face their own set of challenges, but also possess unique strengths. Many have achieved remarkable success by leveraging their geographic locations, local talent and innovative policies. For example, Botswana, Singapore and Switzerland illustrate how small states can outperform expectations, creating dynamic economies and playing influential regional roles. These successes, however, are exceptions rather than the norm, and small states must navigate a world where geopolitical pressures and great-power rivalries are ever-present.

The contemporary global landscape is one of great flux, with both large and small states facing significant challenges. Great-power competition provides smaller states opportunities to hedge and leverage their positions. However, the retreat from globalisation and the weakening of international norms pose significant threats. In this inchoate order, the reliance on force and the militarisation of foreign policy become more pronounced, impacting all states but hitting small states the hardest.

Ultimately, both superstates and small states must contend with a world where disorder and instability are increasingly common. While superstates grapple with internal cohesion and the immense burdens of governance, small states confront vulnerabilities due to their limited power. The current global disorder reveals that regardless of size, all states find it increasingly difficult to achieve their desired outcomes, underscoring the complex interplay between size, power and survival in the international system.

Talk Diplomacy published this piece on May 31, 2024.

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Facebook

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Twitter

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Linkedin

Contact: kousdas@gmail.com

Published by Koushik Das

Koushik Das (born on May 16, 1976 in Kolkata) is a career journalist. Based in the Indian capital of New Delhi, Koushik writes mainly about foreign policies and current geopolitical issues, and rarely about other topics. His own political ideas are highly influenced by Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Michael Oakeshott and others. English philosopher and political theorist Oakeshott (Dec 11, 1901-Dec 19, 1990) says that “in political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea. There is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place, nor appointed destination. But we have to keep afloat”. (Rationalism in Politics, 1962) As a student of Political Science, Koushik loves to share his views on issues, which have great impacts on his thought process (and also on India, South Asia and of course on the global community), with his readers through his website – Boundless Ocean of Politics. By doing so, he tries to keep himself afloat. You will find some of his articles in https://inserbia.info/today/ (https://inserbia.info/today/author/kou_das13_i/), as he has been trying to assess the global geopolitics since 2003. You can also mail him at kousdas@gmail.com View all posts by Koushik Das