Small States and Domain-specific Power: Estonia’s Cyberdiplomacy and the Scope Conditions of Neorealist Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/jpsir.v3i1.6935Keywords:
Cyber Governance, Cyberdiplomacy, Estonia, Neorealism, Norm Entrepreneurship, Scope Conditions, Small StatesAbstract
Neorealist theory posits that power derives from material capabilities and that small states exercise limited agency within great power-dominated hierarchies. Estonia, with 1.3 million citizens and minimal military capacity, has achieved notable influence in shaping international cyber norms. This paper investigates whether Estonian cyberdiplomacy reflects independent agency or a permissive great-power consensus. Through process tracing of Estonia’s institutional initiatives (2007-2024), comparative analysis with Latvia and Lithuania, and systematic examination of success and failure cases, this research demonstrates that Estonia exercises meaningful but circumscribed agency through norm entrepreneurship. The findings reveal that power operates differently across issue domains: in technical-legal domains characterized by high complexity, mutual vulnerability, and nascent institutionalization, small states with concentrated expertise can exercise influence through epistemic authority and institutional positioning. Influence remains contingent on alignment with great power interests. When interests diverge, as in the 2017 UN Group of Governmental Experts collapse, Estonian advocacy fails. These findings specify scope conditions under which neorealist predictions about small state powerlessness do not apply, demonstrating that domain-specific analysis supplements rather than replaces structural theory in technical-legal domains.
References
Bäckstrand, K., & Kuyper, J. W. (2017). The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: The UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 764–788. https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/157820476/Kuyper_and_Backstrand_Orchestration_EP_post_print.pdf
Baldwin, D. A. (1979). Power analysis and world politics: New trends versus old tendencies. World Politics, 31(2), 161–194.
Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75.
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press.
Barrinha, A., & Renard, T. (2017). Cyber-diplomacy: The making of an international society in the digital age. Global Affairs, 3(4–5), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2017.1414924
Bloomfield, A., & Scott, S. V. (2016). Norm antipreneurs and theorising resistance to normative change. Review of International Studies, 42(2), 310–333.
E-Governance Academy. (2020). Annual report 2019–2020. E-Governance Academy Foundation.
Egloff, F. J. (2022). Semi-state actors in cybersecurity. Oxford University Press.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Handel, M. I. (1981). Weak states in the international system. Frank Cass.
Herzog, S. (2011). Revisiting the Estonian cyber attacks: Digital threats and multinational responses. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.2.3
Ingebritsen, C. (2002). Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1), 11–23.
International Telecommunication Union. (2021). Global Cybersecurity Index 2020: Measuring commitment to cybersecurity. ITU. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/global-cybersecurity-index.aspx
Jensen, E. T. (2017). The Tallinn Manual 2.0: Highlights and insights. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 48(3), 735–778.
Kalvet, T. (2007). E-governance in Estonia: Implementation and best practices. Journal of Baltic Studies, 38(1), 17–34.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.
Kölling, M. (2020). Estonia in the Eurozone: Overcoming the triple vulnerability. Journal of European Integration, 42(8), 1143–1158.
Korzak, E. (2017, July 31). UN GGE on cybersecurity: The end of an era? The Diplomat.
Ku, J. (2017). How China’s views on the law of jus ad bellum will shape its legal approach to cyberwarfare (Aegis Series Paper No. 1707). Hoover Institution, Stanford University. https://www.hoover.org/research/how-chinas-views-law-jus-ad-bellum-will-shape-its-legal-approach-cyberwarfare
Ling, J. (2021). China’s cyber sovereignty concept and its impact on international law. Chinese Journal of International Law, 20(3), 483–512.
Markoff, M. G. (2017, June 23). Explanation of position on the 2016–2017 UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. U.S. Department of State. https://2017-2021.state.gov/remarks-and-releases-bureau-of-arms-control-verification-and-compliance/explanation-of-position-on-the-2016-2017-un-gge/
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
Mueller, M. (2017). Will the Internet fragment? Sovereignty, globalization and cyberspace. Polity Press.
National Cybersecurity Index. (2024). NCSI 2024 rankings. https://ncsi.ega.ee/
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2017). Boosting NATO’s presence in the east and southeast. NATO Public Diplomacy Division.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2023). Defence expenditure of NATO countries (2014–2023). NATO Public Diplomacy Division.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2024). NATO Centres of Excellence. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_68372.htm
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. (2020). Annual report 2020. NATO CCDCOE. https://ccdcoe.org/
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2019, July 5). Letter to parliament on the international legal order in cyberspace. Government of the Netherlands.
Nye, J. S. (2010). Cyber power. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.
Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. PublicAffairs.
Obergassel, W., Arens, C., Hermwille, L., Kreibich, N., Mersmann, F., Ott, H. E., & Wang-Helmreich, H. (2016). Phoenix from the ashes: An analysis of the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
Panke, D. (2010). Small states in the European Union: Structural disadvantages in EU policy-making and counter-strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 799–817.
Republic of Estonia. (2019). Cybersecurity strategy 2019–2022. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. https://www.mkm.ee/en/objectives-activities/digital-society/cybersecurity-strategy
Republic of Estonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2019). Cyber diplomacy. Estonian MFA. https://vm.ee/en/cyber-diplomacy
Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2013). Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2017). Tallinn manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations. Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, M. N. (2019, October 14). The Netherlands releases a tour de force on international law in cyberspace: Analysis. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/66562/the-netherlands-releases-a-tour-de-force-on-international-law-in-cyberspace-analysis/
Schmitt, M. N., & Vihul, L. (2014). The nature of international law cyber norms (Tallinn Paper No. 5). NATO CCDCOE.
Tikk, E., Kaska, K., & Vihul, L. (2010). International cyber incidents: Legal considerations. NATO CCDCOE.
Tikk, E., & Kerttunen, M. (2017). The alleged demise of the UN GGE: An autopsy and eulogy. Cyber Policy Institute.
Tiirmaa-Klaar, H. (2021, September 30). Lessons from Estonia’s cyber ambassador (Y. X. Poon, Interviewer). GovInsider Asia. https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/heli-tiirmaa-klaar-lessons-from-estonias-cyber-ambassador
United Nations Group of Governmental Experts. (2015). Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UN Doc. A/70/174). https://undocs.org/A/70/174
United Nations Open-Ended Working Group. (2021). Final substantive report (UN Doc. A/AC.290/2021/CRP.2). https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-report-A-AC.290-2021-CRP.2.pdf
Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2015). Cyber war versus cyber realities: Cyber conflict in the international system. Oxford University Press.
Vasilevska, S., Vasilevskis, E., & Vitolina, Z. (2025). Cybersecurity policy analysis and research cooperation in the Baltic States. Research for Rural Development, 40, 326–332.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
World Bank. (2024). World development indicators. World Bank Group. https://databank.worldbank.org/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Guilherme Barcha Cardoso Schneider
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
