A broader security concept became fashionable in the 1980s and 1990s and has remained so ever since. Issues such as human rights and economic and environmental security were included in the security debate. This understanding of security can have a different meaning for nations, as security is increasingly defined as something more than just military build-up in response to external threats. It is important to analyze how small states reacted to these changes in security perceptions. Iceland is a good example off a small state that has been ‘forced’ to revaluate its security matters. The intent here is to analyze Icelandic security policy in the new millennium from two theoretical viewpoints: neo-liberalism and constructivism. It is argued that Icelandic foreign policy did, according to neoliberalism, emphasize the free movement of goods, capital and money up to the Icelandic economic crash in 2008, believing that unconstrained market forces would bring prosperity, liberty, democracy and peace to society. At the same time Icelandic foreign policy, according to constructivism, emphasized the value of history, identity and norms as a foreign policy tool, stating that Iceland has something valuable to offer internationally. It is argued that the combination of these policies boded the willingness of Iceland to become an international actor worth mentioning. Yet, as Iceland had not a clearly formulated security policy based on broader definitions off security. Iceland had no shelter from the storm and was economically vulnerable and defenseless against the economic shock that hit it in 2008. As the blend off constructivism and neoliberalism created an Icelandic hubris i.e. an excess of ambition and pride, ultimately leaving the state with little security.
