The majority of the participating states in stability operations are small states. Even though each contribution may be small, together they do make up a significant part of the overall effort. The paper discusses the limits and opportunities of small states to make a constructive contribution to international operations. The objective of the paper is to develop a framework for systematically studying and comparing the lessons from the field of small states. This framework draws on the concept of nested games. Nested games mean that an actor participates simultaneously at several arenas. For small states in international operations the three arenas are, the domestic political arena, the institutional arena, and the arena in the area of operations. Hypotheses include that small state experience more tension between these arenas. Their contributions are too small to determine the outcome, and the intervening institutions matter more, adding issues they need to address in the operation. The domestic arena obviously influences how the small state intervenes. Here is decided where to intervene, level of commitment and rules of engagement. Small states do not intervene in conflicts on their own. The institutional framework – the UN, NATO, EU, African Union – thus matters to small states. First, institutions give rise to different interests in participation. Furthermore, they give small states different possibilities to influence how the operation deals with the conflict. Finally, the mandate and procedures of the institution will influence how small states operate in the conflict. Finally, conditions in the area of operations matters greatly. First, the level and nature of violence must be considered. The socio-economic level and the nature of the conflict and many other factors influence operations.
