Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:19:54.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Norm entrepreneurship and diffusion ‘from below’ in international organisations: How the competent performance of vulnerability generates benefits for small states

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2019

Jack Corbett ,
Yi-chong Xu  and
Patrick Weller
Jack Corbett*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Yi-chong Xu
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Australia
Patrick Weller
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For decades, the world's smallest states – the structurally weakest members of the multilateral system – have been considered incapable of influencing international organisations (IOs). So, why has the label small state risen to prominence over the last two decades and become institutionalised as a formal grouping in multiple IOs? Drawing on more than eighty in-depth interviews, we explain the rise of Small Island Developing States in the United Nations system, the expansion of their agenda to the Small and Vulnerable Economies group at the World Trade Organization, and then to other IOs. The adoption of the labels is evidence of small state norm diffusion. We identify the competent performance of vulnerability within multilateral settings as the key to explaining this norm emergence and diffusion. The lesson is that diffusion ‘from below’ is not always driven by a desire to increase rank. In this case small states have gained benefits by maintaining a lowly position in a hierarchy in which large is stronger than small.

Keywords

Norm EntrepreneursNorm DiffusionHierarchyInternational OrganisationsSmall StatesSIDS
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 647 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 de Carvalho, Benjamin and Neumann, Iver B. (eds), Small States and Status Seeking: Norway's Quest for International Standing (London and New York: Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar.

2 Kronsell, Annica, ‘Can small states influence EU norms?: Insights from Sweden's participation in the field of environmental politics’, Scandinavian Studies, 74:3 (2002), pp. 287–304Google Scholar; Ingebritsen, Christine, ‘Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia's role in world politics’, Cooperation and Conflict, 37:1 (2002), pp. 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Browning, Christopher S., ‘Small, smart and salient? Rethinking identity in the small states literature’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19:4 (2006), pp. 669–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Towns, Ann E., ‘Norms and social hierarchies: Understanding international policy diffusion “from below”’, International Organization, 66:2 (2012), pp. 179–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Towns, Ann E., Women and States: Norms and Hierarchies in International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See Jourde, Cédric, ‘The international relations of small neoauthoritarian states: Islamism, warlordism, and the framing of stability’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:2 (2007), pp. 481–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lee, Donna, ‘African agency in global trade governance’, in Brown, William and Harman, Sophie (eds), African Agency in International Politics (London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 44–8Google Scholar, ch. 3; and Laker, J. A., African Participation at the World Trade Organisation (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Vlcek, William, Offshore Finance and Small States: Sovereignty, Size and Money (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bishop, Matthew Louis, ‘The political economy of small states: Enduring vulnerability?’, Review of International Political Economy, 19:5 (2012), pp. 942–60Google Scholar; Connell, John, Islands at Risk?: Environments, Economies and Contemporary Change (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 5Google Scholar.

8 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’.

9 Wiener, Antje, A Theory of Contestation (Berlin: Springer, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See, for example, Jackson, Sarita, ‘Small states and compliance bargaining in the WTO: an analysis of the Antigua–US gambling services case’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25:3 (2012), pp. 367–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on Antigua and Barbuda's case against the US in the WTO.

11 Towns, ‘Norms and social hierarchies’; Towns, Women and States.

12 Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘The community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical action, and the eastern enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization, 55:1 (2001), pp. 47–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Deitelhoff, Nicole and Wallbott, Linda, ‘Beyond soft balancing: Small states and coalition-building in the ICC and climate negotiations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25:3 (2012), pp. 345–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Panke, Diana, ‘Dwarfs in international negotiations: How small states make their voices heard’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25:3 (2012), pp. 313–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Panke, Diana, ‘Small states in multilateral negotiations: What have we learned?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25:3 (2012), pp. 387–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corbett, Jack, Xu, Yi-chong, and Weller, Patrick, ‘Climate change and the active participation of small states in international organisations’, The Round Table, 107:1 (2018), pp. 103–05CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Wallis, Joanne, ‘“Friendly islands” in an unfriendly system: Examining the process of Tonga's WTO accession’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 51:3 (2010), pp. 262–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corbett, Jack and Connell, John, ‘All the world is a stage: Global governance, human resources, and the “problem” of smallness’, The Pacific Review, 28:3 (2015), pp. 435–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Sharman, Jason C., ‘War, selection, and micro-states: Economic and sociological perspectives on the international system’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:1 (2015), pp. 194–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sharman, Jason C., ‘Sovereignty at the extremes: Micro-states in world politics’, Political Studies, 65:3 (2017), pp. 559–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Towns, ‘Norms and social hierarchies’; Towns, Women and States.

18 Maggetti, Martino and Gilardi, Fabrizio, ‘Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms’, Journal of Public Policy, 36:1 (2016), pp. 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Lake, David and O'Mahony, Angela, ‘The incredible shrinking state: Explaining change in the territorial size of countries’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48:5 (2004), pp. 699–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 For review, see Crowards, Tom, ‘Defining the category of “small” states’, Journal of International Development, 14:2 (2002), pp. 143–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sutton, Paul, ‘The concept of small states in the international political economy’, The Round Table, 100:413 (2011), pp. 141–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Louis Bishop, ‘The political economy of small states’.

21 Maass, Matthias, ‘The elusive definition of the small state’, International Politics, 46:1 (2009), pp. 65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Long, Tom, ‘It's not the size, it's the relationship: From “small states” to asymmetry’, International Politics, 54:2 (2017), pp. 144–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’; Florini, Ann, ‘The evolution of international norms’, International Studies Quarterly, 40:3 (1996), pp. 363–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Finnemore, Martha, ‘International organizations as teachers of norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and science policy’, International Organization, 47:4 (1993), pp. 565–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics’, International Social Science Journal, 51:159 (1999), pp. 89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Park, Susan, ‘Norm diffusion within international organizations: a case study of the World Bank’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 8:2 (2005), pp. 111–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Carpenter, R. Charli, ‘Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:1 (2007), pp. 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Keohane, Robert O., ‘The big influence of small allies’, Foreign Policy, 2 (1971), p. 173Google Scholar.

25 Keohane, Robert O., ‘Lilliputians' dilemmas: Small states in international politics’, International Organization, 23:2 (1969), p. 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Vital, David, The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

26 Kronsell, ‘Can small states influence EU norms?’; Ingebritsen, ‘Norm entrepreneurs’; Browning, ‘Small, smart and salient?’; Deitelhoff and Wallbott, ‘Beyond soft balancing’; Jackson, ‘Small states and compliance bargaining in the WTO’; Panke, Diana, Small States in the European Union: Coping with Structural Disadvantages (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar; Panke, ‘Small states in multilateral negotiations’.

27 For a review, see Bishop, ‘The political economy of small states’.

28 Sharman, ‘War, selection, and micro-states’.

29 See Rezvani, David A., Surpassing the Sovereign State: The Wealth, Self-Rule, and Security Advantages of Partially Independent Territories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar on partially independent territories.

30 See, for example, Barnett, Michael and Finnemore, Martha, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Hawkins, Darren G. et al. , Delegation and Agency in International Organisations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Avant, Deborah D., Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan K. (eds), Who Governs the Globe?, Vol. 114 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Baldacchino, Godfrey, ‘Thucydides or Kissinger? A critical review of smaller state diplomacy’, in Cooper, Andrew and Shaw, Timothy (eds), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Cooper and Shaw (eds), The Diplomacies of Small States; Jaschik, Kevin, ‘Small states and international politics: Climate change, the Maldives and Tuvalu’, International Politics, 51:2 (2014), pp. 272–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Long, Tom, ‘Small states, great power? Gaining influence through intrinsic, derivative, and collective power’, International Studies Review, 19:2 (2016), pp. 185–205Google Scholar.

32 See, for example, Betzold, Carola, Castro, Paula, and Weiler, Florian, ‘AOSIS in the UNFCCC negotiations: From unity to fragmentation?’, Climate Policy, 12:5 (2012), pp. 591–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chasek, Pamela S., ‘Margins of power: Coalition building and coalition maintenance of the South Pacific island states and the alliance of small island states’, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 14:2 (2005), pp. 125–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Corneloup, Inés de Agueda and Mol, Arthur P. J., ‘Small island developing states and international climate change negotiations: the power of moral “leadership”’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14:3 (2014), pp. 281–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 See also Jourde, ‘The international relations of small neoauthoritarian states’; Lee, ‘African agency in global trade governance’; and Laker, African Participation at the World Trade Organisation, on African States.

34 Towns, ‘Norms and social hierarchies’; Towns, Women and States.

35 de Carvalho and Neuman, Small States and Status Seeking.

36 Lisa Cox, ‘Vanuatu says it may sue fossil fuel companies and other countries over climate change’, The Guardian, available at: {https://www,theguardian,com/world/2018/nov/22/vanuatu-says-it-may-sue-fossil-fuel-companies-and-other-countries-over-climate-change} accessed 22 November 2018.

37 Towns, Women and States, p. 53.

38 Alesina, Alberto and Spolaore, Enrico, The Size of Nations (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

39 Schimmelfennig, ‘The community trap’; see also Browning, ‘Small, smart and salient?’.

40 See, for example, Jourde, ‘The international relations of small neoauthoritarian states’; Lee, ‘African agency in global trade governance’; Laker, African Participation at the World Trade Organisation.

41 Deitelhoff and Wallbott, ‘Beyond soft balancing’; Panke, ‘Small states in multilateral negotiations’.

42 Panke, ‘Small states in multilateral negotiations’.

43 See also Wallis, ‘“Friendly islands” in an unfriendly system’; Corbett and Connell, ‘All the world is a stage'.

44 Marsh, David and Sharman, Jason C., ‘Policy diffusion and policy transfer’, Policy Studies, 30:3 (2009), pp. 269–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maggetti and Gilardi, ‘Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms’.

45 Sommerer, Thomas and Tallberg, Jonas, ‘Diffusion across international organizations: Connectivity and convergence’, International Organization (2019), pp. 1–35Google Scholar, available at: {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000450}.

46 Corbett, Jack, Xu, Yi-chong, and Weller, Patrick, ‘Small states and the “throughput” legitimacy of international organizations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2018), pp. 1–20Google Scholar, available at: {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2018.1493048}.

47 Vaughan A. Lewis, ‘Studying small states over the 20th into the 21st centuries’, in Cooper and Shaw (eds), The Diplomacies of Small States, p. vii.

48 Wiener, Antje, The Invisible Constitution of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Schwartz-Shea, Peregine and Yanow, Dvora, Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bevir, Mark, Daddow, Oliver, and Hall, Ian, Interpreting Global Security (London: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar; Bevir, Mark and Rhodes, Rod A. W. (eds), Routledge Handbook of Interpretive Political Science (London: Routledge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Bevir, Mark, The Logic of the History of Ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Hobson, John M. and Sharman, Jason C., ‘The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics: Tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change’, European Journal of International Relations, 11:1 (2005), pp. 63–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Katzenstein, Peter J., Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

53 Gerring, John, ‘Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?’, Comparative Political Studies, 40:3 (2007), pp. 231–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Veenendaal, Wouter P. and Corbett, Jack, ‘Why small states offer important answers to large questions’, Comparative Political Studies, 48:4 (2015), pp. 527–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Sharman, ‘Sovereignty at the extremes’.

55 Eckstein, Harry, ‘Case studies and theory in political science’, in Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson (eds), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7 (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 79–138Google Scholar.

56 Whether economic or human capital and population size, see Krasner, Stephen D., Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Kotschwar, Barbara, Low, Patrick, and Mendoza, Miguel Rodriguez, Trade Rules in the Making: Challenges in Regional and Multilateral Negotiations, Organization of American States (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Tussie, Diana and Lengyel, Miguel, ‘Developing countries: Turning participation into influence’, in Hoekman, Bernard, Mattoo, Aaditya, and English, Philip (eds), Development, Trade and the WTO: A Handbook (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002), pp. 485–93Google Scholar, ch. 47.

57 Hey, Jeanne A. K. (ed.), Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behaviour (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003)Google Scholar.

58 Veenendaal, Wouter P., ‘Analyzing the foreign policy of microstates: the relevance of the international patron-client model’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13:3 (2017), pp. 561–77Google Scholar.

59 Thorhallsson, Baldur, ‘Domestic buffer versus external shelter: Viability of small states in the new globalised economy’, European Political Science Review, 10:3 (2011), pp. 324–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Jason C. Sharman, ‘War, selection, and micro-states’.

61 Marsh and Sharman, ‘Policy diffusion and policy transfer’; Maggetti and Gilardi, ‘Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms’.

62 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H., ‘International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific ontologies’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:3 (2013), pp. 543–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Boswell, John et al. , ‘State of the field: What can political ethnography tell us about anti-politics and democratic disaffection?’, European Journal of Political Research (2017)Google Scholar, available at: {https://doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12270}.

64 The officials came from: AOSIS, ComSec, FAO, IMF, IMO, OECS, PIDF, PIFS, UNDP, WB, WHO, WTO, and WIPO. In many cases we interviewed far more than one official from each IO.

65 The small states were: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Brunei, Botswana, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Estonia, El Salvador, FSM, Fiji, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives, Malta, Malawi, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Tanzania, and Vanuatu. In many cases we interviewed more than one diplomat from each small state.

66 See, for example, United Kingdom, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, and New Zealand.

67 Pouliot, Vincent, ‘Practice tracing’, in Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey T. (eds), Process Tracing: From Analytic Metaphor to Best Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 237–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 9.

68 Vital, The Inequality of States; Vital, David, The Survival of Small States: Studies in Small Power/Great Power Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

69 Group, Commonwealth Consultative, Vulnerability: Small States in the Global Society (London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 1985)Google Scholar; Group, Commonwealth Advisory, A Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability (London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 1997)Google Scholar.

70 Sutton, ‘The concept of small states in the international political economy’.

71 See Thorhallsson, Baldur and Wivel, Anders, ‘Small states in the European Union: What do we know and what would we like to know?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19:4 (2006), pp. 651–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Panke, Small States in the European Union.

72 President of the Republic of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, ‘Address to the 42nd Session of the UN General Assembly on the Issues of Environment and Development’, New York, 19 October 1987.

73 Sutton, ‘The concept of small states in the international political economy’, p. 143.

74 Secretariat, Commonwealth and Bank, World, Small States: Meeting Challenges in the Global Economy (English) (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Betzold, Castro, and Weiler, ‘AOSIS in the UNFCCC negotiations’.

76 Chasek, ‘Margins of power’.

77 Betzold, Carola, ‘“Borrowing” power to influence international negotiations: AOSIS in the climate change regime, 1990–1997’, Politics, 30:3 (2010), pp. 131–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Ashe, John W., Van Lierop, Robert, and Cherian, Anilla, ‘The role of the alliance of small island states (AOSIS) in the negotiation of the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC)’, Natural Resources Forum, 23:3 (1999), pp. 209–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Ibid., p. 210.

80 Ibid., p. 219.

81 Betzold, ‘“Borrowing” power to influence international negotiations’.

82 UNCED, Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (New York: United Nations, 1992)Google Scholar.

83 Sutton, ‘The concept of small states in the international political economy’, p. 147.

84 Authors’ interview, March 2017.

85 TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, para. 157.

86 Authors’ interview with a former Chief Medical Officer from a European small state, November 2017.

87 Authors’ interview, August 2016.

88 Authors’ interview, October 2016.

89 Betzold, Castro, and Weiler, ‘AOSIS in the UNFCCC negotiations’.

90 For discussion, see Ourbak, Timothée and Magnan, Alexandre K., ‘The Paris Agreement and climate change negotiations: Small islands, big players, a commentary’, Regional Environmental Change, 18 (2017), pp. 1–7Google Scholar.

91 Fry, Ian, ‘The Paris Agreement: an insider's perspective: the role of small island developing states’, Environmental Policy and Law, 46:2 (2016), pp. 105–08Google Scholar.

92 de Agueda and Mol, ‘Small island developing states and international climate change negotiations’, p. 281.

93 Fry, ‘The Paris Agreement’, p. 106.

94 Nicolette Goulding, ‘Marshalling a Pacific response to climate change’, pp. 191–204; Carter, George, ‘Establishing a Pacific voice in the climate change negotiations’, in Fry, Greg and Tarte, Sandra (eds), The New Pacific Diplomacy (Canberra: ANU Press, 2016), pp. 205–22Google Scholar, ch. 17.

95 Chasek, ‘Margins of power’; Fry, Ian, ‘Small island developing states: Becalmed in a sea of soft law’, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 14:2 (2005), pp. 89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Chasek, ‘Margins of power’; Fry, ‘Small island developing states’; Fry, ‘The Paris Agreement’; Betzold, Castro, and Weiler, ‘AOSIS in the UNFCCC negotiations’.

97 Chasek, ‘Margins of power’.

98 Goulding, ‘Marshalling a Pacific response to climate change’; Fry, ‘The Paris Agreement’, p. 107.

99 Authors’ interview, March 2017.

100 Corbett and Connell, ‘All the world is a stage’.

101 Houel, Fatou C., ‘Promoting universality of human rights in Geneva: Participation of LDCs/SIDS in the work of the Human Rights Council’, Universal Rights Group (2017)Google Scholar, available at: {http://www.universal-rights.org/blog/promoting-universality-human-rights-geneva-participation-ldcssids-work-human-rights-council/}.

102 Ibid.

103 Alesina and Spolaore, The Size of Nations.

104 Sharman, ‘War, selection, and micro-states’; Sharman, ‘Sovereignty at the extremes’.

105 de Carvalho and Neuman, Small States and Status Seeking.

106 Vaha, Milla Emilia, ‘Drowning under: Small island states and the right to exist’, Journal of International Political Theory, 11:2 (2015), pp. 206–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Angell, Kim, ‘New territorial rights for sinking island states’, European Journal of Political Theory (2017), pp. 1–21Google Scholar, available at: {https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885117741748}.