On any playground, there are players of all sizes, capabilities, and intentions. All are equal in inherent value, but otherwise asymmetrical. Some are small. Some are big. Some play nicely with others. Some do not. There are cliques and outsiders. Some can exert influence or coerce, while others cannot. The players who determine the rules are often those with some currency of power. So it is in the international playground of nation states which is aggressive and filled with competition for power, such that states must rely on themselves for their own defense and security. While the playground analogy does not apply in all aspects, it provides a helpful frame for understanding the international arena of nation states, and the particular plight of small states.

Small states, like large ones, are sovereign entities with the right to self-determination, the right of peoples to determine their political status and development. However, they are smaller in population size and have lesser capacity in some areas including economic and/or military might - currencies of power in the international system. While small does not mean powerless, size matters.

So, in the absence of power relative to larger states, can international law protect and empower small states? It depends. International law is not a value neutral instrument. It does not sit in a vacuum; neither is it static. It evolves and is interpreted within the context of the times. Additionally, though there are arbiters in the international system - such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal on the Law of

the Sea (ITLOS), and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) - to administer international law and adjudicate between states, they have limitations. Some require the consensual participation of states and none of them can enforce their own decisions. Essentially there is no international policeman.

At the start of the 20th century, 'about 70% of the world's population...was subject to foreign rule, either colonial or semicolonial' according to Mushkatt. International law provided the legal basis for the deconstruction of colonization allowing many small states to come into existence. Ironically, it was international law that aided the development of colonialism in the first place via legal concepts such as Terra Nullius (‘land belonging to no one’), allowing European nations to claim ownership of inhabited territories not governed according to their standards.

International law has also enabled small states to have their grievances against larger states adjudicated. For example, Mauritius challenged the legality of the UK's ownership of the Chagos islands in its 2012 application before the PCA. This ownership issue was addressed in several fora (PCA, ICJ and ITLOS) over a 12-year period. While the law ruled largely in favour of Mauritius, it was unable to enforce the decision. Finally, in 2025, the UK agreed to handover the islands as it was concerned about mounting international legal pressure and its own credibility. Critics argued 'how could the UK criticise Russia for breaking international law in Ukraine and China in the South China Sea if it was itself breaking the rules in the Indian Ocean?' The legal process allowed Mauritius to exert its sovereignty, galvanise support and bring diplomatic pressure to bear by using the law as a strategic litigation tool on the world stage.

But the law is also a tool for large states. Russia sought to justify its invasion of Ukraine through a largely disputed application of international law. While Ukraine is not a small state, it is smaller than Russia and demonstrates the asymmetry of power in the international system. Its invasion and the ongoing threat to its sovereignty has rattled small states and revealed concerns about respect for international law and the ability to enforce it. Guyana's Permanent Representative to the UN noted, 'the question is not how will this end but who's next?' The answer may be found in recent rhetoric by the US toward Greenland and Panama. As aptly noted by Singapore 'if might is right, the world will be a dangerous place for small countries.' Experience shows that the law alone is insufficient. It must be combined with other tools such as diplomacy or political pressure. But even then, it does not guarantee security.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.