Studien handlar om civil-militära relationer och att militär makt styrs genom demokratisk kontroll i demokratier för att inte bli alltför stark gentemot samhället, vilket innebär att politiker har civil överhöghet över militären och officerare. Att militären ska vara tillräckligt stark för att försvara samhället, men ändå tillräckligt underordnad folkvalda politiker så de följer politiska direktiv anses av forskarna vara en paradox, och denna balans uppfattas utmanande att få till. Vidare är problemet att dagens officerare är en del av det civila samhället, och förväntas vara goda medborgare precis som folket. Detta gör att officerare riskerar att hamna mitt emellan de funktionella och samhälleliga imperativen som militären styrs av, vilket antas kunna skapa friktion. Syftet med studien är dels att omhänderta officersprofessionens egna upplevelser av demokratisk kontroll och civil överhöghet, dels att ge ett svenskt perspektiv på dessa fenomen.    Resultatet visar att såväl forskare som respondenter är överens om att demokratisk kontroll och civil överhöghet är det enda tänkbara styrsättet över militären i demokratier. Folket väljer politiker som styr samhället och genom demokratisk kontroll försvaras ordningen med civil överhöghet över militären. Vidare visar resultatet att den svenska officersprofessionen endast påverkas positivt av demokratisk kontroll och civil överhöghet samt att lojalitet gentemot politiken är en självklarhet för officerare. Systemet är inbyggt i officerskollektivet och är något officerare förhåller sig till. Uppfattningen är att officersprofessionen inte ska påverkas av demokratisk kontroll och civil överhöghet, då endast högre officerare har i uppgift att dialogisera med den politiska nivån.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T19:31:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Thiago Tremonte de Lemos.pdf: 443617 bytes, checksum: ce695bfffb237d884d515619f1147f8d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-05-26 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The purpose of this thesis is to argue the nature of the war in the thought of Carl von Clausewitz, from its workmanship On war. From modernity, the politics started to walk, through the national State, articulated to the war as one continuum. The military experiences lived by Clausewitz, at the end of century 18th and the beginning of century 19th, had been the source of its reflection, to the step that the aristocratic tradition offered a controversy and singular prism to observe the new Europe that appeared: bourgeois and nationalistic. Between The decay of the privileges of its class and the constitution of a new structure politics, Clausewitz said what it is the modern war. Its critics attribute to its thought the cause of many conflicts of century 20th. The modern concept of the war multiplies, runs away to its social context, and reproduces in other ideas and action / A proposta deste trabalho é discutir a natureza da guerra no pensamento de Carl von Clausewitz, a partir de sua obra Da guerra. A partir da modernidade, a política passou a caminhar, através do Estado nacional, articulada à guerra como um continuum. As experiências militares vividas por Clausewitz, entre o final do século XVIII e o início do século XIX, foram a fonte de sua reflexão, ao passo que a tradição aristocrática oferecia um prisma controverso e singular para enxergar a nova Europa que surgia: burguesa e nacionalista. Entre a decadência dos privilégios de sua classe e a constituição de uma nova estrutura política, Clausewitz disse o que é a guerra moderna. Seus críticos atribuem a seu pensamento a causa de muitos conflitos do século XX. O conceito moderno da guerra se multiplica, foge ao seu contexto social, reproduz-se em outras idéias e ações

The principle of war, surprise, has long been criticized for being imprecise and in need of interpretation. Some believe it is because of this ambiguity that the principle has survived in military doctrine. The purpose of the study is thereby to empirically test the principle of surprise to investigate its validity in modern naval warfare. Due to the lack of precision in doctrine, the surprise has been interpreted into an analytical instrument based on the compiled thoughts written by theoreticians; Sun Zi, Carl Von Clausewitz, Raoul Castex and Milan Vego. The analytical instrument aims to identify whether criteria for surprise are represented or not in a context of successful surprise. This was achieved through a two-case study based on a qualitative text analysis of the methods used by the Sea Tigers of Sri Lanka and the attack on ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War. The study shows that all the criteria were met in some way in both cases and that the military principal surprise is valid as a principle of war in modern naval warfare. Further research is recommended to investigate more cases and not to limit the research to a tactical level.

La guerre et ses conséquences sont trop importantes pour que la réflexion philosophique ne s’y attarde pas. Pour comprendre ses fondements et ses mécanismes internes, il faut une pensée qui creuse au coeur même des comportements guerriers. C’est ce que Thomas Hobbes et Carl von Clausewitz ont chacun tenté de faire en réfléchissant sur la nature de la guerre. Ce mémoire vise entre autres à rendre compte de leur théorie respective sur la nature de la guerre et de voir les rapprochements possibles. L’analyse du concept d’état de guerre et de ses causes chez Hobbes, de même que la pensée de Clausewitz centrée sur la nature de la guerre, rendent compte d’une même dynamique où la relation de réciprocité qu’entretiennent les belligérants conduit à une montée de la violence. La notion de volonté est centrale chez nos auteurs, car elle explique autant cette montée continue de la violence que sa possible résolution vers la paix. Écartant la sphère de la morale et du droit pour penser le phénomène guerrier, leurs réflexions se veulent froides et sans illusion. En saisissant la dynamique relationnelle (et mimétique) qui conduit à un désir illimité de puissance, nos deux auteurs décortiquent l’essence de la guerre par une pensée fondamentalement orientée vers la paix. Ainsi nous donnent-ils des outils pour éviter le pire. / War and its consequences are too important for philosophy to ignore these. In order to understand its foundations and internal mechanisms, we must thought into the heart of war behaviors. That is what Thomas Hobbes and Carl von Clausewitz each tried to do in thinking about the nature of war. This dissertation aims among other things to understand their respective theory about the nature of war and to see how to put them together. The conceptual analysis of state of war and of its causes according to Hobbes, as well as Clausewitz’s thought centered on the nature of war, ascertain similar dynamism where the belligerents’ reciprocal relationship leads to a rise of violence. The notion of will is central to these authors because it explains as much this continued rise of violence as well a possible resolution towards peace. Moving aside the sphere of morality and law while thinking about the war phenomenon, their thoughts wish to be cold and without illusions. In grasping the relational (and mimetic) dynamic which leads to an unlimited desire for power, these two authors decorticate the essence of war through a thought fundamentally oriented towards peace. Thus they give us tools to avoid the worst.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T19:14:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 5285.pdf: 1722337 bytes, checksum: 2763e3b3dc5f2d19579e60a42ed62751 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-12-20 / Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais / Clausewitz is considered the main philosopher of war. Since the 19th century, his work was frequently read and cited, especially in the military environment. However, until now, no research has proposed investigating the reception of his work in Brazil. The central objective of this study is, more specifically, to analyze the reading of this author among members of the Brazilian Army. The specific objectives are: a) to investigate which Clausewitzian concepts are more cited in these readings; b) to consider the possible influence of the most important readings published abroad over these readings; c) to identify variations of comprehension about Clausewitz s conceptions during two periods: the Cold War and the post-Cold War; d) to examine the reception of Clausewitz in the Escola de Comando e Estado-Maior do Exército (Brazilian Army Command and General Staff School) ECEME. The corpus chosen was the geopolitics production that prevailed in the strategic thought of Cold War, as well as papers published in A Defesa Nacional, Revista do Exército Brasileiro e Revista das Ciências Militares Coleção Carlos de Meira Mattos, in the period post 1989. Curricula of the courses offered by ECEME were also examined. Through a bibliographical review and a documental analysis, it was verified that the Brazilian readings of Clausewitz are largely selective and marked by the historical context in which they were elaborated. Concerning the analysis of the ECEME s curricula, it was noticed that Clausewitz is a literature present in the Escola and read in the main course disciplines, Strategy and Military History. / Clausewitz é considerado o principal filósofo da guerra. Desde o século XIX suas obras foram frequentemente lidas e citadas, sobretudo no meio militar. No entanto, até o momento nenhuma pesquisa propôs investigar a recepção de sua obra no Brasil. Mais especificamente, o objetivo central desse trabalho é analisar a leitura desse autor entre os militares do Exército brasileiro. Têm-se como objetivos: a) investigar quais os conceitos clausewitzianos mais citados nessas leituras; b) considerar a possível influência nelas das leituras mais importantes publicadas no exterior; c) identificar variações de compreensão das concepções de Clausewitz durante dois períodos: a Guerra Fria e o pós-Guerra Fria; d) examinar a recepção de Clausewitz na Escola de Comando e Estado-Maior do Exército (ECEME). O corpus escolhido foi a produção geopolítica, dominante no pensamento estratégico da Guerra Fria, bem como artigos publicados em A Defesa Nacional, Revista do Exército Brasileiro e Revista das Ciências Militares Coleção Carlos de Meira Mattos, para o período do pós 1989. Foram examinados também os currículos dos cursos oferecidos pela ECEME. Por meio da revisão bibliográfica e análise documental constatamos que, em grande parte, as leituras brasileiras de Clausewitz são seletivas e marcadas pela conjuntura histórica em que foram elaboradas. Com relação à analise dos currículos da ECEME, percebemos que Clausewitz é literatura presente na Escola, lido nas principais disciplinas dos cursos, Estratégia e História Militar.

No description available.

在本篇論文中，筆者試圖從「戰爭」的角度來描繪現代性的樣貌。戰爭如何刻劃著現代性呢？如何從戰爭與現代性的相互理解中來認識我們的時代、我們的生活呢？從西方歷史的發展軸線來看，在過去三百多年來有三件標誌著時代變化的重大事件：1789年的法國大革命（伴隨著十九世紀初的拿破崙戰爭）、1906年與1917年的俄國革命（伴隨著第一次世界大戰1914-1918年）、2001年美國紐約世貿大樓所經歷的911恐怖攻擊。這些事件都在一定程度上為我們揭示了現代性的深層變動。所以，在本篇論文中，筆者嘗試依循著這些重大的歷史事件，從社會學的知識發展傳統來提出整理和說明，並且，也希望從戰爭與現代性的切入角度來對未來的發展提出一些可能的思考方向。 在導論中，筆者從兩個小節來分別切入主題。首先，在「研究動機」這一節所提出的問題是：「社會學為何缺乏戰爭的研究？」我們試圖從十八世紀後半葉以來社會學知識發展的脈絡來加以回答。基本上，我們會發現到，以資本主義生活為基底所形成的「社會」這個概念，抑制了戰爭在社會學中的發展。其次，在第二節「問題意識」中，主要是從「社會學要如何研究戰爭？」這樣的提問，來檢討「民族國家與戰爭」這個命題。在其中我們可以發現到，社會學往往從「民族國家」出發來觸及戰爭現象的研究；但是，這容易落入只是對國家軍事「制度」和「組織」的研究，對於戰爭的思考可以引發的知識作用，以及戰爭理論和概念的建構就顯得相對匱乏。所以，我們試圖從政治社會學中「國家－社會」之間關係的討論，以及克勞塞維茲所提出的「政治－戰爭」之命題，從兩者的結合中進一步提出整體論文的分析架構（三個思考戰爭的典範）。 從第二章到第四章的討論中，筆者依序整理出三個具代表性的思考戰爭議題的社會學典範：「民族國家－總體戰」、「階級鬥爭－游擊戰」、「生命政治－社會內戰」。三種「政治－戰爭」的類型也正分別代表三種不同的政治社會學立場與分析的延伸（韋伯的「民族國家就是社會」、馬克思主義者的「國家與市民社會的對抗」、傅柯的「從權力分析國家與社會」）。我們最終希望能在三個類型彼此之間形成一個對話與思考的空間，從而呈顯出一種現代性的戰爭考察。 基本上，在三個類型的建構上，是沿著與克勞塞維茲的對話來前進的。首先，「民族國家－總體戰」這個類型是具有原型的意義，因為，以民族國家為主體的戰爭正是現代性的根本特點之一。民族國家的戰爭標示出有限戰爭（封建）與絕對戰爭（現代）的差異，而二十世紀上半葉的歷史也早已告訴我們集合全民意志的「總體戰」所帶來的驚人效果。此外，從韋伯的分析中，我們也企圖賦予克勞塞維茲的戰爭理論更多的社會學內涵。不同於克勞塞維茲將民族國家等同於社會這樣的整體觀，列寧依循著馬克思的思考傳統，強調社會內部階級差異的重要性，並且，配合著對於當時資本主義的帝國主義性質之理解，而提出以「階級戰爭」來面對總體戰（第一次世界大戰）的戰略想法，這也就導致了民族國家與階級鬥爭兩者政治思考的融合。此後，在二次大戰與冷戰時代的第三世界革命中，游擊戰成為了最重要的戰鬥形式，這樣的形式也挑戰了以民族國家為戰爭主體的正規性框架。正規戰（總體戰）╱非正規戰（游擊戰）所帶來的差異為現代性的戰爭研究帶來了深刻的思想衝擊。傅柯則更進一步地拆解了整體同質社會的看法，不僅存在於階級這組權力關係，權力會在各個微觀的層面上不斷地運作。他翻轉了克勞塞維茲的戰爭命題，以戰爭（略）的權力模式批判了霍布斯的主權－法律模式。戰爭不僅是存在於國界邊境上的實際戰鬥，而是會瀰漫在整體社會的權力關係中。由權力關係形塑的個體（主體）如何整合進社會整體之中，正是現代民族國家生存與強化實力的重大任務，治安的政治技術扮演了關鍵的角色，傅柯延續著治安的想法，而以「生命政治」來作為描述當代政治理性的核心概念，替代過去國家理性的想法。有別於傳統的戰略思想，從生命政治的角度，傅柯對後現代與全球化的戰爭思考帶來了深遠的影響。最後，筆者也希望去凸顯出，在戰爭的歷史發展軸線中，「人民」形象的變化，並且，當「戰爭」的議題置入政治社會學三種「國家－社會」關係的思考模式時，不同的知識典範之間所形成的一種知識上的緊張性與相互撞擊，進而能夠使我們對於民族國家與社會之間的關係有更深度的思考。 在第五章中，我們嘗試從戰爭的角度來切進全球化的議題。從「全球化與戰爭」這樣的面向，來提出兩個主要的思考脈絡：「全球化與民族國家」以及「民主與戰爭」。儘管諸多全球性的危機和發展都使得民族國家的權力顯得軟弱無力，但是，從戰爭的角度來切入思考，全球化是否真的或如何改變了長期以民族國家為戰爭主體的現代性。此外，在全球政治秩序的形成過程中，民主作為當前的普世價值卻弔詭地成為發動戰爭的語意，其中的成因也是我們探究的焦點。為了釐清上述的問題，我們整理出兩個主要的理論思考模式：哈伯瑪斯的「後民族格局」以及Hardt和Negri的「帝國」模式。基本上，我們並不試圖採取上述任何一種立場，而是提出以戰爭的角度，來重新思考民族國家此一現代戰爭主體在全球化進程中的變化。 在結論中，筆者指出當前相關的理論發展糾結在下面三種可能的思考取徑之中：馬基維利的國家理性、康德的永久和平、傅柯的戰爭與秩序（社會內戰、生命政治）。並且，還進一步地從國內外當前的學術潮流與發展情形，來評估本論文的意義與未來可能性。同時希望「戰爭」作為新的理論元素，能為政治社會學的發展開拓出更多的思考面向。

The ability to fight is, according to Swedish Armed Forces Doctrine (MilitärstrategiskDoktrin), depending upon the physical component, the conceptual component and themoral component.The purpose of this thesis is to examine in what way the Swedish doctrine is based onthe theories on war and war fighting by Sun Zi, Carl von Clausewitz, Antoine Henri deJomini and Mao Tse-tung.I have found that the Swedish doctrine is based on those theories.However, the Swedish doctrine needs to be developed in order to better explain therelation between the three components. / Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps.Hylla: Upps. ChP 03-05

Terrorism. A word that makes you think about different situations throughout the last decade that has passed. However, in this particular thesis the purpose is to examine both national and international terrorism from a Clausewitzian theory. The main point is to examine whether any of these types of terrorisms can fit in to this theory and as examples in this study are the terrorist organizations ETA and al-Qaida. The questions to be answered in this paper are if their aims can be explained as political and how far are they ready to go to have their way? Furthermore, the reason for this paper is to find an understanding for why the terrorist organizations act as they do. The result of this comparative study is that both terrorist organizations fit in to the theory because their goals can be seen as political and therefore can their aims justify their actions. However, the lack of support makes you begin to doubt about whether this is the right way or even a good way to achieve political aims. Hopefully, this enlightenment can increase our understanding and give us a guideline to how to deal with this threat of the 21th century.