Small States and International Security: Allied Commitments Above Idealist Rhetoric

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.

1. 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.

2. Andeweg R.B., Irwin G.A., Louwerse T. (2020). Government and politics of the Netherlands. London: Red Globe Press. 897 p.

3. Baehr P.R. (1975). Small States: A Tool for Analysis? World Politics. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 456–466. DOI: 10.2307/2010129

4. Baehr 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.2002.0043

5. 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: 10.1080/23802014.2016.1189806

6. 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_19

7. 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: 10.1080/14682745.2011.621750

8. Essen 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.

9. Giddens A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 264 p.

10. Hänggi 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.

11. van der Harst J. (1997). Kernwapens? Geen bezwaar. Transaktie. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 295–517.

12. Huysmans 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/10.1177/1354066198004002004

13. van Keulen M. (2006). Going Europe or Going Dutch: How the Dutch Government Shapes European Union Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 264 p. DOI: 10.5117/9789053568743

14. 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: 10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149

15. Kristensen H.M., Korda M. (2021). United States nuclear weapons. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Vol. 77. No. 1. P. 43–63. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2020.1859865

16. 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.

17. Lebedeva 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.

18. Long 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/viw040

19. Maass M. (2009). The elusive definition of the small state. International Politics. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 65–83. DOI: 10.1057/ip.2008.37

20. 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.

21. Onderco 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: 10.1080/10736700.2021.1978156

22. 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/ksac028

23. 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: 10.1111/1758-5899.13179

24. Panke 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: 10.1080/09557571.2012.710590

25. Prokhorenko 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.

26. van 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.12154

27. Shirobokova E. (2018). The Netherlands and the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Nonproliferation Review. Vol. 25. No. 1–2. P. 37–49. DOI: 10.1080/10736700.2018.1487600

28. Shveytzer V.Ya. (2008). Yevropa: bol’shoy opyt malykh stran [Europe: big experience of small countries]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 4(36). P. 46–58.

29. Smetana 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: 10.1080/00963402.2021.1941603

30. Smirnov 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.

31. Steele B. (2008). Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge. 208 p.

32. Thorhallsson B., Steinsson S. (2017). Small State Foreign Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484

33. 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.

34. Voorhoeve J.J.C. (1979). Peace, profits and principles: a study of Dutch foreign policy. The Hague; Boston: M. Nijhoff. 378 p.

35. 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.