Search results

This paper discusses theoretical debates regarding small states and their foreign policy and also argues that research should include more analysis of small states' identities and the dominant meanings related to being a small state. Using poststructuralistic theoretical perspective and discourse analysis, two empirical cases – Lithuania and New Zealand – are analysed with attention paid to the meanings of smallness and the ways these meanings are constructed. Empirical analysis follows with suggestions for how future research of small states could be improved.

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip tarptautinių santykių disciplina apibrėžia ir aiškina mažų valstybių problematiką. Išskiriant pagrindinius klausimus, formuluojama iki šiol mažų valstybių studijų lauke plačiai netaikyta poststruktūralistinė teorinė ir metodologinė prieiga, kreipianti dėmesį į mažumą, kaip šalies identiteto dimensiją, ir reikšmes, kuriomis buvimas maža valstybe yra formuluojamas, siejamas arba sietinas su saugumo bei užsienio politika. Pateikiama Lietuvos ir Naujosios Zelandijos atvejų analizė ir jų palyginimas pristatant pagrindines mažumą apibrėžiančias reikšmes, jų santykį su saugumo bei užsienio politika. Remiantis atlikta analize, pasiūlomi į studijų lauko plėtojimą referuojantys principai, kurie gali būti svarbūs toliau tiriant ir aiškinant mažas valstybes.

The study aims to explain the ways to discuss about small states and their foreign and security policy. Most of the academic publications dedicated to analyse the definition of small state provide different definitions based on different theories of International Relations, which also include various explanations on how size determines the behavior of a small state. These generalised explanations seem to be very limited because they are not able to give a clear understanding of why the so-called small states exercise different foreign and security policy. Therefore, another view point is chosen – to analyse the ways how states understand their smallness and what meanings define this category of size. The research is based on poststructuralism in International Relations. This theoretical perspective argues that an objective, given and materially described reality does not exist. Discursive meanings, identity and different practices of social construction are much more important objects for analysis. From this point of view, smallness is understood not as an overall and objective factor, but as an identity dimension constructed through different meanings. Two chosen cases – Lithuania and New Zealand – prove that despite the fact that both countries are understood as small, the perception of smallness and its relevance are very different. Five sizes (physical, normative, political, sovereignty and perception), used as a methodological tool, show that various meanings of being a small country are affected not only by physical size.

The study aims to explain the ways to discuss about small states and their foreign and security policy. Most of the academic publications dedicated to analyse the definition of small state provide different definitions based on different theories of International Relations, which also include various explanations on how size determines the behavior of a small state. These generalised explanations seem to be very limited because they are not able to give a clear understanding of why the so-called small states exercise different foreign and security policy. Therefore, another view point is chosen – to analyse the ways how states understand their smallness and what meanings define this category of size. The research is based on poststructuralism in International Relations. This theoretical perspective argues that an objective, given and materially described reality does not exist. Discursive meanings, identity and different practices of social construction are much more important objects for analysis. From this point of view, smallness is understood not as an overall and objective factor, but as an identity dimension constructed through different meanings. Two chosen cases – Lithuania and New Zealand – prove that despite the fact that both countries are understood as small, the perception of smallness and its relevance are very different. Five sizes (physical, normative, political, sovereignty and perception), used as a methodological tool, show that various meanings of being a small country are affected not only by physical size.

The study aims to explain the ways to discuss about small states and their foreign and security policy. Most of the academic publications dedicated to analyse the definition of small state provide different definitions based on different theories of International Relations, which also include various explanations on how size determines the behavior of a small state. These generalised explanations seem to be very limited because they are not able to give a clear understanding of why the so-called small states exercise different foreign and security policy. Therefore, another view point is chosen – to analyse the ways how states understand their smallness and what meanings define this category of size. The research is based on poststructuralism in International Relations. This theoretical perspective argues that an objective, given and materially described reality does not exist. Discursive meanings, identity and different practices of social construction are much more important objects for analysis. From this point of view, smallness is understood not as an overall and objective factor, but as an identity dimension constructed through different meanings. Two chosen cases – Lithuania and New Zealand – prove that despite the fact that both countries are understood as small, the perception of smallness and its relevance are very different. Five sizes (physical, normative, political, sovereignty and perception), used as a methodological tool, show that various meanings of being a small country are affected not only by physical size. Other factors, such as the geopolitical situation, historical memory, experience and attitude towards the international system should be taken into consideration while analysing small states and their foreign and security policy. Despite existing differences and disagreements what kind of factor (conceptual or empirical) size is, discussions about small states remain relevant because smallness can be described as one of the identity dimensions reflected by the political elite. The reflection of being a small country also shows that smallness is a political concept. Therefore, orthodox questions of what are the small states and how they behave can be changed to another one: how countries choose to be small and what they do with the different narratives of smallness. This study also suggests three principles that could be taken into consideration for further researches of small states. First, the relevance – smallness becomes relevant in concrete cases or in a relation with particular actors. Consequently, small size should not be considered as an overall fact, but only as a relative factor, relevant in a specific context. Second, identity – many endeavors to describe small state face the problem about the possibility to provide a full set of subjective characteristics explaining and covering the different aspects of a small state. One possible solution is to search for what kind of characteristics are related with smallness and which of them describe a state's identity. Furthermore, identity presents not only the ways we describe the Self, but also how other actors react to those self-definitions do they support and admit characteristics we use to describe ourselves. Third, generalisation – there is no grounded possibility to say that one or another aspect related with Lithuania or New Zealand as a small state can be generalised or attributed to all small states. Therefore, other variables (geopolitical position, historical memory, etc.) and a broader context and relation with an international system or actors should be included into analysis. ; Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip tarptautinių santykių disciplina apibrėžia ir aiškina mažų valstybių problematiką. Išskiriant pagrindinius klausimus, formuluojama iki šiol mažų valstybių studijų lauke plačiai netaikyta poststruktūralistinė teorinė ir metodologinė prieiga, kreipianti dėmesį į mažumą, kaip šalies identiteto dimensiją, ir reikšmes, kuriomis buvimas maža valstybe yra formuluojamas, siejamas arba sietinas su saugumo bei užsienio politika. Pateikiama Lietuvos ir Naujosios Zelandijos atvejų analizė ir jų palyginimas pristatant pagrindines mažumą apibrėžiančias reikšmes, jų santykį su saugumo bei užsienio politika. Remiantis atlikta analize, pasiūlomi į studijų lauko plėtojimą referuojantys principai, kurie gali būti svarbūs toliau tiriant ir aiškinant mažas valstybes.

The study aims to explain the ways to discuss about small states and their foreign and security policy. Most of the academic publications dedicated to analyse the definition of small state provide different definitions based on different theories of International Relations, which also include various explanations on how size determines the behavior of a small state. These generalised explanations seem to be very limited because they are not able to give a clear understanding of why the so-called small states exercise different foreign and security policy. Therefore, another view point is chosen – to analyse the ways how states understand their smallness and what meanings define this category of size. The research is based on poststructuralism in International Relations. This theoretical perspective argues that an objective, given and materially described reality does not exist. Discursive meanings, identity and different practices of social construction are much more important objects for analysis. From this point of view, smallness is understood not as an overall and objective factor, but as an identity dimension constructed through different meanings. Two chosen cases – Lithuania and New Zealand – prove that despite the fact that both countries are understood as small, the perception of smallness and its relevance are very different. Five sizes (physical, normative, political, sovereignty and perception), used as a methodological tool, show that various meanings of being a small country are affected not only by physical size.

The study aims to explain the ways to discuss about small states and their foreign and security policy. Most of the academic publications dedicated to analyse the definition of small state provide different definitions based on different theories of International Relations, which also include various explanations on how size determines the behavior of a small state. These generalised explanations seem to be very limited because they are not able to give a clear understanding of why the so-called small states exercise different foreign and security policy. Therefore, another view point is chosen – to analyse the ways how states understand their smallness and what meanings define this category of size. The research is based on poststructuralism in International Relations. This theoretical perspective argues that an objective, given and materially described reality does not exist. Discursive meanings, identity and different practices of social construction are much more important objects for analysis. From this point of view, smallness is understood not as an overall and objective factor, but as an identity dimension constructed through different meanings. Two chosen cases – Lithuania and New Zealand – prove that despite the fact that both countries are understood as small, the perception of smallness and its relevance are very different. Five sizes (physical, normative, political, sovereignty and perception), used as a methodological tool, show that various meanings of being a small country are affected not only by physical size.

Abstract
The aim of this article is to investigate what perceptions towards European Union, Austria and Russia exist in terms of Lithuanian identity. This question arises from a chosen case of Michail Golovatov's release and intense discussions within Lithuanian media about this issue in summer of 2011. Although it seems that incident and later diplomatic conflict is directly related with Austria and judicial arguments, but Austria and its actions provoked broad considerations what Lithuania's relations with European Union, its member states and even Russia are. First, article analyses theoretical significance of identity and its relation with foreign policy. Second, methodological tools of discourse analysis are formulated in order to analyse selected texts which compose the discourse of the case. Third, according to the meanings found interpretations explaining how Lithuanian identity is constructed through perceptions towards EU, Austria and Russia are presented.

The article analyses how the reconstituted Republic of Lithuania constructed its identity in the context of foreign and security policy. The main purpose of this study is to find out how Lithuanian identity was constructed in 1991–1994 and what kind of tensions unfolded regarding the integration processes. The study relies on the premise that the internally formed identity of a country is the main aspect that provides insights into foreign and security policy, represents relations with other countries and describes self-positioning in international politics. Therefore, it is important to analyze how this identity was constructed. Post-structuralists argue that identity, which is the main concept of post-structuralistic analysis, is understood as discursive, political, social, and relational (the distinction between the Self and the Other). Therefore, the relation between identity and foreign and security policy is constitutive, this identity is not given and stable but varies and transforms according to foreign and security policies. The discourse analysis is used as a method and means to identify the socially constructed reality. By discourse we refer to spoken and written texts. Therefore, the basic material for research is 100 articles in which politicians, commentators, intellectuals, etc. have been analyzing the Lithuanian foreign and security policy from 1991 to 1994. The texts are taken from three Lithuanian newspapers: "Lietuvos rytas", "Lietuvos aidas", and "Atgimimas". The results are divided into two dimensions: Western dimension (addressing Europe in general and the European Union) and regional dimension (addressing Northern Europe, the Baltic region, and Central Europe). Several observations could be made. European representations have been dominant in the discourse. There have been a few different aspects with regard to this. Lithuania has been perceived as belonging to the same civilization as Europe, and Europe has been understood as the most important security guarantor. At the same time, however, Lithuania has also regarded Europe with distrust and felt inferior. Therefore, willingness to be integrated into Western security organizations, on the one hand, and fears and intention to primarily formulate national identity, on the other, have formed tensions between these two visions. Three regions have been understood merely as means to reach the strategic purposes and get integrated into Europe. Northern Europe has been generally perceived as a friendly, well-developed and reliable region. Therefore, this partnership could have contributed to guaranteeing Lithuania's security and integration. However, there has been no common historical or cultural background between Lithuania and Northern Europe. For this reason, Northern Europe has existed as a stranger in the context of identity. Conversely, there have been a few cohesive aspects between Lithuania and Central Europe, but Central Europe has been represented as unreliable in the terms of security. Compared to Northern or Central Europe, only the Baltic region has been understood in greater depth. However, the main questions about the core of the Baltic identity have not been still answered, but the common Baltic region has been seen as instrumental and useful for integration processes. This research shows the complexity of Lithuanian identity and the possible roots of nowadays' tendencies. Despite the fact that Lithuanian identity has been based on orientation towards Europe, there have been other dimensions found in public discussions between 1991 and 1994. Finally, Lithuanian identity has laid on the limited pro-European background with a few additional fragments. Finally, all subjects, such as different regions, have been understood as strange Others.

The article analyses how the reconstituted Republic of Lithuania constructed its identity in the context of foreign and security policy. The main purpose of this study is to find out how Lithuanian identity was constructed in 1991–1994 and what kind of tensions unfolded regarding the integration processes. The study relies on the premise that the internally formed identity of a country is the main aspect that provides insights into foreign and security policy, represents relations with other countries and describes self-positioning in international politics. Therefore, it is important to analyze how this identity was constructed.Post-structuralists argue that identity, which is the main concept of post-structuralistic analysis, is understood as discursive, political, social, and relational (the distinction between the Self and the Other). Therefore, the relation between identity and foreign and security policy is constitutive, this identity is not given and stable but varies and transforms according to foreign and security policies.The discourse analysis is used as a method and means to identify the socially constructed reality. By discourse we refer to spoken and written texts. Therefore, the basic material for research is 100 articles in which politicians, commentators, intellectuals, etc. have been analyzing the Lithuanian foreign and security policy from 1991 to 1994. The texts are taken from three Lithuanian newspapers: "Lietuvos rytas", "Lietuvos aidas", and "Atgimimas". The results are divided into two dimensions: Western dimension (addressing Europe in general and the European Union) and regional dimension (addressing Northern Europe, the Baltic region, and Central Europe).Several observations could be made. European representations have been dominant in the discourse. There have been a few different aspects with regard to this. Lithuania has been perceived as belonging to the same civilization as Europe, and Europe has been understood as the most important security guarantor. At the same time, however, Lithuania has also regarded Europe with distrust and felt inferior. Therefore, willingness to be integrated into Western security organizations, on the one hand, and fears and intention to primarily formulate national identity, on the other, have formed tensions between these two visions.Three regions have been understood merely as means to reach the strategic purposes and get integrated into Europe. Northern Europe has been generally perceived as a friendly, well-developed and reliable region. Therefore, this partnership could have contributed to guaranteeing Lithuania's security and integration. However, there has been no common historical or cultural background between Lithuania and Northern Europe. For this reason, Northern Europe has existed as a stranger in the context of identity. Conversely, there have been a few cohesive aspects between Lithuania and Central Europe, but Central Europe has been represented as unreliable in the terms of security. Compared to Northern or Central Europe, only the Baltic region has been understood in greater depth. However, the main questions about the core of the Baltic identity have not been still answered, but the common Baltic region has been seen as instrumental and useful for integration processes.This research shows the complexity of Lithuanian identity and the possible roots of nowadays' tendencies. Despite the fact that Lithuanian identity has been based on orientation towards Europe, there have been other dimensions found in public discussions between 1991 and 1994. Finally, Lithuanian identity has laid on the limited pro-European background with a few additional fragments. Finally, all subjects, such as different regions, have been understood as strange Others. ; Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip buvo konstruojama Lietuvos tapatybė ir kokios įtampos atsiskleidžia analizuojant jos santykį su valstybės užsienio politikos integraciniais tikslais 1991–1994 metais. Atspirties tašku pasirinkta prielaida, kad atsikūrusios ir tik tarptautinį pripažinimą gavusios valstybės saugumo ir užsienio politika, savęs pozicionavimas tarptautinėje erdvėje yra neatskiriami nuo tapatybės formavimo procesų. Todėl pagrindiniu objektu tyrime tampa Lietuvos tapatybė. Siekiant identifikuoti 1991–1994 metais konstruotą tapatybę, iš trijų laikraščių pasirinkti Lietuvos apžvalgininkų, intelektualų, politikų, visuomenės veikėjų vertinamieji ir analitiniai tekstai saugumo bei užsienio politikos tema. Remiantis poststruktūralistine prieiga, nagrinėjama tapatybės koncepcija, jos ir saugumo bei užsienio politikos ry­šys; remiantis diskurso analize, suformuluojamas tyrimo dizainas ir metodo pritaikymo principai, pateikiamos reikšmių interpretacijos dviem kryptimis: analizuojamos tekstuose fiksuojamos Lietuvos tapatybės tendencijos Euro­pos atžvilgiu ir trijų skirtingų regionų (Šiaurės šalių, Vidurio Europos ir Bal­tijos šalių) atvejais.

The article analyses how the reconstituted Republic of Lithuania constructed its identity in the context of foreign and security policy. The main purpose of this study is to find out how Lithuanian identity was constructed in 1991–1994 and what kind of tensions unfolded regarding the integration processes. The study relies on the premise that the internally formed identity of a country is the main aspect that provides insights into foreign and security policy, represents relations with other countries and describes self-positioning in international politics. Therefore, it is important to analyze how this identity was constructed. Post-structuralists argue that identity, which is the main concept of post-structuralistic analysis, is understood as discursive, political, social, and relational (the distinction between the Self and the Other). Therefore, the relation between identity and foreign and security policy is constitutive, this identity is not given and stable but varies and transforms according to foreign and security policies. The discourse analysis is used as a method and means to identify the socially constructed reality. By discourse we refer to spoken and written texts. Therefore, the basic material for research is 100 articles in which politicians, commentators, intellectuals, etc. have been analyzing the Lithuanian foreign and security policy from 1991 to 1994. The texts are taken from three Lithuanian newspapers: "Lietuvos rytas", "Lietuvos aidas", and "Atgimimas". The results are divided into two dimensions: Western dimension (addressing Europe in general and the European Union) and regional dimension (addressing Northern Europe, the Baltic region, and Central Europe). Several observations could be made. European representations have been dominant in the discourse. There have been a few different aspects with regard to this. Lithuania has been perceived as belonging to the same civilization as Europe, and Europe has been understood as the most important security guarantor. At the same time, however, Lithuania has also regarded Europe with distrust and felt inferior. Therefore, willingness to be integrated into Western security organizations, on the one hand, and fears and intention to primarily formulate national identity, on the other, have formed tensions between these two visions. Three regions have been understood merely as means to reach the strategic purposes and get integrated into Europe. Northern Europe has been generally perceived as a friendly, well-developed and reliable region. Therefore, this partnership could have contributed to guaranteeing Lithuania's security and integration. However, there has been no common historical or cultural background between Lithuania and Northern Europe. For this reason, Northern Europe has existed as a stranger in the context of identity. Conversely, there have been a few cohesive aspects between Lithuania and Central Europe, but Central Europe has been represented as unreliable in the terms of security. Compared to Northern or Central Europe, only the Baltic region has been understood in greater depth. However, the main questions about the core of the Baltic identity have not been still answered, but the common Baltic region has been seen as instrumental and useful for integration processes. This research shows the complexity of Lithuanian identity and the possible roots of nowadays' tendencies. Despite the fact that Lithuanian identity has been based on orientation towards Europe, there have been other dimensions found in public discussions between 1991 and 1994. Finally, Lithuanian identity has laid on the limited pro-European background with a few additional fragments. Finally, all subjects, such as different regions, have been understood as strange Others.

The article analyses how the reconstituted Republic of Lithuania constructed its identity in the context of foreign and security policy. The main purpose of this study is to find out how Lithuanian identity was constructed in 1991–1994 and what kind of tensions unfolded regarding the integration processes. The study relies on the premise that the internally formed identity of a country is the main aspect that provides insights into foreign and security policy, represents relations with other countries and describes self-positioning in international politics. Therefore, it is important to analyze how this identity was constructed. Post-structuralists argue that identity, which is the main concept of post-structuralistic analysis, is understood as discursive, political, social, and relational (the distinction between the Self and the Other). Therefore, the relation between identity and foreign and security policy is constitutive, this identity is not given and stable but varies and transforms according to foreign and security policies. The discourse analysis is used as a method and means to identify the socially constructed reality. By discourse we refer to spoken and written texts. Therefore, the basic material for research is 100 articles in which politicians, commentators, intellectuals, etc. have been analyzing the Lithuanian foreign and security policy from 1991 to 1994. The texts are taken from three Lithuanian newspapers: "Lietuvos rytas", "Lietuvos aidas", and "Atgimimas". The results are divided into two dimensions: Western dimension (addressing Europe in general and the European Union) and regional dimension (addressing Northern Europe, the Baltic region, and Central Europe). Several observations could be made. European representations have been dominant in the discourse. There have been a few different aspects with regard to this. Lithuania has been perceived as belonging to the same civilization as Europe, and Europe has been understood as the most important security guarantor. At the same time, however, Lithuania has also regarded Europe with distrust and felt inferior. Therefore, willingness to be integrated into Western security organizations, on the one hand, and fears and intention to primarily formulate national identity, on the other, have formed tensions between these two visions. Three regions have been understood merely as means to reach the strategic purposes and get integrated into Europe. Northern Europe has been generally perceived as a friendly, well-developed and reliable region. Therefore, this partnership could have contributed to guaranteeing Lithuania's security and integration. However, there has been no common historical or cultural background between Lithuania and Northern Europe. For this reason, Northern Europe has existed as a stranger in the context of identity. Conversely, there have been a few cohesive aspects between Lithuania and Central Europe, but Central Europe has been represented as unreliable in the terms of security. Compared to Northern or Central Europe, only the Baltic region has been understood in greater depth. However, the main questions about the core of the Baltic identity have not been still answered, but the common Baltic region has been seen as instrumental and useful for integration processes. This research shows the complexity of Lithuanian identity and the possible roots of nowadays' tendencies. Despite the fact that Lithuanian identity has been based on orientation towards Europe, there have been other dimensions found in public discussions between 1991 and 1994. Finally, Lithuanian identity has laid on the limited pro-European background with a few additional fragments. Finally, all subjects, such as different regions, have been understood as strange Others.

The article analyses how the reconstituted Republic of Lithuania constructed its identity in the context of foreign and security policy. The main purpose of this study is to find out how Lithuanian identity was constructed in 1991–1994 and what kind of tensions unfolded regarding the integration processes. The study relies on the premise that the internally formed identity of a country is the main aspect that provides insights into foreign and security policy, represents relations with other countries and describes self-positioning in international politics. Therefore, it is important to analyze how this identity was constructed. Post-structuralists argue that identity, which is the main concept of post-structuralistic analysis, is understood as discursive, political, social, and relational (the distinction between the Self and the Other). Therefore, the relation between identity and foreign and security policy is constitutive, this identity is not given and stable but varies and transforms according to foreign and security policies. The discourse analysis is used as a method and means to identify the socially constructed reality. By discourse we refer to spoken and written texts. Therefore, the basic material for research is 100 articles in which politicians, commentators, intellectuals, etc. have been analyzing the Lithuanian foreign and security policy from 1991 to 1994. The texts are taken from three Lithuanian newspapers: "Lietuvos rytas", "Lietuvos aidas", and "Atgimimas". The results are divided into two dimensions: Western dimension (addressing Europe in general and the European Union) and regional dimension (addressing Northern Europe, the Baltic region, and Central Europe). Several observations could be made. European representations have been dominant in the discourse. There have been a few different aspects with regard to this. Lithuania has been perceived as belonging to the same civilization as Europe, and Europe has been understood as the most important security guarantor. At the same time, however, Lithuania has also regarded Europe with distrust and felt inferior. Therefore, willingness to be integrated into Western security organizations, on the one hand, and fears and intention to primarily formulate national identity, on the other, have formed tensions between these two visions. Three regions have been understood merely as means to reach the strategic purposes and get integrated into Europe. Northern Europe has been generally perceived as a friendly, well-developed and reliable region. Therefore, this partnership could have contributed to guaranteeing Lithuania's security and integration. However, there has been no common historical or cultural background between Lithuania and Northern Europe. For this reason, Northern Europe has existed as a stranger in the context of identity. Conversely, there have been a few cohesive aspects between Lithuania and Central Europe, but Central Europe has been represented as unreliable in the terms of security. Compared to Northern or Central Europe, only the Baltic region has been understood in greater depth. However, the main questions about the core of the Baltic identity have not been still answered, but the common Baltic region has been seen as instrumental and useful for integration processes. This research shows the complexity of Lithuanian identity and the possible roots of nowadays' tendencies. Despite the fact that Lithuanian identity has been based on orientation towards Europe, there have been other dimensions found in public discussions between 1991 and 1994. Finally, Lithuanian identity has laid on the limited pro-European background with a few additional fragments. Finally, all subjects, such as different regions, have been understood as strange Others.