Practical Sovereignty Under Dependence: Exit Costs, Adjustable Relationships, and Political Choice in Small States
Small states routinely rely on larger states and international institutions for markets, monetary stability, administrative capacity, security, and regulatory access. Dependence is therefore often treated as a constraint on sovereignty. Yet formal independence and external dependence can coexist for long periods, while a legal right to withdraw from an arrangement may provide little practical freedom when alternatives are prohibitively costly. This paper develops an adjustability-centered framework for analyzing sovereignty under dependence. It distinguishes formal authority from practical sovereignty and argues that the relevant question is not whether a state is dependent, but whether consequential external relationships remain politically adjustable through negotiation, redesign, substitution, or, at the limit, exit. Liechtenstein provides a structured case. Its postwar and European integration history shows repeated dependence on larger systems alongside episodes of reorientation, treaty modification, differentiated integration, and externally induced policy adaptation. The paper introduces the concepts of relationship adjustability and practical choice, and proposes a qualitative Adjustability Test focused on authorization, voice, redesign, substitution, and transition costs. The contribution is diagnostic rather than classificatory: dependence becomes sovereignty-thinning when formal choice persists but feasible alternatives and credible adjustment mechanisms collapse.