Microstate

A microstate or ministate is a sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area, and usually both. The meanings of "state" and "very small" are not well-defined in international law.[1] Recent attempts, since 2010, to define microstates have focused on identifying political entities with unique qualitative features linked to their geographic or demographic limitations. According to a qualitative definition, microstates are "modern protected states, i.e. sovereign states that have been able to unilaterally depute certain attributes of sovereignty to larger powers in exchange for benign protection of their political and economic viability against their geographic or demographic constraints."[2] In line with this and most other definitions, examples of microstates include Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, the Cook Islands, Niue, and the Federated States of Micronesia. The smallest political unit recognized as a sovereign state is Vatican City, with around 1,000 citizens as of 2017 and an area of only 44 hectares (110 acres).

For the specific configuration of particles of a material in statistical mechanics, see microstate (statistical mechanics).

Not to be confused with Micronation.

The world's five smallest sovereign states by area, from largest to smallest: San Marino, Tuvalu, Nauru, Monaco, and Vatican City shown in the same scale for size comparison.

Map of the smallest states in the world by land area. Note many of these are not considered microstates.

Microstates are distinct from micronations, which are not recognized as sovereign states. Special territories without full sovereignty, such as the British Crown Dependencies, the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China, and overseas territories of Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Australia, Norway, the United States, and the United Kingdom, are also not usually considered microstates.

Definitions

Most scholars identify microstates by using a quantitative threshold and applying it to either one variable (such as the size of its territory[3] or population[4]) or a composite of different variables.[5] While it is agreed that microstates are the smallest of all states, there is no consensus on what variable (or variables) or what cut-off point should be used to determine which political units should be labelled as "microstates" (as opposed to small "normal" states).[1][2][6][7] While employing simple quantitative criteria may seem straightforward, it can also be perceived as potentially problematic. According to some scholars the quantitative approach to defining microstates suffers from such problems as "inconsistency, arbitrariness, vagueness and inability to meaningfully isolate qualitatively distinct political units".[2]

List of microstates - by area or population

Sovereign states with a non-sea area less than 1,000 km² (386 sq mi)[8][9] [10][11] and/or with a population of less than 500,000 people.[8]

Rank	Country / Territory	Area (km²/sqmi)	Population	Density (pop./km²)	Capital	Location
1	Vatican City	0.44 km^2 (0.17 sq mi)	1,000	1913.6	Vatican City	Europe
2	Monaco	2.02 km^2 (0.78 sq mi)	37,308	18469.3	Monaco	Europe
3	Nauru	21 km^2 (8 sq mi)	9,488	451.8	Yaren	Oceania
4	Tuvalu	26 km^2 (10 sq mi)	10,782	414.7	Funafuti	Oceania
5	San Marino	61 km^2 (24 sq mi)	32,742	536.8	San Marino	Europe
6	Liechtenstein	160 km^2 (62 sq mi)	37,313	233.2	Vaduz	Europe
7	Marshall Islands	181 km^2 (70 sq mi)	70,983	392.2	Majuro	Oceania
8	Saint Kitts and Nevis	261 km^2 (101 sq mi)	51,538	197.5	Basseterre	Caribbean
9	Maldives	298 km^2 (115 sq mi)	393,595	1320.8	Malé	Asia – Indian Ocean
10	Malta	316 km^2 (122 sq mi)	412,655	1305.9	Valletta	Europe – Mediterranean Sea
11	Grenada	344 km^2 (133 sq mi)	110,152	320.2	St. George's	Caribbean
12	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	389 km^2 (150 sq mi)	102,918	264.6	Kingstown	Caribbean
13	Barbados	430 km^2 (166 sq mi)	289,680	673.7	Bridgetown	Caribbean
14	Antigua and Barbuda	443 km^2 (171 sq mi)	91,295	206.1	St. John's	Caribbean
15	Seychelles	455 km^2 (176 sq mi)	91,650	201.4	Victoria	Africa – Indian Ocean
16	Palau	459 km^2 (177 sq mi)	21,186	46.2	Ngerulmud	Oceania
17	Andorra	468 km^2 (181 sq mi)	85,458	182.6	Andorra la Vella	Europe
18	Saint Lucia	616 km^2 (238 sq mi)	163,362	265.2	Castries	Caribbean
19	Micronesia, Federated States of	702 km^2 (271 sq mi)	105,681	150.5	Palikir	Oceania
20	Singapore	714 km^2 (276 sq mi)	5,888,926	8247.8	Singapore	Asia
21	Tonga	747 km^2 (288 sq mi)	106,440	142.5	Nukuʻalofa	Oceania
22	Dominica	751 km^2 (290 sq mi)	73,449	97.8	Roseau	Caribbean
23	Bahrain	765 km^2 (295 sq mi)	1,140,942	1491.4	Manama	Asia – Persian Gulf
24	Kiribati	811 km^2 (313 sq mi)	104,488	128.8	Tarawa	Oceania
25	São Tomé and Príncipe	964 km^2 (372 sq mi)	190,428	197.5	São Tomé	Africa – Atlantic Ocean
26	Samoa	2,831 km^2 (1,093 sq mi)	196,628	69.5	Apia	Oceania
27	Brunei	5,765 km^2 (2,226 sq mi)	422,675	73.3	Bandar Seri Begawan	Asia
28	Vanuatu	12,189 km^2 (4,706 sq mi)	266,937	21.9	Port Vila	Oceania
29	Bahamas	13,880 km^2 (5,359 sq mi)	321,834	23.2	Nassau	Atlantic Ocean
30	Belize	22,966 km^2 (8,867 sq mi)	340,844	14.8	Belmopan	North America
31	Iceland	103,000 km^2 (39,769 sq mi)	317,351	3.1	Reykjavík	Europe

- With the exceptions of Singapore and Bahrain, all the above have fewer than 500,000 people.

- With the exceptions of Samoa, Vanuatu, Iceland, Bahamas, Belize, and Brunei, all the above have a non-sea area less than 1,000 km² (386 sq mi).

Other definitions

Some academics have suggested defining microstates according to the unique features that are linked to their geographic or demographic smallness.[2][9][12] Newer approaches have proposed looking at the behaviour or capacity to operate in the international arena in order to determine which states should deserve the microstate label.[12][13] One such approach is to define microstates as "modern protected states".[2] According to the definition proposed by Dumienski (2014): "microstates are modern protected states, i.e. sovereign states that have been able to unilaterally depute certain attributes of sovereignty to larger powers in exchange for benign protection of their political and economic viability against their geographic or demographic constraints."[2] Adopting this approach permits limiting the number of microstates and separating them from both small states and autonomies or dependencies.[2] Examples of microstates understood as modern protected states include such states as Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Niue, Andorra, the Cook Islands or Palau.

The smallest political unit recognized as a sovereign state is Vatican City. However, Professor of International Law Maurice Mendelson disputes qualifying Vatican City as a state, arguing that it does not meet the "traditional criteria of statehood" and that the "special status of the Vatican City is probably best regarded as a means of ensuring that the Pope can freely exercise his spiritual functions, and in this respect is loosely analogous to that of the headquarters of international organisations."[14]

Yet, it has been argued that such approaches could lead to either confusing microstates with weak states[6][9] (or failed states) or relying too much on subjective perceptions.[2]

Politics

Statistical research has shown that microstates are more likely to be democracies than larger states. In 2012, Freedom House classified 86% of the countries with less than 500.000 inhabitants as "free".[15] This shows that countries with small populations often had a high degree of political freedom and civil liberties, which is one of the hallmarks of democracies. Some scholars have taken the statistical correlation between small size and democracy as a sign that smallness is beneficial to the development of a democratic political system[16], mentioning social cohesiveness, opportunities for direct communication and homogeneity of interests as possible explanations for why this is the case.[15][17]

Case study research, however, has led researches to believe that the statistical evidence belies the anti-democratic elements of microstate politics.[15][18] Due to small populations, family and personal relations are often decisive in microstate politics. In some cases, this impedes neutral and formal decision-making and instead leads to undemocratic political activity, such as clientelism, corruption, particularism and executive dominance.[15] While microstates often have formal institutions that are associated with democracy, the inner workings of politics in microstates are in reality often undemocratic.

The high number of democracies amongst microstates could be explained by their colonial history.[15][16] Most microstates adopted the same political system as their colonial ruler.[19] Because of the high number of microstates that were British colonies in the past, microstates often have a majoritarian and parliamentary political system similar to the Westminster system.[16] Some microstates with a history as British colony have implemented some aspects of a consensus political system, to adapt to their geographic features or societal make-up.[19] While the colonial history often determines what political systems microstates have, they do implement changes to better accommodate their specific characteristics.

Microstates and international relations

Microstates often rely on other countries in order to survive, as they have a small military capacity and a lack of resources. This had led some researchers to believe that microstates are forced to subordinate themselves to larger states which reduces their sovereignty.[20] Research, however, has shown that microstates strategically engage in patron-client relationships with other countries.[21] This allows them to trade some privileges to countries that can advance their interests the most. Examples of this are microstates that establish a tax haven or sell their support in international committees in exchange for military and economic support.[20]

Historical anomalies and aspirant states

A small number of tiny sovereign political units are founded on historical anomalies or eccentric interpretations of law. These types of states, often labelled as "microstates," are usually located on small (usually disputed) territorial enclaves, generate limited economic activity founded on tourism and philatelic and numismatic sales, and are tolerated or ignored by the nations from which they claim to have seceded.

One example is the Republic of Indian Stream, now the town of Pittsburg, New Hampshire—a geographic anomaly left unresolved by the Treaty of Paris that ended the U.S. Revolutionary War, and claimed by both the U.S. and Canada. Between 1832 and 1835, the area's residents refused to acknowledge either claimant.

Another example is the Cospaia Republic, which became independent through a treaty error and survived from 1440 to 1826. Its independence made it important in the introduction of tobacco cultivation to Italy.

Another is Couto Misto, disputed by Spain and Portugal, that operated as a sovereign state in its own right until the 1864 Treaty of Lisbon that partitioned the territory, with the largest part becoming part of Spain.

See also

• Island country
• City state
• European microstates
• List of countries and dependencies by population density
• List of countries and outlying territories by total area
• List of countries by population
• Microstates and the United Nations

References

1. Warrington, E. (1994). "Lilliputs Revisited". Asian Journal of Public Administration, 16(1).
2. Dumienski, Zbigniew (2014). "Microstates as Modern Protected States: Towards a New Definition of Micro-Statehood" (PDF). Occasional Paper. Centre for Small State Studies. Retrieved 2014-06-07. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
3. Mehmet, O. & Tahiroglu, M., 2002. Growth and equity in microstates: Does size matter in development? International Journal of Social Economics, 29(1/2), pp.152–162.
4. Boyce, P.J. & Herr, R.A., 2008. Microstate diplomacy in the south pacific. Australian Outlook, (April 2012), pp.37–41.
5. Reid, G.L., 1975. Impact of Very Small Size on the International Behaviour of Microstates (International Studies), SAGE Publications Ltd.
6. Neemia, U., 1995. Smallness, islandness and foreign policy behaviour: aspects of island microstates foreign policy behaviour with special reference to Cook Islands and Kiribati. University of Wollongong.
7. Dommen, E., 1985. States, Microstates and Islands, Routledge Kegan & Paul.
8. "CIA – The World Factbook – Rank Order – Population". CIA. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
9. Amstrup, N., 1976. The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts. Cooperation and Conflict, 11(2), pp. 163–182.
10. "CIA – The World Factbook – Rank Order – Area". CIA. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
11. "Demographic Yearbook—Table 3: Population by sex, rate of population increase, surface area and density" (PDF). United Nations Statistics Division. 2008. Retrieved 2011-06-12. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
12. Neumann, I.B. & Gstöhl, S., 2004. Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World ? Small States in International Relations.
13. Oest, K.J.N. & Wivel, A., 2010. Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(3), pp. 429–453.
14. Mendelson, M. H. (1972). "Diminutive States in the United Nations". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 21(4), pp.609–630.
15. Veenendaal, W. (2015). "Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a democratic political system", Democratization, 22(1): 92-112.
16. Anckar, D. (2004). "Regime Choices in Microstates: The Cultural Constraint", Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 42(2): 206-223.
17. Corbett, J. (2015). ""Everybody knows everybody": practising politics in the Pacific Islands", Democratization, 22(1): 51-72.
18. Erk, J. and Veenendaal, W. (2014). "Is Small Really Beautiful? The Microstate Mistake", Journal of Democracy, 25(3): 135-148.
19. Anckar, D. (2008). "Microstate Democracy: Majority or Consensus; Diffusion or Problem-Solving?", Democratization, 15(1): 67-85.
20. Sharman, J.C. (2017). "Sovereignty at the Extremes: Micro-States in World Politics", Political Studies, 65(3): 559-575.
21. Veenendaal, W. (2017). "Analyzing the Foreign Policy of Microstates: The Relevance of the International Patron-Client Model", Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(3): 561-577.

Further reading

• Sack, John; Silverstein, Shel (1959). Report from practically nowhere. Harper.