intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.46272/IT.2025.23.3.82.2intertrends-972Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYМалые государства в системе международной безопасности: приоритет союзнических обязательств над идеалистической риторикойSmall States and International Security: Allied Commitments Above Idealist RhetoricПосаженниковаАнастасияPosazhennikovaAnastasia A.

Посаженникова Анастасия Антоновна – младший научный сотрудник Сектора политических проблем европейской интеграции Национального исследовательского института мировой экономики и международных отношений имени Е.М. Примакова РАН

Москва

Ms Anastasia A. Posazhennikova – Junior Research Fellow, Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO)

Moscow, 117997

posazhennikova.a.a@my.mgimo.ruИнститут мировой экономики и международных отношений им. Е.М. Примакова РАНРоссияPrimakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federation2025030420262336486Copyright © Посаженникова А.A., 20262026Посаженникова А.Posazhennikova A.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/972

Для Нидерландов как малого государства, находящегося под ядерным зонтиком США, формирование позиции по вопросу ядерного разоружения обусловлено необходимостью соблюдения союзнических обязательств. Вместе с тем страна активно участвует во всех многосторонних переговорных процессах, связанных с этой проблематикой. Целью исследования является выявление факторов, которые определяют выбор Нидерландов в пользу приоритета союзнических обязательств в НАТО над традиционной приверженностью идее ядерного разоружения. Подчинение внешнеполитической стратегии союзническим обязательствам означает, что руководство Нидерландов воспринимает НАТО в качестве «убежища», которое позволяет руководству страны решить вопрос национальной безопасности за счёт более сильных союзников. Параллельно в политическом дискурсе сохраняется представление о Нидерландах как о движущей силе процесса ядерного разоружения, что требует соответствующего подкрепления конкретными дипломатическими инициативами. Опора на устойчивые и общие для субъектов представления об их ролях и моделях поведения характерна для концепции онтологической безопасности. Автор приходит к выводу, что политика Нидерландов в сфере ядерного оружия преимущественно детерминирована необходимостью соблюдения союзнических обязательств, что соответствует теории убежища, на фоне обострения проблем безопасности в Европе. Концепция онтологической безопасности может играть лишь комплементарную роль в объяснении шагов Амстердама в сфере ядерного оружия. Подходы к ядерному разоружению, согласно которым Нидерланды должны стать локомотивом этого глобального процесса, характерны лишь для неправительственных организаций, большей части населения и отдельных левых политических сил и оказывают определённое влияние на официальную позицию страны. Их потенциал существенно ограничен высокой степенью напряжённости в международных отношениях и маргинальным положением левых сил в политической системе. Учитывая устойчивый характер этих факторов, в обозримой перспективе кардинальные изменения во внешнеполитическом курсе Нидерландов по вопросу ядерного оружия представляются маловероятными.

For the Netherlands as a small state under the US nuclear umbrella, the formation of its position on nuclear disarmament is conditioned by the necessity of fulfilling alliance obligations. At the same time, the country actively participates in all multilateral negotiation processes related to this issue. The aim of this study is to identify the factors that determine Amsterdam's choice in favor of its commitments to NATO at the expense of its traditional adherence to the idea of nuclear disarmament. The theoretical framework of the study is based on interpreting Dutch foreign policy as that of a small state compelled to compensate for a lack of power resources to ensure its own security. Subordinating its foreign policy strategy to alliance obligations means that the Dutch leadership perceives NATO as a "shelter," allowing the country's leadership to resolve the issue of national security through stronger allies. Concurrently, the political discourse maintains the perception of the Netherlands as a driving force in the process of nuclear disarmament, which requires corresponding reinforcement through specific diplomatic initiatives. Reliance on stable and shared perceptions of their roles and models of behavior among actors is characteristic of the concept of ontological security. The author concludes that the Netherlands' policy in the sphere of nuclear weapons is predominantly determined by the necessity of complying with alliance obligations, which corresponds to shelter theory, against the backdrop of heightened security problems in Europe. The concept of ontological security can only play a complementary role in explaining Amsterdam's steps in the nuclear weapons sphere. Approaches to nuclear disarmament according to which the Netherlands should become a locomotive of this global process are characteristic only of non-governmental organizations, a majority of the population, and certain left-wing political forces, and they exert a certain influence on the country's official position. Their potential is significantly limited by the high degree of tension in international relations and the marginal position of left-wing forces in the political system. Given the persistent nature of these factors, radical changes in the Netherlands' foreign policy course on the issue of nuclear weapons appear unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Договор о запрещении ядерного оружиямалые государствамеждународная безопасностьНАТОНидерландыонтологическая безопасностьтеория убежищаядерное оружиеядерное разоружениеInternational securityNATONetherlandsnuclear disarmamentnuclear weaponsontological securityshelter theorysmall statesTreaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)ReferencesЛебедева М.М. Ресурсы влияния в мировой политике // Полис. Политические исследования. 2014. Т. 1. P. 99–108. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2014.01.07.Amstrup N. (1976). The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 163–182. DOI: 10.1177/001083677601100302.Прохоренко И.Л., Алешин А.А. К вопросу оценки внешнеполитического потенциала государств в прогнозных исследованиях // Анализ и прогноз. Журнал ИМЭМО РАН. 2019. Т. 3. P. 12–22. DOI: 10.20542/afij-2019-3-12-22.Andeweg R.B., Irwin G.A., Louwerse T. (2020). Government and politics of the Netherlands. London: Red Globe Press. 897 p.Смирнов В.А. К вопросу о роли малых стран в процессах переструктурирования постсоветского пространства (на примере Прибалтики) // Балтийский регион. 2014. Т. 4. №22. P. 48–58. DOI: 10.5922/2074-9848-2014-4-3.Baehr P.R. (1975). Small States: A Tool for Analysis? World Politics. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 456–466. DOI: 10.2307/2010129Худайкулова А.В., Неклюдов Н.Я. Концепция онтологической безопасности в международно-политическом дискурсе // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2019. Т.12. №6. С. 129–149. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149Baehr P.R., Castermans-Holleman M. C., Grünfeld F. (2002). Human Rights in the Foreign Policy of the Netherlands. Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 992–1010. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2002.0043Швейцер В.Я. Европа: большой опыт малых стран // Современная Европа. 2008. №4(36). С. 46–58.Bailes A.J.K., Thayer B.A., Thorhallsson B. (2016). Alliance Theory and Alliance ‘Shelter’: The Complexities of Small State Alliance Behaviour. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 9–26. DOI: 10.1080/23802014.2016.1189806Amstrup N. The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts // Cooperation and Conflict. 1976. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 163–182. DOI: 10.1177/001083677601100302.Bosse G., Lehmbecker L., Spornraft L. (2025). Dutch-U.S. Relations: Navigating Atlanticism under Pressure. In: M. Kaeding, J. Pollak, P. Schmidt (eds). The United States and the Future of Europe. Cham: Springer. P. 87–91. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-83350-2_19Andeweg R.B., Irwin G.A., Louwerse T. Government and politics of the Netherlands. London: Red Globe Press, 2020. 897 p.van Dijk R. (2011). “A mass psychosis”: The Netherlands and NATO’s dual-track decision, 1978–1979. Cold War History. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 381–405. DOI: 10.1080/14682745.2011.621750Baehr P.R. Small States: A Tool for Analysis? // World Politics. 1975. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 456–466. DOI: 10.2307/2010129. DOI:10.2307/2010129Essen H. von, Danielson A. (2023). A Typology of Ontological Insecurity Mechanisms: Russia's Military Engagement in Syria. International Studies Review. Vol. 25. No. 2. viad016. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viad016.Baehr P.R., Castermans-Holleman M.C., Grünfeld F. Human Rights in the Foreign Policy of the Netherlands // Human Rights Quarterly. 2002. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 992–1010. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2002.0043Giddens A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 264 p.Bailes A.J.K., Thayer B.A., Thorhallsson B. Alliance Theory and Alliance ‘Shelter’: The Complexities of Small State Alliance Behaviour // Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal. 2016. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 9–26. DOI: 10.1080/23802014.2016.1189806Hänggi H. (1998). Small State as a Third State. In: L. Goetschel (Ed.) Small States inside and outside the European Union, Interests and Policies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. P. 79–97.Bosse G., Lehmbecker L., Spornraft L. Dutch–U.S. Relations: Navigating Atlanticism under Pressure // The United States and the Future of Europe / ed. by M. Kaeding, J. Pollak, P. Schmidt. Cham: Springer, 2025. P. 87–91. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-83350-2_19van der Harst J. (1997). Kernwapens? Geen bezwaar. Transaktie. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 295–517.van Dijk R. “A mass psychosis”: The Netherlands and NATO’s dual-track decision, 1978–1979 // Cold War History. 2011. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 381–405. DOI: 10.1080/14682745.2011.621750Huysmans J. (1998). Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004002004Essen H. von, Danielson A. A Typology of Ontological Insecurity Mechanisms: Russia's Military Engagement in Syria // International Studies Review. 2023. Vol. 25. No. 2. viad016. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viad016.van Keulen M. (2006). Going Europe or Going Dutch: How the Dutch Government Shapes European Union Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 264 p. DOI: 10.5117/9789053568743Giddens A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1991. 264 p.Khudaykulova A. V., Neklyudov N.Y. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoy bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodno-politicheskom diskurse [The Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 6. P. 129–149. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149Hänggi H. Small State as a Third State // Small States inside and outside the European Union, Interests and Policies / ed. by L. Goetschel. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. P. 79–97.Kristensen H.M., Korda M. (2021). United States nuclear weapons. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Vol. 77. No. 1. P. 43–63. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2020.1859865van der Harst J. Kernwapens? Geen bezwaar // Transaktie. 1997. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 295–517.Kruizinga S. (2016). A Small State? The Size of the Netherlands as a Focal Point in Foreign Policy Debates, 1900–1940. Diplomacy & Statecraft. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 420–436. DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2016.1196062.Huysmans J. Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier // European Journal of International Relations. 1998. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004002004Lebedeva M. M. (2014). Resursy vliyaniya v mirovoj politike [Resources of influence in world politics]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 1. P. 99-108. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2014.01.07.van Keulen M. Going Europe or Going Dutch: How the Dutch Government Shapes European Union Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. 264 p. DOI: 10.5117/9789053568743Long T. (2016). Small States, Great Power? Gaining Influence Through Intrinsic, Derivative, and Collective Power. International Studies Review. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 185–205. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viw040Kristensen H.M., Korda M. United States nuclear weapons // Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2021. Vol. 77. No. 1. P. 43–63. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2020.1859865Maass M. (2009). The elusive definition of the small state. International Politics. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 65–83. DOI: 10.1057/ip.2008.37Kruizinga S. A Small State? The Size of the Netherlands as a Focal Point in Foreign Policy Debates, 1900–1940 // Diplomacy & Statecraft. 2016. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 420–436. DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2016.1196062.Neumann I.B., Gstöhl S. (2006). Introduction: Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World? In: S. Gstöhl et al. (Eds.) Small States in International Relations. University of Washington Press. P. 3–36.Long T. Small States, Great Power? Gaining Influence Through Intrinsic, Derivative, and Collective Power // International Studies Review. 2016. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 185–205. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viw040Onderco M., Smetana M., van der Meer S., Etienne T.W. (2021). When do the Dutch want to join the nuclear ban treaty? Findings of a public opinion survey in the Netherlands. The Nonproliferation Review. Vol. 28. No. 1–3. P. 149–163. DOI: 10.1080/10736700.2021.1978156Maass M. The elusive definition of the small state // International Politics. 2009. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 65–83. DOI: 10.1057/ip.2008.37.Onderco M., Joosen R. (2022). Nuclear Weapons in the Tweede Kamer: Analysis of Nuclear Motions in the Dutch House of Representatives in Times of Contestation. Global Studies Quarterly. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 1–11. DOI: 10.1093/isagsq/ksac028Neumann I. B., Gstöhl S. Introduction: Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World? In: S. Gstöhl et al. (Eds.) Small States in International Relations. University of Washington Press. 2006. P. 3–36.Onderco M., Smetana M., Etienne T.W. (2023). Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post-Ukraine. Global Policy. Vol. 14. P. 305–317. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13179Onderco M., Joosen R. Nuclear Weapons in the Tweede Kamer: Analysis of Nuclear Motions in the Dutch House of Representatives in Times of Contestation // Global Studies Quarterly. 2022. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 1–11. DOI: 10.1093/isagsq/ksac028Panke D. (2012). Dwarfs in international negotiations: how small states make their voices heard. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 313–328. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2012.710590Onderco M., Smetana M., Etienne T.W. Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post-Ukraine // Global Policy. 2023. Vol. 14. P. 305–317. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13179Prokhorenko I., Aleshin A. (2019). K voprosu ocenki vneshnepoliticheskogo potenciala gosudarstv v prognoznyh issledovaniyah [To the Issue of Assessing States’ Foreign Policy Potential in Forecasting Studies]. Analysis & Forecasting. IMEMO Journal. Vol. 3. P. 12–22. DOI: 10.20542/afij-2019-3-12-22.Onderco M., Smetana M., van der Meer S., Etienne T.W. When do the Dutch want to join the nuclear ban treaty? Findings of a public opinion survey in the Netherlands // The Nonproliferation Review. 2021. Vol. 28. No. 1–3. P. 149–163. DOI: 10.1080/10736700.2021.1978156van Reekum R. (2016). Raising the question: articulating the Dutch identity crisis through public debate. Nations and Nationalism. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 561–580. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12154Panke D. Dwarfs in international negotiations: how small states make their voices heard // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2012. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 313–328. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2012.710590Shirobokova E. (2018). The Netherlands and the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Nonproliferation Review. Vol. 25. No. 1–2. P. 37–49. DOI: 10.1080/10736700.2018.1487600van Reekum R. Raising the question: articulating the Dutch identity crisis through public debate // Nations and Nationalism. 2016. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 561–580. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12154Shveytzer V.Ya. (2008). Yevropa: bol’shoy opyt malykh stran [Europe: big experience of small countries]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 4(36). P. 46–58.Shirobokova E. The Netherlands and the prohibition of nuclear weapons // The Nonproliferation Review. 2018. Vol. 25. No. 1–2. P. 37–49. DOI: 10.1080/10736700.2018.1487600Smetana M., Onderco M., Etienne T. (2021). Do Germany and the Netherlands want to say goodbye to US nuclear weapons? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Vol. 77. No. 4. P. 215–221. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2021.1941603Smetana M., Onderco M., Etienne T. Do Germany and the Netherlands want to say goodbye to US nuclear weapons? // Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2021. Vol. 77. No. 4. P. 215–221. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2021.1941603Smirnov V. (2014). K voprosu o roli malyh stran v processah perestrukturirovaniya postsovetskogo prostranstva (na primere Pribaltiki) [The Role of Small Countries in Post-Soviet Territorial Restructuring: the Baltic Case]. Vol. 4. No. 22. P. 48¬–58. DOI: 10.5922/2074-9848-2014-4-3.Steele B. Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge. 2008. 208 p.Steele B. (2008). Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge. 208 p.Thorhallsson B., Steinsson S. Small State Foreign Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics // Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484Thorhallsson B., Steinsson S. (2017). Small State Foreign Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484Väyrynen R. On the Definition and Measurement of Small Power Status // Cooperation and Conflict. 1971. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 91–102. DOI: 10.1177/001083677100600109.Väyrynen R. (1971). On the Definition and Measurement of Small Power Status. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 91–102. DOI: 10.1177/001083677100600109.Voorhoeve J.J. C. Peace, profits and principles: a study of Dutch foreign policy. The Hague; Boston: M. Nijhoff, 1979. 378 p.Voorhoeve J.J.C. (1979). Peace, profits and principles: a study of Dutch foreign policy. The Hague; Boston: M. Nijhoff. 378 p.Wijk R. de. Seeking the right balance: NATO and EU in Dutch foreign and defense policy // Naçao e Defesa. 2008. Vol. 118. P. 147–164.Wijk R. de (2008). Seeking the right balance: NATO and EU in Dutch foreign and defense policy. Naçao e Defesa. Vol. 118. P. 147–164.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.