Papers by Sverrir Steinsson
International Organization, 2023
Prominent theories of state formation hold that states formed because of warfare and competition ... more Prominent theories of state formation hold that states formed because of warfare and competition on the one hand, or the diffusion of organizational templates and practices through learning and emulation on the other. We propose that the two strands of theory can be linked to more accurately account for mechanisms of state formation. War, we argue, is an important source of social diffusion. War establishes contacts between political elites across borders, generates migratory flows, and establishes new economic networks. We examine the validity of the theory through a comparative case study of Nordic political units from the dawn of the Viking Age to the end of the High Middle Ages (CE 800-1300), finding that raids, settlements, and conquests by Norwegian and Danish rulers in England, Europe's most advanced kingdom, set in motion state formation processes in Norway and Denmark. In these cases, the winners emulated the losers.
Routledge IS all tmprml oj the Taylor & franCIS Group, all 'r!forma business t;; 2019 selectton a... more Routledge IS all tmprml oj the Taylor & franCIS Group, all 'r!forma business t;; 2019 selectton and ednonal matter, Baldur Thorhallsson, mdrvtdual chapters. the eontnbutors "Ihe nght of Baldur Thorhallssun to be Identified as the author oflbe editonal matter, and of the authors for their rndrvrdual chapters, has been asserted m accordance wrth SCC\1ons77 and 78 of the Copynght, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Scandinavian Journal of History, 2018
This article is predicated on the assumption that small states need economic, political and socie... more This article is predicated on the assumption that small states need economic, political and societal shelter in order to prosper, and applies this theory to the case of Iceland in the period 1941–2006 – from the American occupation of Iceland to the closure of the US military base in the country. The authors argue that Iceland enjoyed essential shelter, for its development and prosperity, from the United States. The US also provided extensive diplomatic and military backing to Iceland, and profoundly influenced societal affairs in the country. Furthermore, Iceland received extensive societal shelter from the Nordic states, and economic and political shelter from international organizations. However, American and Nordic shelter did not come without costs.
Cooperation and Conflict, 2018
The Cod Wars, three militarized interstate disputes between the UK and Iceland (1958-1961, 1972-1... more The Cod Wars, three militarized interstate disputes between the UK and Iceland (1958-1961, 1972-1973, 1975-1976), have often been presented as an egregious exception to the liberal peace. There are, however, few comprehensive analyses of the liberal dimensions of the Cod Wars. This paper comprehensively analyses the ways in which each of the Cod Wars is consistent or inconsistent with the liberal peace. I find that while the supposedly pacifying factors of the liberal peace – democracy, trade and institutional ties – effectively made the disputes more contentious, they also ensured that escalation to actual war was impossible.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017
Size matters in international relations. Owing to their unique vulnerabilities, small states have... more Size matters in international relations. Owing to their unique vulnerabilities, small states have different needs, adopt different foreign policies, and have a harder time achieving favourable foreign policy outcomes than large states. Small states show a preference for multilateral organizations, because they reduce the power asymmetry between states, decrease the transaction costs of diplomacy, and impose constraints on large states. Small state security policies vary widely depending on domestic and international conditions. Despite the inherent disadvantages to being small, small states can compensate for the limitations of their size and exert influence on world politics, provided that they use the appropriate strategies.
Foreign Policy Analysis, 2017
Three things are puzzling about the Cod Wars, three militarized interstate disputes spread over 2... more Three things are puzzling about the Cod Wars, three militarized interstate disputes spread over 20 years. First, they occurred between two democratic NATO allies, members of a Western security community. Second, Iceland came close to withdrawing its NATO membership and closing the US base on Icelandic soil, which would have adversely affected the balance of power in the North Atlantic and jeopardized Iceland's core security interests. Third, Iceland, a microstate, won each of these disputes. Historians and political scientists have consequently found it problematic to account for these puzzling disputes. This study proposes a Neoclassical Realist account for the occurrence and outcomes of the Cod Wars. I argue that the disputes occurred due to (i) powerful domestic pressures on statesmen to escalate and (ii) elite miscalculation. As the disputes escalated and Iceland's Western alignment was put at greater risk, statesmen in both countries, mindful of the dangers of realignment , were able to resolve the conflicts in the end. The outcomes of the disputes reflect how British statesmen were able to make greater concessions due to weaker domestic constraints than those faced by Icelandic leaders. Iceland therefore reached a highly favorable agreement in all Cod Wars.
European Security, 2016
The occurrence and outcomes of the Cod Wars defy both popular and academic expectations. Iceland,... more The occurrence and outcomes of the Cod Wars defy both popular and academic expectations. Iceland, a microstate, essentially won four disputes against the United Kingdom, a great power. The two states furthermore belonged to a Western security community, sharing significant institutional, economic and cultural ties. This article reviews the history and international relations literature on the Cod Wars to explain and evaluate why the Cod Wars occurred and why Iceland won them. This article also explains what lessons international relations scholarship has learned from the Cod Wars for liberal IR theory, realism and asymmetric bargaining.
Few attempts have been made to provide theoretical explanations for the occurrence and outcomes o... more Few attempts have been made to provide theoretical explanations for the occurrence and outcomes of the Cod Wars. In this thesis, I test hypotheses derived from four IR theories and perspectives on the Cod Wars: the Rationalist Explanations for War perspective, which sees information problems, commitment problems and issue indivisibility as drivers of conflict; Liberal IR theory, which expects democracy, commercial ties, and institutions as pacifying influences; Structural Realism, which expects states to pursue their security interests; and Neoclassical Realism, which expects statesmen’s pursuit of security interests to be distorted by domestic pressures. I find that Liberal and Structuralist Realist expectations were not met, that rational miscalculation and misinformation contributed to the occurrence of the disputes, and Neoclassical Realist expectations were fully met in all of the disputes. Following these tests, I provide a new, structurally informed explanation of the Cod Wars. The disputes occurred due to powerful domestic pressures on statesmen to escalate. As the disputes escalated and security interests were put at greater risk, British statesmen were able to make greater concessions due to weaker domestic constraints than those faced by Icelandic leaders. Iceland therefore reached a highly favorable agreement in all Cod Wars.
Uploads
Papers by Sverrir Steinsson