The world's five smallest sovereign states by area, from largest to smallest:San Marino,Tuvalu,Nauru,Monaco, andVatican City shown in the same scale for size comparisonMap of the smallest states in the world by population or land area
Amicrostate orministate is asovereign state having a very small population or land area, usually both. However, the meanings of "state" and "very small" are not well-defined in international law.[1] Some recent attempts to define microstates have focused on identifying qualitative features that are linked to their size and population, such as partial delegation of theirsovereignty to larger states, such as for international defense.
Commonly accepted examples of microstates include five historic European microstates:Andorra,Liechtenstein,Monaco,San Marino, andVatican City.Malta andLuxembourg are sometimes included in that list but are generally considered too populous to be genuine microstates. Other examples are small, isolated island states in the Pacific Ocean:Nauru,Palau,Niue,Cook Islands andTuvalu. Some smallCaribbean countries such asSaint Kitts and Nevis,Barbados,Antigua and Barbuda,Grenada,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines may be considered microstates by some but are often not included due to them being grouped together as smallisland countries.Singapore andBahrain are sometimes considered microstates but some argue are too populous, self reliant or powerful to be considered true microstates and their island status can play an important factor too.[2]The smallest political entity recognized as a sovereign state is Vatican City, with fewer than 1,000 residents and an area of only 49 hectares (120 acres). Some microstates – such as Singapore, Monaco and Vatican City – arecity-states consisting of a single municipality.
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 cut-off point should be used to determine which political units should be labelled as "microstates" (as opposed to small "normal" states).[1][6][7][8] 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".[6]
Vatican City, the smallest independent country in the world, with 0.49 km2 (120 acres)
Some academics have suggested defining microstates according to the unique features that are linked to their geographic or demographic smallness.[6][9][10] 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.[10][11] Yet, it has been argued[by whom?] that such approaches could lead to either confusing microstates with weak states[7][9] (orfailed states) or relying too much on subjective perceptions.[6]
An alternative approach is to define microstates as "modern protected states".[6] 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."[6] Adopting this approach permits limiting the number of microstates and separating them from both small states and autonomies ordependencies.[6]
The smallest political unit recognized as a sovereign state is theVatican City, thoughits precise status is sometimes disputed, e.g.,Maurice Mendelson argued in 1972 that "[i]n two respects it may be doubted whether the territorial entity, the Vatican City, meets the traditional criteria of statehood".[12]
Statistical research has shown that microstates are more likely to bedemocracies than larger states. In 2012,Freedom House classified 86% of the countries with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants as "free".[13] This shows that countries with small populations often had a high degree ofpolitical freedom andcivil 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,[14] mentioningsocial cohesiveness, opportunities for direct communication and homogeneity of interests as possible explanations for why this is the case.[13][15]
Case study research, however, has led some researchers to believe that the statistical evidence belies the anti-democratic elements of microstate politics.[13][16] 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 asclientelism,corruption,particularism andexecutive dominance.[13]
The high number of democracies amongst microstates could be explained by their colonial history.[13][14] Most microstates adopted the same political system as their colonial ruler.[17] Because of the high number of microstates that wereBritish colonies in the past, microstates often have amajoritarian andparliamentary political system similar to theWestminster system.[14] Some microstates with a history as British colony have implemented some aspects of aconsensus political system, to adapt to their geographic features or societal make-up.[17] While the colonial history often determines what political systems microstates have, they do implement changes to better accommodate their specific characteristics.
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 to believe that microstates are forced to subordinate themselves to larger states which reduces theirsovereignty.[18] However, research has shown that microstates strategically engage inpatron-client relationships with other countries.[19] This allows them to trade some privileges to countries that can advance their interests the most. Examples of this are microstates that establish atax haven or sell their support in international committees in exchange for military and economic support.[18]
A small number of tiny sovereign political units have been founded on historic anomalies or eccentric interpretations of law. Those types of states, often labelled as "microstates," are usually located on small (usually disputed) territorial enclaves, generate limited economic activity founded ontourism andphilatelic andnumismatic sales, and are tolerated or ignored by the nations from which they claim to have seceded.
TheCospaia Republic became independent by a treaty error and survived from 1440 to 1826.[21] Its independence made it important in the introduction of tobacco cultivation toItaly.
Maldives in theIndian Ocean, the smallest independent country inAsia with an area of 298 km2 (115 sq mi)
Jaxa was a small state that existed during the 17th century at the border betweenTsardom of Russia andQing China. Despite its location in East Asia, the state's primary language wasPolish.[23]
^Mehmet, Ozay; Tahiroglu, M. (1 January 2002). "Growth and equity in microstates: Does size matter in development?".International Journal of Social Economics.29 (1/2):152–162.doi:10.1108/03068290210413047.
^Boyce, Peter J.; Herr, Richard A. (April 1974). "Microstate diplomacy in the south pacific".Australian Outlook.28 (1):24–35.doi:10.1080/10357717408444489.
^Reid, George L. (1974).The impact of very small size on the international behavior of microstates. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.ISBN9780803904064.
^Dommen, E. (1985). Hein, P. (ed.).States, Microstates and Islands. London; Dover, N.H: Routledge Kegan & Paul.ISBN978-0-7099-0862-3.
^abAmstrup, Niels (June 1976). "The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts".Cooperation and Conflict.11 (2):163–182.doi:10.1177/001083677601100202.ISSN0010-8367.
^abIngebritsen, Christine; Neumann, Iver; Gstöhl, Sieglinde; Beyer, Jessica, eds. (May 2006).Small States in International Relations: Lilliputians in Gulliver's World?. New directions in Scandinavian studies. Seattle : Reykjavik: University of Washington Press; University of Iceland Press.ISBN978-0-295-98524-4.OCLC63171147.
^Wivel, Anders; Oest, Kajsa Ji Noe (September 2010). "Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates".Cambridge Review of International Affairs.23 (3):429–453.doi:10.1080/09557571.2010.484047.ISSN0955-7571.
^abcdeVeenendaal, Wouter P. (2015). "Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a democratic political system".Democratization.22 (1):92–112.doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.820710.ISSN1351-0347.
^Erk, Jan; Veenendaal, Wouter (July 2014). "Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake".Journal of Democracy.25 (3):135–148.doi:10.1353/jod.2014.0054.ISSN1086-3214.
^abAnckar, Dag (February 2008). "Microstate Democracy: Majority or Consensus; Diffusion or Problem-Solving?".Democratization.15 (1):67–85.doi:10.1080/13510340701768158.ISSN1351-0347.
^Veenendaal, Wouter P. (2017). "Analyzing the Foreign Policy of Microstates: The Relevance of the International Patron-Client Model".Foreign Policy Analysis:561–577.doi:10.1111/fpa.12068.
^Doan, Daniel; Daniell, Jere R.; MacDougall, Ruth Doan (1997).Indian Stream Republic: settling a New England frontier, 1785-1842. Library of New England. Jere R. Daniell, Ruth Doan MacDougall. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.ISBN978-0-87451-767-5.OCLC35651345.
^Jepson, Tim (2009).The rough guide to Tuscany & Umbria. Jonathan Buckley, Mark Ellingham, Rough Guides (7th ed.). New York: Rough Guides.ISBN978-1-4053-8529-9.OCLC743223039.
^United Nations (2001-02-14). "Treaties and international agreements registered from 22 September 1995 to 29 September 1995 Nos. 32135 to 32181".Treaty Series 1889. United Nations Treaty Series. UN.doi:10.18356/a43b73bc-en-fr.ISBN978-92-1-045419-3.ISSN2412-1495.
^Sulewski, Wojciech (1973).Konterfekty dziwnych Polaków. Iskry.OCLC69483582.
_(cropped).svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
