Small States and NATO: Membership Determined by History

Abstract

The significant role that NATO has assumed in European security policy cannot be understated. The majority of European states, especially smaller ones, have shown little hesitance in joining the US-led Alliance, signifying its popularity in terms of providing security shelter and establishing credible deterrence. Yet, some small Western states have remained outside the NATO community, choosing instead to follow a path of neutrality, or military non-alignment. This begs the question: what is the rationale behind small state NATO rejection? When examining this reality, less literature exists that thoroughly encompasses the nuanced explanations that lie behind the answer. General theories usually incorporate broad and overarching concepts in an effort to conclude that small state security arrangements are always a consequence of larger and more influential forces around them. This research finds that a larger emphasis should be placed on historical processes and past events that have a direct and traceable lineage to current small state agency, security policy, and decision-making.The research will be conducted in the form of a case study between Estonia and Finland, two countries that share many similarities, yet differ in their past and current approaches to NATO. Theoretically, shelter theory and historical institutionalism are used in conjunction to draw a holistic picture of the important details that have influenced, and continue to influence, their NATO policies. More generally, this thesis aims to highlight how a more individual and historically based approach is conducive when discussing small state NATO integration at large.