How do small and medium-sized states safeguard their sovereignty and national interests amid intensifying great-power rivalry and a fragmented international order? To answer this question, John Karlsrud, Maryna Rabinovych, and Marianne Riddervold introduce the concept of diplomatic resilience
Major shifts in the international order have made a profound mark on 21st-century politics. Amid renewed great-power rivalry, more political actors are seeking a stronger voice on the global stage. As multilateral institutions come under increasing strain, small and medium-sized powers seek new alliances and arenas. To navigate this rapidly changing landscape, informal, flexible partnerships and minilateral initiatives are on the rise. These arrangements help states adapt their diplomacy to a fragmented and contested world order.
Growing rivalry and friction highlights how vital it has become for smaller players to build denser networks and strengthen their international presence to safeguard their sovereignty. We can no longer take for granted states' sovereignty and international recognition — both of which are central to their existence, territorial integrity, and the security of their people.
Great powers are expanding their influence through military and economic means — from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As they do so, small and medium-sized states pursue more proactive, innovative, and networked foreign policy approaches. Examples include Ukraine’s wartime think tank diplomacy, Norway’s growing emphasis on climate change mitigation alongside its traditional peacemaker image, and Lithuania’s assertive engagement with Taiwan despite external pressure.
Securing sovereignty today requires far more than mere diplomacy; it demands strategic agility and the capacity to build flexible networks across diverse arenas
Taken together, these developments point to a profound transformation of the conditions under which small and medium-sized states conduct their foreign policies. Securing sovereignty and recognition today requires far more than traditional diplomacy; it demands strategic agility and the capacity to build flexible networks across diverse arenas. In such a fluid and competitive environment, the ability to safeguard sovereignty and national interests depends on more than simply responding to external pressures. States must adapt and transform their diplomatic practice in response to such pressures — a dynamic we term diplomatic resilience.
Multiple academic and policy studies have examined the dynamics of foreign policy development in individual states (eg Norway, Baltic countries) within this new environment. Yet what remains lacking is a systematic framework for assessing the extent to which small and medium-sized powers have been able to ensure the strength, flexibility and strategic depth of their diplomatic institutions, networks, and practices amid a rapidly shifting global context. By introducing the concept of diplomatic resilience, we seek to lay the groundwork for such a framework — one that lies at the intersection of resilience studies, practice theory, and foreign policy analysis.
We understand diplomatic resilience as the capacity of a state and its broader, networked diplomatic ecosystem to absorb shocks; adapt to change, and transform in response to an evolving international environment. While we recognise alternative interpretations, such as resilience as a theme in foreign policy engagement, a diplomatic narrative, or an outcome of adaptive and transformative processes, our focus here is on diplomatic resilience as a dynamic capacity. Within this conceptualisation, we delineate the division of labour between the disciplines we engage with. Resilience studies help us specify what is being examined, whereas practice theory and foreign policy analysis enable us to explore if and how resilience operates in diplomatic practice.
Diplomatic resilience is the capacity of a state to absorb shocks, adapt to change, and transform in response to an evolving international environment
Practice theory, in particular, sheds light on everyday (micro-level) processes of absorption and adaptation. Foreign policy analysis offers insight into how states — often in cooperation with non-state actors — transform diplomatic strategies, reallocate resources, and reframe priorities to ensure the protection of sovereignty, recognition, and key interests in a fragmented order. These macro-level, strategic enactments speak most directly to transformative capacities.
Diplomatic resilience capacities can manifest in four realms, through analysis of which we present a matrix for its study:
Although analytically distinct, these realms are intertwined empirically. Engagement with new actors may, for example, bring forward new themes and require new tools. Attention to specific themes can, in turn, lead to engagement with new actors.
Our analysis sees the state's ability to absorb shocks as the foundation of its resilience. By this, we mean a state’s capacity to preserve core diplomatic structures, maintain participation in traditional diplomatic forums, uphold existing foreign policy priorities, and communicate through established official channels. Our primary analytical focus, however, lies on the adaptive and transformative capacities captured by the concept of diplomatic resilience.
The distinction between adaptive and transformative capacities helps us grasp the depth of diplomatic resilience in an increasingly fragmented world order.
By distinguishing between adaptive and transformative capacities, we can grasp the depth of diplomatic resilience in an increasingly fragmented world order
While adaptation refers to incremental adjustments within existing structures, transformation entails deeper, systemic shifts that embed structural or identity change. For instance, in some cases, semi-official actors such as NGOs are only sporadically involved in diplomatic initiatives aimed at short-term objectives. This might reflect limited adaptive capacity. In contrast, when such actors' participation becomes consistent and institutionalised within strategic planning, this indicates a state’s stronger transformative capacity. Similarly, efforts to engage new partners or promote emerging themes may initially appear ad hoc and disconnected from long-term strategy. Yet, when such engagement develops depth and continuity, it may signal an actor’s rearticulation of its international identity and diplomatic narrative: in other words, a deeper transformative capacity.
The exact metrics for mapping and measuring diplomatic resilience require further elaboration. But these ideas for a framework provide a foundation for systematically analysing how states build and exercise diplomatic resilience. They offer a conceptual basis for single-case and comparative studies which enables scholars to identify the framework conditions necessary for cultivating diplomatic resilience, and to explore how these conditions interlink with broader dimensions of state and societal resilience.
