The research problem of this study has been to compare armed organizations in the Swedish inter war period in a systematic way through the theoretical framework of the monopoly of violence. This has been done in the effort to demonstrate how the Swedish state viewed the level of threat that these organizations proposed based on certain criterias. This is something that hasn’t previously been done and it’s important analyze since it demonstrates how the state works under enormous amounts of stress and what the state deems to be of highest risk during these special times. The purpose of the study has been to answer how the state viewed the different armed organization's threat levels. Was it based on ideological views or was it based on something different? To answer this the study used three different research questions: What did the armed organizations have as their motive? What resources did the organizations have? And how did the state view the threat levels of the different organizations? As already noted the study was conducted within the framework of Max Weber's theory on the monopoly of violence. This theory implies that in order to have a successful state you need to be able to have the exclusive right to use violence within a specific area. Hence the state needs a monopoly of violence and therefore violence becomes a form of politics and the pursuit of power and influence. This theory should help demonstrate both why these organizations choose to take to arms but also how their different aspects affect their levels of threat perceived by the state. This study has been done primarily through a qualitative text analysis with a hermeneutic approach and comparative elements applied to it. This study has found that the organization's ideology seems to be the major aspect that increases the perceived threat levels but that there also are two other aspects that do this. The second is the motive behind why the organization has chosen to become armed. If the motive is to be able to conduct revolution this greatly increases the perceived levels of threat. The third aspect is the amount of resources that these organizations have, the more resources that they are in control of, the greater their potential threat and hence perceived threat levels.

La personnalité juridique internationale se définit comme la capacité à être titulaire de droits et à se voir imposer des obligations. La théorie classique ne reconnaît la qualité de sujet du droit international qu’aux États et pardérivation aux organisations intergouvernementales. D’autres acteurs, privés, les organisa-tions non gouvernementales, les entreprises, les individus ou encore des groupes armés non étatiques sont aujourd’hui de plus en plus présents sur la scène internationale. Nombre d’instruments convention-nels ont ainsi été développés pour tenir compte de leurs spécificités. C’est essentiellement avec le déve-loppement du droit international pénal, institutionnalisé avec la création de juridictions pénales interna-tionales, que la capacité de certains de ces acteurs à être titulaires de droits et débiteurs d’obligations internationales s’est accrue. Si le statut international des individus, des ONG ou des entreprises soulève moins de difficultés, les contours de celui des organisations armées (au sens large) demeurent encore flous. Leurs activités militaires sont potentiellement génératrices de crimes internationaux; des crimes « belliqueux»d’une part (crimes de guerre, crimes d’agression), d’autres crimes d’autre part (génocides, crimes contre l’humanité). Si le droit des conflits armés reconnaît l’existence de droits et d’obligations à des acteurs privés, il convient de s’interroger sur la relation entre le droit international pénal et la reconnaissance de la personnalité juridique internationale à des organisations armées. La Cour pénale internationale étant à la croisée des différentes branches du droit international, sa possible contribution à une subjectivisation internationale des organisations armées questionne,tant du point de vue de leur rôle dans la commission des crimes, que de leur capacité à en répondre. / International legal personality is defined as the capacity to be a holder of rights and to have obligations imposed on it. Classical theory recognizes only to States as international law subjects and by derivation to intergovernmental organizations. Other private actors, such as non-governmental organizations, com-panies, individuals and non-state armed groups, are nowincreasingly present on the international scene. Many conventional instruments have beendeveloped to consider their specificities. It is mainly with the development of international criminal law, institutionalized with the creation of international criminal courts, that the capacity of some of these actors to be rights holders and duty bearers has increased. While the international statusof individuals, NGOs or companies raises fewer difficulties, the scope of the international status of armed organizations (broadly speaking) remains unclear. Their military activ-ities potentially generate international crimes; « belligerent»crimes on the one hand (war crimes, ag-gression crimes), othercrimes on the other hand (genocides, crimes against humanity). While the law of armed conflict recognizes the existence of rights and obligations of private actors, the link between international criminal law and the recognition of the international legalpersonality to armed organiza-tions must be examined. As the International Criminal Court is at the crossroads of the various fields of international law, its potential contribution to the international subjectification of armed organizations raises questions, both in terms of their role in the commission of crimes and theirability to respond to them.