Den Russiske Føderasjonen har siden milleniumskiftet hatt en økonomisk oppgang, blant annet gjennom at de fikk et regimeskiftet på slutten av 1990-tallet til et mer fokusert lederskap. I forbindelse med dette har og Russland markert seg sterkere på den utenrikspolitiske arena, og spesiellt de siste årene har de og markert seg sterkere militært. Denne avhandlingen skal belyse om Russland siden milleniumskiftet har tatt i bruk en mer provoserende holdning sjømilitært. Med andre ord, hvordan har bruken av maritimt diplomati utviklet seg i Russland? Det blir sett på begrep utviklet av sjømilitære forskere. I utgangspunktet er det Le Mières definisjoner som blir brukt, men disse blir utviklet av forfatteren før de blir tatt i bruk. Kjente eksempler på russisk maritimt diplomati blir tatt frem og kategorisert, for så å sette de opp kronologisk. Resultatet viser at Russland har brukt maritimt diplomati aktivt, spesiellt siden 2005, og at mye av bruken har vært for å bygge opp under en strategi som går ut på å markere Russland som en militær og politisk stormakt. Resultatet viser og at det har skjedd en endring i Russlands bruk av maritimt diplomati. I undersøkelsen kommer denne endringen fram i 2012, og det kan regnes som sansynlig at det har sammenheng med en ny utenrikspolitisk linje i Russland i 2006 og reform i forsvaret i 2008. Resultatet viser og en indikasjon på at Russland kjører en ekstra konfronterende linje mot Norge sammenlignet med andre NATO-nasjoner.

The Arctic area is in a state of rapid change. New fairways open up as the ice melts, which – in turn – presents both opportunities and threats to the neighboring states. As the Arctic is of both economical and strategic interest, these states include both great powers like the U.S. and Russia but also small powers like Norway and Denmark. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how these states use their armed forces in claim of the Arctic and – more specifically – how Maritime Diplomacy is used in this situation. The thesis furthers attempts to address the question whether there are differences between the large states on the one hand, and the smaller ones on the other when using Maritime Diplomacy. The theoretical framework used in the thesis comes from several well known scholars and military theorists including Cable and Corbett which focus on maritime strategy. The analyses suggest that there are indeed significant differences between the studied states in terms of their use of Maritime Diplomacy. The thesis concludes that the four nations uses it’s maritime diplomacy tools in a coherent way. But there is a difference between great powers and smaller states since the smaller tend to use influence as a tool in greater extent. The thesis also shows that Russia as the only state that uses a coercive tool.

No description available.

The aim of this Master thesis has been to analyse the debateon Wikileaks as it occured in the Swedish daily press during2010 and early 2011, as well as to identify what differentdiscourses influenced the discussions. The empirical materialconsisted of fifty-three articles, taken from three nationalnewspapers and has been analysed using the discourseanalysis theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Thearticles were analysed in four stages which included:identifying statements concerning Wikileaks and itsoperations; identifying additional groups and individualsappearing in the debate and the statements made about these;grouping statements into themes and on the basis of thesethemes construct chains of equivalence and identify subjectpositions. The last stage consisted of identification ofdiscourses and the relationships and possible conflictsbetween those discourses. The results showed that fourdiscourses could be identified: the good democracydiscourse, the traditional diplomatic discourse, the goodjournalism discourse and the power-critical discourse. / Program: Bibliotekarie

Abstract: The old established description gunboat diplomacy has in modern time changed to a broader and more nuanced definition called maritime diplomacy. But what is maritime diplomacy and how is it described? This essay analyses the theories from the Englishman James Cable and the American Edward Luttwak. Both Cable and Luttwak represent nations which have a global security interests and deploy their maritime forces worldwide. The foundation for their theories is power politics. Is it possible to apply their theories in a small-state perspective?   Analyze of Cable and Luttwaks theories crystallizes three categories that can be defined in maritime diplomacy: naval presence, naval coercion and naval deterrence. By applying these three categories on a case study I want to scrutinize if the categories is applicable on a small state. The Swedish naval expedition to Aland in 1918 works as case study. The aim is to see if today’s theory of maritime diplomacy is applicable on how a small-state uses their maritime forces.   The conclusion is that naval presence is suitable for a small-state to use. Naval presence gives room for political maneuvers and god possibilities to have an influence on the situation. Naval presence also gives reasonable security to own forces due to the possibility to withdrawal if the situation deteriorates.   Naval coercion is also useful for a small-state, but the situation should be thoroughly analyzed in order to have control over the course of events. The political will together with proper guidance is important for succeeding in naval coercion.   Naval deterrence can be used but depends on the relation between forces. A small-state can only deter an opponent that has less ability of power projection.

Den här uppsatsen söker svar på i vilken utsträckning som marina stridskrafter kan bidra till att avskräcka en irreguljär motståndare. Genom det bristfälliga forskningsläget på detta område gör uppsatsen en ansats till att skapa ett analysverktyg på taktisk nivå inom den marina kontexten och dess roll i avskräckning mot en irreguljär motståndare. Under det kalla kriget, men även efteråt, har många teoretiker försökt sig på att beskriva och förstå avskräckningens komplexitet med olika teorier. Även om historien inte alltid belönar detta som en framgångsrik metod för att påverka en motståndare med, är det ändå när det lyckas en väsenskilt mycket bättre och humanare metod än krig. Ur teorierna kring avskräckning har ett antal framgångsfaktorer identifierats. Dessa har sedan behandlats i den marina arenan och mot en irreguljär motståndare på taktisk nivå. Uppsatsen finner att det inte är avskräckningen som metod som skiljer utan motståndaren och dennes karaktär, syften och viljor. Den irreguljära motståndaren har visat sig svår att avskräcka främst på grund av att det är svårt att kommunicera de hot man vill projicera då han sällan uppträder som en enskild antagonist utan snarare flera.

Through an older study auspices, awakened an interest to study how the statesmen manage the world order. The answer has its starting point in diplomacy. This paper will focus on the most criticized and controversial branch of diplomacy: the quiet diplomacy. The quiet diplomacy is a deemed confidential and flexible method that is adopted for particularly sensitive conflict resolutions, which takes place at an intergovernmental level. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the diplomatic process in three journalistic cases. Although, these cases are different in one significant standing, one resemblance may be noticed. All cases encompass a quiet diplomacy. Have the quiet diplomacy developed opportunities or obstacles in the various mediation activities? Theories in the form of analysis dimensions serve as the framework in this paper and are tasked to derive the concept through the respective cases.

Diplomatic relations between states do sometimes go backwards in their process and development. One of these cases is the United States-Iranian diplomatic relation which has gone backwards in its development. This study is based on two main different theories, the Habermasian model and the Hobbesian trap. This, with the purpose to understand how lack of consensus and presence of fear are the reasons for the disruption of the United States-Iranian relations' development. The results have shown different directions, concerning the theories, in which they can affect the countries bilateral relations. The main reasons for the disruption of the relations, from the Iranians' perspective, are due to their interpretive concerning United States willingness to be the leader of the international community. From the Americans' perspective, the disruptions are due to their interpretive concerning Iranians' attachment to their own nuclear programme. The conclusion of this study shows how lack of consensus and presence of fear has prevented the United States-Iranian diplomatic relation to develop, and that the theories potency of strength, therefore, is high.

Russia and the US are two great powers who have strategic interest in the Arctic. Research indicates increased military activities in the Arctic and a security dilemma is up to topic in the region. To understand whether military or territorial disputes can become future threats in the Arctic, states' strategic interest in the Arctic needs to be investigated from a war science perspective. To gain an understanding of the states' strategic use of military means in a marine environment, naval diplomacy will be used in the investigation to offer an understanding on how naval forces can utilize different Defence, Coercive, Symbolic or Supportive strategic value. By examining current Russian and US Arctic policy documents, and how the strategic values of naval diplomacy are described, can give an indication of how Russia’s and the US increased military in the Arctic can be understood. The conclusions of the examination involve Russia's marine strategy as for infrastructure for readiness, possibility for all year around presence of naval forces regardless of season and delimiting of other powers ability of interaction in specific areas. The US marine strategy can be understood from aspects of a periodic presence and surveillance purposes, both with collaborative partners and to coerce other powers.

This study aims at examine if an Europeanization is affecting the bilateral diplomatic relation between Sweden and Italy as managed by the national embassies. The questions asked to pursue the aim are; how the bilateral diplomatic work is managed between the countries, are there any signs of Europeanization within this relation or is it still contingent on intergovernmental principles? In this study an analytical model is created and used to analyze how the bilateral diplomacy between Italy and Sweden is managed through the embassies. The discussion on top –down Europeanization by Tanja Börzel is central to the development of the analytical model. Indicators of Europeanization are generated and applied in the empirical analysis. The empirical material is based on documents and interviews.   One general conclusion of this study asserts that there is no direct top-down Europeanization going on within the national bilateral diplomacy. Another one affirms that an indirectly top-down Europeanization on an embryonic stage may be going on within the embassy-driven bilateral work carried out between the EU member states.