Norwegian Blues? Rethinking the Idea of Middle Powers in an Era of Fuzzy Bifurcation

ABSTRACT Unsuccessful efforts to update the middle power concept for the contemporary international system have prompted calls for the concept to be “historicized”—to be retired from common use and treated as a purely historical term. The problem with this proposal is that “middle power” has become increasingly popular in the 2020s in analysis, commentary, and state practice. The purpose of this article is to offer an alternative to historicization. While we acknowledge that the traditional understanding of middle power was deeply rooted in the twentieth century, and particularly in that era of American hegemony during the Cold War and post–Cold War eras, the continued use of the term suggests that we need to embrace the flexibility that has always been associated with the concept. This paper calls for a return to a variant of the nineteenth‐century idea that middle powers were located geographically “in the middle” between great powers. In the 2020s and 2030s, which we argue is marked by “fuzzy bifurcation,” we propose that middle powers are those located geostrategically “in the middle” between the two great powers of the contemporary international system, the United States and China.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Policy
Published
2025-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.70082
Primary Topic
European Union Policy and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Norwegian Blues? Rethinking the Idea of Middle Powers in an Era of Fuzzy Bifurcation

Kim Richard Nossal
Global Policy
European Union Policy and Governance
article

Norwegian Blues? Rethinking the Idea of Middle Powers in an Era of Fuzzy Bifurcation

Kim Richard Nossal
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Unsuccessful efforts to update the middle power concept for the contemporary international system have prompted calls for the concept to be “historicized”—to be retired from common use and treated as a purely historical term. The problem with this proposal is that “middle power” has become increasingly popular in the 2020s in analysis, commentary, and state practice. The purpose of this article is to offer an alternative to historicization. While we acknowledge that the traditional understanding of middle power was deeply rooted in the twentieth century, and particularly in that era of American hegemony during the Cold War and post–Cold War eras, the continued use of the term suggests that we need to embrace the flexibility that has always been associated with the concept. This paper calls for a return to a variant of the nineteenth‐century idea that middle powers were located geographically “in the middle” between great powers. In the 2020s and 2030s, which we argue is marked by “fuzzy bifurcation,” we propose that middle powers are those located geostrategically “in the middle” between the two great powers of the contemporary international system, the United States and China.

Global PolicyVol. 17(S1)
Queen's University (CA), International College of Defence Studies (CN)
Academy of Korean Studies
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
European Union Policy and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.