Ämnet för min C-uppsats handlar om diskussionen om vad som kan ...

Morgenthau and Thompson assert that the shift towards the democratic elected governments,answering to the general public, which replaced those consisting of aristocrats, often answering toone single monarch, also moved to destroy the international morality. According to Morgenthauand Thompson, the rules of morality require the involvement of the individual conscience,persons who can be held responsible for their actions. But when the power of government isdistributed among a large group of individuals with a wide range of perceptions (or no perceptionat all) about wrong and right in international relations, the focus will instead be concentrated onnational interests. The American legal scholar and educator Dean Roscoe Pound confirmed thisin 1923 by saying: “It might be maintained plausibly, that a moral…order among states, wasnearer attainment in the middle of the eighteenth century than it is today.” 82 Andrew Hurrellconcurs to this view:John Rowl’s famous claim that ‘Justice is the first virtue of social institutions’ has, when applied tointernational relations, faced the perennial realist rejoinder that international life has never hadvery much to do with the pursuit of virtue or justice. As Gilpin puts it, ‘Anarchy is the rule, order,justice, and morality are the exceptions.’ 83Furthermore, Morgenthau and Thompson claim that the independence of small states have beensustained due to either the balance of power, the protection of a larger power or simply due totheir unattractiveness for imperialistic schemes. 84Institutions such as neutrality do not only constrain the boundaries of how states can behave,but also empower them to “expand their authority and control over even such powerful actors asthe mercantile companies.” 85The above presented theory, as mentioned earlier, is modelled mainly in accordance to majorpowers and the constraints applying to them. Small states, however, deviate in their behaviourdue to the fact that they have to adopt their foreign policy making in accordance to a set of ruleswhich differ from those for larger and stronger states. To model a new basis for the foreignpolicy making of the small states, Rogers uses, among others, the research done by Bo Huldt, inwhich the result is summarised in seven categories:1. Small states tend to behave in an anti-balance manner, often siding with the side whichis seen as the stronger or the winning side.2. Their foreign policy is often short-termed and local in contrast to the global and longtermpolicy of the major powers.3. Small states adopt a legalistic-moralistic attitude towards international affairs, sincethey cannot afford to behave immorally.82 Morgenthau and Thompson, 1985, p. 264-266.83 Hurrell, 2003, p. 24.84 Morgenthau and Thompson, 1985, p. 196.85 Mansbach and Wilmer, 2001, p. 60.20