Mission command is one of the most common styles of command and control in modern armies, and much has been written about it. However, the theories have taken different turns and developed into different understandings of mission command. Is it a question of leadership, command and control or a cultural phenomenon? What attributes can be ascribed to mission command? This study investigates how mission command should be understood from the perspective of three theorists’ take on mission command: Eitan Shamir, Martin van Creveld and Berndt Brehmer. John Gerrings metatheory about good concepts is applied to the characteristics of mission command, in order to limit the concept of mission command to its core. The method used in this study is a conceptual investigation with a qualitative text analysis, in order to analyze the concept in depth. The results of this study have shown that training and education should be regarded as a pre-requisite, rather then an attribute, as well as the commanders’ responsibility. It has also shown the complexity in regarding the concept from a leadership- or a command and control point of view, hence it shows in the attributes.

Today’s view on an ever-changing world brings new phenomena and consequently new concepts. Hybrid warfare is one relatively new concept, about which today’s scientists have a fragmented view, and this makes it a subject of research interest. By examining seven scientific articles about Hybrid Warfare from 2007 up to the present day, the aim of this study was to examine how the concept could be defined in today’s science, and in doing so, also increase the understanding of Hybrid Warfare. The research design is that of a concept analysis, using John Gerring’s Good Concepts theory as a model. The result of the analysis showed that a majority of researchers defined the concept as, at least, a mixture of conventional and irregular aspects of warfare and of terrorism, criminality and cyber warfare. However, the research also confirms that the concept is disputed. The study contributes to existing research by showing how a concept analysis model could be used to investigate contested concepts. It also strengthens the thesis that hybrid warfare lacks a universal definition.

A state’s right to self-defense depends on whether an attack on the state is regarded an act of war according to jus ad bellum. The UN Charter does not specifically mention cyber warfare and it is therefore unclear whether a cyber-attack can be classified as an act that corresponds to an armed attack. The debate amongst scholars has not led to consensus on the meaning of the concept of cyber warfare nor whether it can be regarded as an act of war. The purpose of this study was to analyze the concept of cyber warfare according to the theory of good concepts formed by John Gerring. The study aims to answer the questions of whether the definitions meet Gerring's criteria for a good concept and if any of the analyzed definitions can be considered compatible with jus ad bellum and thus give a state the right to self-defense. This study uses a qualitative concept analysis and analyzes three different definitions of cyber warfare with a focus on intention, effect and actor respectively. The results show that all definitions meet all the criteria to some extent. The actor-focused definition was considered a good concept at a high level, the intention-focused definition at a low level and the effect-focused at a very low level. Only Hathaway's effect-focused definition could in itself be considered compatible with jus ad bellum. The other definitions would require a more comprehensive interpretation of the UN Charter.