Detta arbete syftar till att teoriprövande analysera och jämföra två av Graham Allisons teoretiska perspektiv avseende drivkrafterna bakom den argentinska militärjuntans agerande och beslut inför kriget om Falklandsöarna 1982. Den studerade tidsperioden avser åren 1976-1982. För att identifiera militärjuntans drivkrafter har Allisons teorier om förklaringsmodeller använts. I arbetet förekommer två förklaringsmodeller; det rationella aktörsperspektivet samt det interna maktkampsperspektivet. Dessa perspektiv innehåller av Allison konstruerade konceptuella faktorer och frågeställningar som för arbetets syfte har operationaliserats. De två perspektiven har därefter använts som ett analytiskt verktyg för att systematiserat bearbeta det empiriska underlaget i syfte att klarlägga vilken av modellerna som har den tydligaste förklaringskraften. Undersökningens resultat visar att det interna maktkampsperspektivet har den tydligaste förklaringskraften till militärjuntans agerande och beslut. Det signifikativa för militärjuntan var att den präglades av individuella målsättningar och flertalet konflikter, där den enskilda individens agenda fick företräde framför organisationens. Däremot kan perspektivet inte återge alla nyanser i en aktörs drivkrafter. Allisons modeller lämpar sig väl för att försöka förklara ett skeende som redan inträffat, men svårigheter uppstår troligtvis vid ett framåtblickande och vid en generalisering av andra fall.

Since Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula 2014, the security policy for many European countries have changed. The Russian aggression in Ukraine have led to a shifted view on security policy in both Sweden and Finland. This case study will focus on Sweden and Finland, both members of the EU however not members of Nato. The case study will not compare the two nations, it will rather compare each nation’s change over time.  This case study aims to explain how Sweden’s and Finland’s security policy has changed since the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, by using Allison’s and Zelikow’s Rational Actor and Governmental Politics models, to explain the change. By analyzing documents of Swedish and Finnish governments, it should be possible to see differences over time.  The study shows that the security threat has changed after 2014, mainly due to the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. The big difference in Sweden is that the threat has increased since 2014, and the security goal for Finland has increased. Above all, Sweden is trying to strengthen bi- and multilateral relations with other countries, meanwhile Finland is trying to influence GUSP and the EU to play a greater roll in European security policy.

The Swedish government recognised the state of Palestine, it was soon after the Social democrats won the election 2014. Many thought that a similar decision would be made about West Sahara but the proposal got declined. The two cases are therefore interesting because of the similarities with a troubled situation but also because the decisions were made only one year apart and during the same government. The aim of this essay is to analyse what the motives were behind these two decisions and afterwards compare the two cases. This essay will also end with a discussion about the motives and why the government acted the way they did.          The tool for the study is debates and interpellations with statements made by people from the parties in the government. The statements will be analysed and categorised based on the theory by Graham Allison and his two models, the rational choice and organizational behaviour.          The study shows that the reason behind the decision to recognise Palestine was to favour a solution in the troubled area by working for a two-state solution. The government think that the decision will be one step closer to peace between Israel and Palestine. The motive behind the decision not to recognise West Sahara was according to the government because the country lack a highly effective outer defence and the recognition will therefore be delayed until the country is more independent and secure.

The Swedish government recognised the state of Palestine, it was soon after the Social democrats won the election 2014. Many thought that a similar decision would be made about West Sahara but the proposal got declined. The two cases are therefore interesting because of the similarities with a troubled situation but also because the decisions were made only one year apart and during the same government. The aim of this essay is to analyse what the motives were behind these two decisions and afterwards compare the two cases. This essay will also end with a discussion about the motives and why the government acted the way they did.          The tool for the study is debates and interpellations with statements made by people from the parties in the government. The statements will be analysed and categorised based on the theory by Graham Allison and his two models, the rational choice and organizational behaviour.          The study shows that the reason behind the decision to recognise Palestine was to favour a solution in the troubled area by working for a two-state solution. The government think that the decision will be one step closer to peace between Israel and Palestine. The motive behind the decision not to recognise West Sahara was according to the government because the country lack a highly effective outer defence and the recognition will therefore be delayed until the country is more independent and secure.

Sverige har bidragit med trupp till internationella insatser sedan 1950-talet. Detta har gjorts med bidrag från framför allt markstridskrafter men även med luftstridskrafter. Det dröjer fram till 2006 innan beslut tas om en marin internationell insats i form av korvettförband som bidrag till FN-insatsen UNIFIL i Libanon. Denna insats har fram till idag följts av fyra marina insatser, en förlängning av UNIFIL i Libanon 2007 och tre insatser i Somalia under åren 2009-2013. Beslutet om den marina insatsen i Libanon är för marinen banbrytande. Syftet med uppsatsen är att ge en ökad förståelse och insikt kring bakgrund och orsaker till beslutet. Bakomliggande orsaker till beslut om insats kan förklaras med hjälp av olika teorier och förklaringsmodeller. Denna uppsats använder sig av den amerikanske forskaren Graham Allissons modeller framtagna i boken ”Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis”. Två av tre modeller används för att anlysera beslutet, the Rational Actor och Organizational Behavior. Resultatet av analysen visar att det fanns en politisk enighet och uttalad målsättning att Sverige skulle bidra till en fredlig lösning i konflikten. Vidare framkommer att det vid tillfället för beslutet fanns få alternativ till det marina korvettförbandet, framför allt beroende på ekonomiska och personella förutsättningar i Försvarsmakten. Allisons modeller har fungerat som analysverktyg för att ge en ökad förståelse och insikt kring bakgrund och orsaker till beslutet. Modellerna ses som kompletterande till varandra då de belyser och framhäver olika aspekter och orsaker till det valda alternativet.

Uppsatsens syfte är att studera det stöd som Sverige bistått de baltiska länderna med samt vilka drivkrafter som funnits i Sveriges och Försvarsmaktens stöd till Baltikum. Analysen avser åren 2000-2005. För att hitta de drivkrafter som funnits inom samarbetet har två av Graham Allisons teorier om förklaringsmodeller använts, det rationella perspektivet och det organisatoriska perspektivet. De två modellerna består av olika frågor som Allison konstruerat, dessa har operationaliserats för att bära mot uppsatsens syfte. Frågorna har använts som ett analysverktyg på empirin och på så sätt gett svar åt frågeställningen. Resultatet i uppsatsen är att det genomförts ett kvantitativt stort stöd till de baltiska länderna genom både utbildning och materiel. Det säkerhetsfrämjande samarbetet har uppnått positiva resultat i Baltikum, Sverige och Försvarsmakten. De drivkrafter som funnits utifrån Allisons teorier är; säkerhet i Östersjön, ett Baltikum närmare Europa, integration i EU och Nato samt välvilja och resultat. De två perspektiven har tillsammans bra förklaringskraft.

Sweden's decision to participate in Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq 2015 appears to be a paradox in the perspective of the new defence policy which emphasises an increased national defence capacity. The Swedish Armed Forces is expected to increase both its national capacity and its international commitments despite personnel and economical limitations?Besides this paradox the Swedish decision to participate in a US-lead operation appears to be a deviant case in several perspectives which has not been investigated by previous research. The Swedish Parliament decision is made in a security environment tinged by Russian aggression against Ukraine. At the same time the domestic situation is framed by a weak minority government which relies on unorthodox political agreements to survive. Despite its weak position the government abandons traditional practise like the operation´s legal framework, the processing of the government bill etc.The purpose of this thesis is to explain why Sweden seems to seek broader international military cooperation and deepening its international commitments when there is an increased need for national defence capacity-building.When Swedish security and sovereignty is threatened, directly by Russian aggression and indirectly by weakened international institutions it is a rational choice to seek broader and deeper cooperation with other partners. OIR is hereby a unique opportunity to an operational cooperation with the only state that alone can counteract Russian aggression in the Baltic region, USA.By a decision-making process with the ability to apprehend both foreign policy and defence policy ends the political opposition abandons ideological stands and political benefits enabling the parliament decision.

Intervention in Libya is an anomaly in President Barack Obama's foreign policy during his eight years in the office. This thesis aims to analyze the decision-making process leading to this unprecedented step. Using Graham Allison's Bureaucratic Politics Model, the purpose of this analysis is to investigate the influence of some presidential advisors and allies on his final decision. Data for this study were collected using President Obama's public statements, biographies of several members of the administration, and secondary academic sources. After some general context, the thesis closely examines the selected period from the first protests in Libya on February 15 to the beginning of the Operation United Protector on March 31. This timeframe of forty-five days is further divided into the week-by-week process tracing analyses. The development on the ground in Libya is merged with changes of attitude in the American administration and changing alliances among the members of the advisory team of the President. The Bureaucratic Politics Model is used to analyze specific tactics used by American officials to impose their preferred scenario. The study also tests the applicability of several new methodological approaches within the Bureaucratic Politics Model like the palace politics perspective,...

The 17th October 2014 the Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF) introduced an intelligence operation in Stockholm archipelago after receiving credible observations regarding illegal underwater activities. Following the data collection and associated analysis it could be stated with certainty that a foreign submarine had violated the Swedish territorial waters. Media depend on SwAF to provide them with accurate information due to the confidentiality in these matters and the general area of investigation is therefore how the actions of the Swedish Armed Forces, in the submarine incident 2014, were portrayed in the Swedish media. Newspapers and blogs of defense policy represent the media and the thesis is based on the theories constructed by Graham Allison, the rational actor, organizational behavior and governmental politics. Furthermore, it is relevant to examine if there are any similarities or differences in how the submarine incident is illustrated, and what may be the reason for any possible occurrences. The conclusion shows that the same tendency of frequent used theories occur equivalent throughout the media where the rational actor was highlighted, and few attempts were made to include governmental politics. The newspapers adopt a descriptive character whereas the blogs mainly focus on discussions regarding operational improvements, which probably vary due to the different types of platforms and their time-dependent interest in the matter.

The 17th October 2014 the Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF) introduced an intelligence operation in Stockholm archipelago after receiving credible observations regarding illegal underwater activities. Following the data collection and associated analysis it could be stated with certainty that a foreign submarine had violated the Swedish territorial waters. Media depend on SwAF to provide them with accurate information due to the confidentiality in these matters and the general area of investigation is therefore how the actions of the Swedish Armed Forces, in the submarine incident 2014, were portrayed in the Swedish media. Newspapers and blogs of defense policy represent the media and the thesis is based on the theories constructed by Graham Allison, the rational actor, organizational behavior and governmental politics. Furthermore, it is relevant to examine if there are any similarities or differences in how the submarine incident is illustrated, and what may be the reason for any possible occurrences. The conclusion shows that the same tendency of frequent used theories occur equivalent throughout the media where the rational actor was highlighted, and few attempts were made to include governmental politics. The newspapers adopt a descriptive character whereas the blogs mainly focus on discussions regarding operational improvements, which probably vary due to the different types of platforms and their time-dependent interest in the matter.