Revision as of 23:06, 7 August 2005 edit68.123.207.17 (talk) What is your religious bias to Melchizedek?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:03, 9 November 2024 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,679 edits Undid revision 1256326616 by 2001:1715:4E33:1EB0:F0AD:7EC9:1509:2DE5 (talk)Tag: Undo | ||
(914 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area}} | |||
A '''microstate''' is a ] ] having a very small population or very little land area - usually both. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] are all microstates. | |||
{{For|the specific configuration of particles of a material in ]|Microstate (statistical mechanics)}} | |||
{{Distinguish|Micronation}} | |||
], ], ], ], and ] shown in the same scale for size comparison]] | |||
] | |||
{{politics}} | |||
A '''microstate''' or '''ministate''' is a ] having a very small population or land area, usually both. However, the meanings of "state" and "very small" are not well-defined in international law.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Warrington |first=Edward |date=June 1994 |title=Lilliput Revisited |journal=Asian Journal of Public Administration |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=3–13 |doi=10.1080/02598272.1994.10800284}}</ref> Some recent attempts to define microstates have focused on identifying qualitative features that are linked to their size and population, such as partial delegation of their ] to larger states, such as for international defense. | |||
In terms of population the most extreme example is the ], with ca. 47 inhabitants, although as a dependency of the ] it is not itself a sovereign state. The smallest fully sovereign microstate is Vatican City, with 911 inhabitants ] and an area of only 0.44 sq km. The ] (SMOM) is an effectively non-territorial sovereign entity that might also be considered to be a microstate. The ], an ecclesiastical state, claims disputed territories and has been officially recongnized by only one UN member state, yet does not enjoy the good reputation normally associated with other microstates, nor has it yet been assigned a country code. | |||
Commonly accepted examples of microstates include ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. The smallest political entity recognized as a sovereign state is ], with fewer than 1,000 residents and an area of only {{convert|49|ha}}. Some microstates – such as Monaco and Vatican City – are ]s consisting of a single municipality. | |||
The term microstate is sometimes confused with the term ]. The distinction is that the former are recognized as sovereign states whereas the latter are not. | |||
== |
== Definitions == | ||
=== Quantitative === | |||
⚫ | *] |
||
Most scholars identify microstates by using a quantitative threshold and applying it to either one variable (such as the size of its territory<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mehmet |first1=Ozay |last2=Tahiroglu |first2=M. |date=1 January 2002 |title=Growth and equity in microstates: Does size matter in development? |journal=International Journal of Social Economics |volume=29 |issue=1/2 |pages=152–162 |doi=10.1108/03068290210413047}}</ref> or population<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Boyce |first1=Peter J. |last2=Herr |first2=Richard A. |date=April 1974 |title=Microstate diplomacy in the south pacific |journal=Australian Outlook |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=24–35 |doi=10.1080/10357717408444489}}</ref>) or a composite of different variables.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Reid |first=George L. |title=The impact of very small size on the international behavior of microstates |date=1974 |publisher=Sage Publications |isbn=9780803904064 |location=Beverly Hills, Calif}}</ref> While it is agreed that microstates are the smallest of all states, there is no consensus on what variable (or variables) or cut-off point should be used to determine which political units should be labelled as "microstates" (as opposed to small "normal" states).<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite report |url=http://ams.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Microstates_OccasionalPaper.pdf |title=Microstates as Modern Protected States: Towards a New Definition of Micro-Statehood |last=Dumienski |first=Zbigniew |date=2014 |publisher=Centre for Small State Studies |access-date=2014-06-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714195156/http://ams.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Microstates_OccasionalPaper.pdf |archive-date=2014-07-14 |url-status=dead |series=Occasional Paper}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite thesis |last=Neemia |first=U. |title=Smallness, islandness and foreign policy behaviour: aspects of island microstates foreign policy behaviour with special reference to Cook Islands and Kiribati |date=1995 |publisher=University of Wollongong |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2439&context=theses |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240219212327/https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2439&context=theses |archive-date=19 February 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Dommen |first=E. |title=States, Microstates and Islands |date=1985 |publisher=Routledge Kegan & Paul |isbn=978-0-7099-0862-3 |editor-last=Hein |editor-first=P. |location=London; Dover, N.H}}</ref> According to some scholars the quantitative approach to defining microstates suffers from such problems as "inconsistency, arbitrariness, vagueness and inability to meaningfully isolate qualitatively distinct political units".<ref name=":1" /> | |||
⚫ | *] |
||
⚫ | *] |
||
=== Qualitative === | |||
---- | |||
], the smallest independent country in ] with {{convert|0.49|km2|acre|abbr=on}}, is also the smallest in the world]] | |||
Some academics have suggested defining microstates according to the unique features that are linked to their geographic or demographic smallness.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Amstrup |first=Niels |date=June 1976 |title=The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts |journal=Cooperation and Conflict |language=en |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=163–182 |doi=10.1177/001083677601100202 |issn=0010-8367}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite book |title=Small States in International Relations: Lilliputians in Gulliver's World? |date=May 2006 |publisher=University of Washington Press; University of Iceland Press |isbn=978-0-295-98524-4 |editor-last=Ingebritsen |editor-first=Christine |series=New directions in Scandinavian studies |location=Seattle : Reykjavik |publication-date=May 2006 |oclc=ocm63171147 |editor-last2=Neumann |editor-first2=Iver |editor-last3=Gstöhl |editor-first3=Sieglinde |editor-last4=Beyer |editor-first4=Jessica}}</ref> Newer approaches have proposed looking at the behaviour or capacity to operate in the international arena in order to determine which states should deserve the microstate label.<ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wivel |first1=Anders |last2=Oest |first2=Kajsa Ji Noe |date=September 2010 |title=Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates |journal=Cambridge Review of International Affairs |language=en |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=429–453 |doi=10.1080/09557571.2010.484047 |issn=0955-7571}}</ref> Yet, it has been argued{{By whom|date=September 2020}} that such approaches could lead to either confusing microstates with weak states<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> (or ]) or relying too much on subjective perceptions.<ref name=":1" /> | |||
An alternative approach is to define microstates as "modern protected states".<ref name=":1" /> According to the definition proposed by Dumienski (2014): "microstates are modern protected states, i.e. sovereign states that have been able to unilaterally depute certain attributes of sovereignty to larger powers in exchange for benign protection of their political and economic viability against their geographic or demographic constraints."<ref name=":1" /> Adopting this approach permits limiting the number of microstates and separating them from both small states and autonomies or ].<ref name=":1" /> Examples of microstates understood as modern protected states include such states as ], ], ], ], ], ] or ]. | |||
'''Microstate''' is also used in ] to refer to a specific configuration of particles of a material: see ]. | |||
The smallest political unit recognized as a sovereign state is the ], though ] is sometimes disputed, e.g., ] argued in 1972 that "n two respects it may be doubted whether the territorial entity, the Vatican City, meets the traditional criteria of statehood".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mendelson |first=M. H. |date=October 1972 |title=Diminutive States in the United Nations |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |language=en |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=609–630 |doi=10.1093/iclqaj/21.4.609 |issn=0020-5893}}{{better source needed|This was published more than half a century ago, when Liechtenstein was not accepted to join the UN for instance.|date=February 2023}}</ref> | |||
] in the ], the smallest independent country in the ] with {{convert|261|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}.]] | |||
== Politics == | |||
⚫ | ] | ||
Statistical research has shown that microstates are more likely to be ] than larger states. In 2012, ] classified 86% of the countries with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants as "free".<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Veenendaal |first=Wouter P. |date=2015 |title=Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a democratic political system |journal=Democratization |language=en |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=92–112 |doi=10.1080/13510347.2013.820710 |issn=1351-0347}}</ref> This shows that countries with small populations often had a high degree of ] and ], which is one of the hallmarks of democracies. Some scholars have taken the statistical correlation between small size and democracy as a sign that smallness is beneficial to the development of a democratic political system,<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last=Anckar |first=Dag |date=July 2004 |title=Regime choices in microstates: the cultural constraint |journal=Commonwealth & Comparative Politics |language=en |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=206–223 |doi=10.1080/1466204042000299263 |issn=1466-2043}}</ref> mentioning ], opportunities for direct communication and homogeneity of interests as possible explanations for why this is the case.<ref name=":6" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Corbett |first=Jack |date=January 2015 |title="Everybody knows everybody": practising politics in the Pacific Islands |journal=Democratization |language=en |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=51–72 |doi=10.1080/13510347.2013.811233 |issn=1351-0347|hdl=10072/60226 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> | |||
] in the ], the smallest independent country in ] with {{convert|459|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}]] | |||
] | |||
] research, however, has led some researchers to believe that the statistical evidence belies the anti-democratic elements of microstate politics.<ref name=":6" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Erk |first1=Jan |last2=Veenendaal |first2=Wouter |date=July 2014 |title=Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake |journal=Journal of Democracy |language=en |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=135–148 |doi=10.1353/jod.2014.0054 |issn=1086-3214}}</ref> Due to small populations, family and personal relations are often decisive in microstate politics. In some cases, this impedes neutral and formal decision-making and instead leads to undemocratic political activity, such as ], ], ] and ].<ref name=":6" /> | |||
] | |||
] | |||
The high number of democracies amongst microstates could be explained by their colonial history.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7" /> Most microstates adopted the same political system as their colonial ruler.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last=Anckar |first=Dag |date=February 2008 |title=Microstate Democracy: Majority or Consensus; Diffusion or Problem-Solving? |journal=Democratization |language=en |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=67–85 |doi=10.1080/13510340701768158 |issn=1351-0347}}</ref> Because of the high number of microstates that were ] colonies in the past, microstates often have a ] and ] political system similar to the ].<ref name=":7" /> Some microstates with a history as British colony have implemented some aspects of a ] political system, to adapt to their geographic features or societal make-up.<ref name=":8" /> While the colonial history often determines what political systems microstates have, they do implement changes to better accommodate their specific characteristics. | |||
] | |||
] | |||
=== Microstates and international relations === | |||
] | |||
Microstates often rely on other countries in order to survive, as they have a small military capacity and a lack of resources. This had led some to believe that microstates are forced to subordinate themselves to larger states which reduces their ].<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Sharman |first=J.C. |date=October 2017 |title=Sovereignty at the Extremes: Micro-States in World Politics |journal=Political Studies |language=en |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=559–575 |doi=10.1177/0032321716665392 |issn=0032-3217|hdl=10072/353417 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> However, research has shown that microstates strategically engage in ] with other countries.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Veenendaal |first=Wouter P. |date=2017 |title=Analyzing the Foreign Policy of Microstates: The Relevance of the International Patron-Client Model |journal=Foreign Policy Analysis |language=en |pages=561–577 |doi=10.1111/fpa.12068}}</ref> This allows them to trade some privileges to countries that can advance their interests the most. Examples of this are microstates that establish a ] or sell their support in international committees in exchange for military and economic support.<ref name=":9" /> | |||
== Historical anomalies and aspirant states == | |||
A small number of tiny sovereign political units have been founded on historic anomalies or eccentric interpretations of law. Those types of states, often labelled as "microstates," are usually located on small (usually disputed) territorial enclaves, generate limited economic activity founded on ] and ] and ] sales, and are tolerated or ignored by the nations from which they claim to have seceded. | |||
The ], now the town of ], was a geographic anomaly that had been left unresolved by the ], which ended the ], and was claimed by both the ] and ]. Between 1832 and 1835, the area's residents refused to acknowledge either claimant.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Doan |first1=Daniel |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35651345 |title=Indian Stream Republic: settling a New England frontier, 1785-1842 |last2=Daniell |first2=Jere R. |last3=MacDougall |first3=Ruth Doan |date=1997 |publisher=University Press of New England |others=Jere R. Daniell, Ruth Doan MacDougall |isbn=978-0-87451-767-5 |series=Library of New England |location=Hanover, NH |oclc=35651345}}</ref> | |||
The ] became independent by a treaty error and survived from 1440 to 1826.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jepson |first=Tim |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/743223039 |title=The rough guide to Tuscany & Umbria |date=2009 |publisher=Rough Guides |others=Jonathan Buckley, Mark Ellingham, Rough Guides |isbn=978-1-4053-8529-9 |edition=7th |location=New York |oclc=743223039}}</ref> Its independence made it important in the introduction of tobacco cultivation to ]. | |||
] in the ], the smallest independent country in ] with an area of {{convert|298|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}}]] | |||
] was disputed by ] and ] and operated as a ] until the ] partitioned the territory, with the larger part becoming part of Spain.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=United Nations |date=2001-02-14 |title=Treaty Series 1889 |series=United Nations Treaty Series |language=en |publisher=UN |doi=10.18356/a43b73bc-en-fr |isbn=978-92-1-045419-3 |issn=2412-1495}}</ref> | |||
] was a small state that existed during the 17th century at the border between ] and ]. Despite its location in East Asia, the state's primary language was ].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sulewski |first=Wojciech |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/69483582 |title=Konterfekty dziwnych Polaków |date=1973 |publisher=Iskry |oclc=69483582}}</ref> | |||
== See also == | |||
{{Div col|colwidth=40em}} | |||
* ] | |||
⚫ | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
⚫ | * ] | ||
⚫ | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{div col end}} | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
== Further reading == | |||
* {{Cite book |last1=Sack |first1=John |author-link=John Sack |url=https://archive.org/details/reportfrompracti00sack |title=Report from Practically Nowhere |last2=Silverstein |first2=Shel |author-link2=Shel Silverstein |publisher=Harper & Brothers |year=1959 |asin=B0006D96LU |oclc=1321371 |url-access=registration}} | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
⚫ | ] | ||
] |
Latest revision as of 11:03, 9 November 2024
Sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area For the specific configuration of particles of a material in statistical mechanics, see Microstate (statistical mechanics). Not to be confused with Micronation.Part of the Politics series |
Politics |
---|
Primary topics |
Political systems |
Academic disciplines |
Public administration
|
Policy |
Government branches |
Related topics |
Subseries |
Politics portal |
A microstate or ministate is a sovereign state having a very small population or land area, usually both. However, the meanings of "state" and "very small" are not well-defined in international law. Some recent attempts to define microstates have focused on identifying qualitative features that are linked to their size and population, such as partial delegation of their sovereignty to larger states, such as for international defense.
Commonly accepted examples of microstates include Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, and Tuvalu. The smallest political entity recognized as a sovereign state is Vatican City, with fewer than 1,000 residents and an area of only 49 hectares (120 acres). Some microstates – such as Monaco and Vatican City – are city-states consisting of a single municipality.
Definitions
Quantitative
Most scholars identify microstates by using a quantitative threshold and applying it to either one variable (such as the size of its territory or population) or a composite of different variables. While it is agreed that microstates are the smallest of all states, there is no consensus on what variable (or variables) or cut-off point should be used to determine which political units should be labelled as "microstates" (as opposed to small "normal" states). According to some scholars the quantitative approach to defining microstates suffers from such problems as "inconsistency, arbitrariness, vagueness and inability to meaningfully isolate qualitatively distinct political units".
Qualitative
Some academics have suggested defining microstates according to the unique features that are linked to their geographic or demographic smallness. Newer approaches have proposed looking at the behaviour or capacity to operate in the international arena in order to determine which states should deserve the microstate label. Yet, it has been argued that such approaches could lead to either confusing microstates with weak states (or failed states) or relying too much on subjective perceptions.
An alternative approach is to define microstates as "modern protected states". According to the definition proposed by Dumienski (2014): "microstates are modern protected states, i.e. sovereign states that have been able to unilaterally depute certain attributes of sovereignty to larger powers in exchange for benign protection of their political and economic viability against their geographic or demographic constraints." Adopting this approach permits limiting the number of microstates and separating them from both small states and autonomies or dependencies. Examples of microstates understood as modern protected states include such states as Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Niue, Andorra, the Cook Islands or Palau.
The smallest political unit recognized as a sovereign state is the Vatican City, though its precise status is sometimes disputed, e.g., Maurice Mendelson argued in 1972 that "n two respects it may be doubted whether the territorial entity, the Vatican City, meets the traditional criteria of statehood".
Politics
Statistical research has shown that microstates are more likely to be democracies than larger states. In 2012, Freedom House classified 86% of the countries with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants as "free". This shows that countries with small populations often had a high degree of political freedom and civil liberties, which is one of the hallmarks of democracies. Some scholars have taken the statistical correlation between small size and democracy as a sign that smallness is beneficial to the development of a democratic political system, mentioning social cohesiveness, opportunities for direct communication and homogeneity of interests as possible explanations for why this is the case.
Case study research, however, has led some researchers to believe that the statistical evidence belies the anti-democratic elements of microstate politics. Due to small populations, family and personal relations are often decisive in microstate politics. In some cases, this impedes neutral and formal decision-making and instead leads to undemocratic political activity, such as clientelism, corruption, particularism and executive dominance.
The high number of democracies amongst microstates could be explained by their colonial history. Most microstates adopted the same political system as their colonial ruler. Because of the high number of microstates that were British colonies in the past, microstates often have a majoritarian and parliamentary political system similar to the Westminster system. Some microstates with a history as British colony have implemented some aspects of a consensus political system, to adapt to their geographic features or societal make-up. While the colonial history often determines what political systems microstates have, they do implement changes to better accommodate their specific characteristics.
Microstates and international relations
Microstates often rely on other countries in order to survive, as they have a small military capacity and a lack of resources. This had led some to believe that microstates are forced to subordinate themselves to larger states which reduces their sovereignty. However, research has shown that microstates strategically engage in patron-client relationships with other countries. This allows them to trade some privileges to countries that can advance their interests the most. Examples of this are microstates that establish a tax haven or sell their support in international committees in exchange for military and economic support.
Historical anomalies and aspirant states
A small number of tiny sovereign political units have been founded on historic anomalies or eccentric interpretations of law. Those types of states, often labelled as "microstates," are usually located on small (usually disputed) territorial enclaves, generate limited economic activity founded on tourism and philatelic and numismatic sales, and are tolerated or ignored by the nations from which they claim to have seceded.
The Republic of Indian Stream, now the town of Pittsburg, New Hampshire, was a geographic anomaly that had been left unresolved by the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War, and was claimed by both the United States and Canada. Between 1832 and 1835, the area's residents refused to acknowledge either claimant.
The Cospaia Republic became independent by a treaty error and survived from 1440 to 1826. Its independence made it important in the introduction of tobacco cultivation to Italy.
Couto Misto was disputed by Spain and Portugal and operated as a sovereign state until the 1864 Treaty of Lisbon partitioned the territory, with the larger part becoming part of Spain.
Jaxa was a small state that existed during the 17th century at the border between Tsardom of Russia and Qing China. Despite its location in East Asia, the state's primary language was Polish.
See also
- City-state
- European microstates
- Free State of Fiume
- Free Territory of Trieste
- Island country
- List of countries and dependencies by population density
- List of countries and outlying territories by total area
- List of countries by population
- Microstates and the United Nations
- Neutral Moresnet
References
- ^ Warrington, Edward (June 1994). "Lilliput Revisited". Asian Journal of Public Administration. 16 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1080/02598272.1994.10800284.
- Mehmet, Ozay; Tahiroglu, M. (1 January 2002). "Growth and equity in microstates: Does size matter in development?". International Journal of Social Economics. 29 (1/2): 152–162. doi:10.1108/03068290210413047.
- Boyce, Peter J.; Herr, Richard A. (April 1974). "Microstate diplomacy in the south pacific". Australian Outlook. 28 (1): 24–35. doi:10.1080/10357717408444489.
- Reid, George L. (1974). The impact of very small size on the international behavior of microstates. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications. ISBN 9780803904064.
- ^ Dumienski, Zbigniew (2014). Microstates as Modern Protected States: Towards a New Definition of Micro-Statehood (PDF) (Report). Occasional Paper. Centre for Small State Studies. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2014-06-07.
- ^ Neemia, U. (1995). Smallness, islandness and foreign policy behaviour: aspects of island microstates foreign policy behaviour with special reference to Cook Islands and Kiribati (Thesis). University of Wollongong. Archived from the original on 19 February 2024.
- Dommen, E. (1985). Hein, P. (ed.). States, Microstates and Islands. London; Dover, N.H: Routledge Kegan & Paul. ISBN 978-0-7099-0862-3.
- ^ Amstrup, Niels (June 1976). "The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts". Cooperation and Conflict. 11 (2): 163–182. doi:10.1177/001083677601100202. ISSN 0010-8367.
- ^ Ingebritsen, Christine; Neumann, Iver; Gstöhl, Sieglinde; Beyer, Jessica, eds. (May 2006). Small States in International Relations: Lilliputians in Gulliver's World?. New directions in Scandinavian studies. Seattle : Reykjavik: University of Washington Press; University of Iceland Press. ISBN 978-0-295-98524-4. OCLC 63171147.
- Wivel, Anders; Oest, Kajsa Ji Noe (September 2010). "Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates". Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 23 (3): 429–453. doi:10.1080/09557571.2010.484047. ISSN 0955-7571.
- Mendelson, M. H. (October 1972). "Diminutive States in the United Nations". International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 21 (4): 609–630. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/21.4.609. ISSN 0020-5893.
- ^ Veenendaal, Wouter P. (2015). "Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a democratic political system". Democratization. 22 (1): 92–112. doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.820710. ISSN 1351-0347.
- ^ Anckar, Dag (July 2004). "Regime choices in microstates: the cultural constraint". Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 42 (2): 206–223. doi:10.1080/1466204042000299263. ISSN 1466-2043.
- Corbett, Jack (January 2015). ""Everybody knows everybody": practising politics in the Pacific Islands". Democratization. 22 (1): 51–72. doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.811233. hdl:10072/60226. ISSN 1351-0347.
- Erk, Jan; Veenendaal, Wouter (July 2014). "Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake". Journal of Democracy. 25 (3): 135–148. doi:10.1353/jod.2014.0054. ISSN 1086-3214.
- ^ Anckar, Dag (February 2008). "Microstate Democracy: Majority or Consensus; Diffusion or Problem-Solving?". Democratization. 15 (1): 67–85. doi:10.1080/13510340701768158. ISSN 1351-0347.
- ^ Sharman, J.C. (October 2017). "Sovereignty at the Extremes: Micro-States in World Politics". Political Studies. 65 (3): 559–575. doi:10.1177/0032321716665392. hdl:10072/353417. ISSN 0032-3217.
- Veenendaal, Wouter P. (2017). "Analyzing the Foreign Policy of Microstates: The Relevance of the International Patron-Client Model". Foreign Policy Analysis: 561–577. doi:10.1111/fpa.12068.
- Doan, Daniel; Daniell, Jere R.; MacDougall, Ruth Doan (1997). Indian Stream Republic: settling a New England frontier, 1785-1842. Library of New England. Jere R. Daniell, Ruth Doan MacDougall. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. ISBN 978-0-87451-767-5. OCLC 35651345.
- Jepson, Tim (2009). The rough guide to Tuscany & Umbria. Jonathan Buckley, Mark Ellingham, Rough Guides (7th ed.). New York: Rough Guides. ISBN 978-1-4053-8529-9. OCLC 743223039.
- United Nations (2001-02-14). "Treaty Series 1889". United Nations Treaty Series. UN. doi:10.18356/a43b73bc-en-fr. ISBN 978-92-1-045419-3. ISSN 2412-1495.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - Sulewski, Wojciech (1973). Konterfekty dziwnych Polaków. Iskry. OCLC 69483582.
Further reading
- Sack, John; Silverstein, Shel (1959). Report from Practically Nowhere. Harper & Brothers. ASIN B0006D96LU. OCLC 1321371.