N/A

Small states, despite lacking economic or military power, have increasingly shaped global climate governance through norm entrepreneurship, coalition leadership, and legal innovation. This study employs a “3+1” comparative case study approach to examine how three small states—Tuvalu, the Maldives, and Barbados have exercised outsized influence within the UN climate regime, alongside a fourth case, Sao Tome and Principe, which functions as a counterexample of limited engagement. Tuvalu, as a legal activist, has advanced new norms through international litigation and sovereignty redefinition. The Maldives has framed climate change as a justice issue, combining moral urgency with institutional leadership through AOSIS and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. Barbados, through strategic diplomacy and finance reform advocacy, has emerged as a global voice for climate justice, notably via the Bridgetown Initiative. In contrast, Sao Tome and Principe illustrate how structural vulnerability does not automatically translate into diplomatic agency. Using thematic analysis of primary sources including speeches, NDCs, and COP interventions. This thesis applies the Multiplex World Order framework to argue that influence in climate diplomacy stems not from material power but from the ability to shape norms, coalitions, and institutions. The findings challenge conventional IR theories of power, showing how small states can act as architects of climate governance in a fragmented and contested global order.