What does a country gain when it joins an international organisation — and what might it have to give up?
A referendum taking place in Iceland offers an unusually clear window into one of the oldest and most important questions in International Relations: how much sovereignty should a state be willing to share in order to gain security, prosperity and influence?
Iceland is voting on whether to restart negotiations to join the European Union, more than a decade after previous accession talks were suspended. The result is closely contested, but perhaps more interesting than the result itself is the question underneath it.
What does independence actually mean in an interconnected world?
For our International Relations students; Iceland provides a fascinating case study because it challenges the assumption that states simply choose between being “independent” or being “integrated”. In reality, modern states constantly negotiate where power sits, who makes decisions, and how much influence they are willing to exercise collectively.
Iceland: Independent, but not isolated
Iceland is a particularly interesting country through which to examine this question.
It is a member of NATO and has historically relied heavily on international partnerships for its security, despite having no standing military of its own. It is also already closely connected to the European economy through the European Economic Area and participates in the Schengen area.
In other words, Iceland already demonstrates something fundamental about modern International Relations:
A state can remain politically sovereign while simultaneously becoming deeply interdependent.
This distinction is crucial. Sovereignty does not necessarily mean doing everything alone. It means retaining ultimate political authority. Yet states increasingly discover that some problems — security, climate change, migration, trade, financial instability, technology and energy are difficult to manage effectively without cooperation.
The EU is one of the world’s most significant experiments in managing precisely this tension.
The sovereignty question is this….
The Icelandic debate is therefore not simply: “Do we want to join the EU?”
It is much more complicated. It asks: Who should have the authority to make decisions affecting Iceland?
This is the heart of sovereignty…..And also, diplomacy!
The argument against EU membership is strongly connected to Iceland’s fishing industry and natural resources. Fishing is not simply an economic sector in Iceland. It is tied to national history, identity, territorial control and the country’s experience of defending its fishing grounds during the twentieth-century “Cod Wars”.
For opponents of EU membership, transferring elements of decision-making to European institutions can therefore be interpreted as more than an economic calculation. It can be understood as a question of national autonomy.
The concern is essentially:
If we control our own resources, we control an important part of our future.
The argument for membership approaches the question in a different way.
Supporters argue that Iceland already operates within an increasingly interconnected European environment and that membership could provide greater economic and political security. The country’s government has also pointed to the turbulent international environment as a reason for reconsidering its position.
This creates an important IR paradox:
Sometimes states surrender a degree of autonomy in order to increase their overall power.
Is sovereignty actually power?
This is where the Icelandic referendum becomes particularly valuable for students of International Relations.
We often speak about states as though sovereignty automatically equals power.
But does it?
Imagine two countries.
Country A retains complete control over every domestic decision but has limited influence internationally.
Country B shares certain powers with neighbouring states but, through that cooperation, gains access to a much larger market, greater diplomatic influence and collective security mechanisms.
Which country is more powerful?
There is no simple answer…..
This is the debate between sovereignty as autonomy and power through cooperation.
It is also one of the central tensions between different schools of IR thought.
Realism
A realist might view the situation through the lens of national interest and survival.
States ultimately exist in an international system without a single global government capable of guaranteeing their security. They therefore seek to protect themselves, preserve their independence and maximise their ability to act.
From this perspective, Iceland’s concerns about control over its territory and resources are entirely understandable.
Liberalism
A liberal perspective would emphasise the benefits of cooperation.
International institutions can allow states to solve problems collectively, reduce uncertainty and create rules that make cooperation easier.
From this perspective, joining a larger political and economic organisation does not necessarily weaken a state. It can give a smaller state access to institutions through which it can exercise influence that it could not exercise alone.
Constructivism
A constructivist might ask an entirely different question:
What does “being Icelandic” mean?
Political decisions are not made purely through economics or military calculations. They are also shaped by history, identity, memory and national narratives.
The historical importance of Iceland’s fishing industry — including its disputes with Britain during the Cod Wars — helps explain why control over marine resources carries such symbolic weight.
For constructivists, therefore, sovereignty is not simply a legal concept.
It is also an idea that societies attach meaning to.
The EU as an IR experiment
The European Union is fascinating precisely because it complicates the traditional idea of the sovereign state.
The EU is neither simply a country nor simply a traditional international organisation.
Member states retain their national identities, governments and sovereignty, but they also agree to make certain decisions collectively and accept common rules.
This is sometimes described through the concept of pooled sovereignty. The idea is deceptively simple:
Instead of asking, “How much power must we surrender?”
states can ask, “What can we achieve together that we cannot achieve alone?”
That distinction lies at the heart of European integration.
Iceland’s debate therefore provides an opportunity to examine one of the most important questions facing modern states:
Can cooperation increase sovereignty rather than diminish it?
Why does fishing matter so much?
An IR student should never look at the fishing issue and assume it is simply about fish.
You will learn that It is about resources, territory, economics, identity and power.
Natural resources are frequently strategic assets. Oil has shaped international politics in the Middle East. Gas has influenced relations between Russia and Europe. Rare earth minerals have become increasingly important to technology and geopolitical competition.
Fisheries may appear much less dramatic, but the underlying principle is similar:
Who controls a resource, and who gets to decide how that resource is used?
For Iceland, the answer has historically been connected to national independence. The fishing industry also represents a substantial part of Iceland’s exports, making the issue economically significant as well as politically symbolic.
This is why International Relations students must learn to look beneath the headline.
A story about “fish” can actually be a story about sovereignty.
Small states have power too
There is another important lesson here. Iceland is a small state, yet its choices matter.
International Relations has sometimes been taught through the actions of major powers – The United States, China, Russia, the EU and other large actors.
But small states are not irrelevant.
In fact, studying countries such as Iceland can help students understand how states with limited military or economic power develop influence through:
- diplomacy
- international institutions
- alliances
- strategic resources
- reputation
- economic relationships
- geographical position and
- international law
Iceland demonstrates that power is not always measured by the size of an army or economy.
Sometimes power lies in geography, resources, diplomacy and the ability to make strategically important choices.
Security has changed
Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the Icelandic referendum is that security concerns exist in the background even though the public debate has focused heavily on sovereignty and fishing.
Iceland is a NATO founding member and has traditionally relied upon its allies for defence. The country’s geopolitical position in the North Atlantic makes it strategically significant despite its small population.
This raises another important IR question:
Does economic integration become more attractive when the international security environment becomes more uncertain?
The Icelandic government has brought the referendum forward amid what it describes as turbulent international circumstances.
This demonstrates an important principle in International Relations:
Foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum.
A decision that may have seemed unnecessary ten or fifteen years ago can look completely different when the international system changes.States constantly reassess their relationships because the world around them changes.
What should an IR student take from this?
The most important lesson is that there is rarely a simple “right” answer in International Relations.
An IR student should be able to understand why someone might passionately support Iceland joining the EU — and simultaneously understand why another person might passionately oppose it.
That does not mean having no opinion.
It means learning to understand the interests, fears, historical experiences and power structures that produce different opinions.
This is one of the fundamental skills of diplomacy.
A diplomat’s job is not simply to ask:
“Who is right?”
It is often to ask:
“Why does each side believe it is right?”
And then:
“Is there a way to reconcile those interests?”
A lesson far beyond Iceland
The Icelandic referendum is ultimately about much more than Iceland.
It reflects a question facing countries around the world:
In an increasingly interconnected world, where should sovereignty end and cooperation begin?
Climate change does not respect borders. Cybersecurity does not respect borders. Financial crises do not respect borders. Migration does not respect borders. Wars do not remain neatly contained within national boundaries.
Yet democratic legitimacy still largely operates through the nation-state.
That creates one of the great contradictions of modern International Relations:
We live in a global system while remaining politically organised primarily as individual states.
Iceland’s decision gives us a chance to examine that contradiction on a human scale.
And that is exactly why current affairs matter to an International Relations student.
Because IR is not simply the study of treaties, presidents and wars.
It is the study of how human beings organise power, negotiate interests, protect resources, create alliances and decide what they are willing to share with others.
Sometimes, the most important lessons in global politics can be found on a small island in the North Atlantic, where a country is asking a very big question:
How much of our independence are we willing to share in order to shape our future?
Students – What is your take on this? How would you feed back responses or draft solutions? Have you found this article useful?
If you would like to have your say, please leave a comment below and we would love to share it over on social!
HUMANOLOGY 
Leave a comment