The purpose of this study has been to examine, from the historical perspective, how the member magazine of two peace movements describes the threat of nuclear weapons and the issue of disarmament, as well as who is responsible for the threat. Based on the historians Karlsson and Zanders's division into the seven categories of the use of history, I've analyzed the peace movements' description of the threat and what narrative is conveyed in the editorial pages. I've used a quantitative content analysis of the source material. The quantitative analysis method has been based on the frequencies of positive and negative statements in 11 different theme groups.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted in 2017. A variety of countrieschose to join, take a position as observers or reject the treaty completely. In this study anexamination of two cases where the country chose to take a position as observers, which isSchweiz and Sweden. The empirical material is two consequence analysis documentspresented by each country. A purpose with this study is to analyze arguments for and againstthe treaty, which is found in the empirical material, to explain why Schweiz and Swedenchose not to join the treaty. This is done in relation to the aspects; humanitarian dimension,security, cooperation and the substantial content of the treaty. Further analysis is based on theinternational relations theories liberalism and realism, which are used as approaches topresent explanations as to why these countries chose to be observers instead of joining thetreaty. The study has shown that a majority of the argument against the treaty is found to bestronger than the argument for joining the treaty, with an exception for arguments about thehumanitarian dimension where the argument for the treaty is stronger. Explanations presentedwith the theoretical approaches result in security playing a big role in the decision, as well asfuture cooperation with other countries based on security and a better possibility to continuedisarmament of nuclear weapons.

The United States' enemy image of North Korea has been on its political agenda since the Korean war. Weapons of mass destruction has, since the Cold War, shown the complexity it brings on conflictual interests and decision-makers persuading efforts. Enemy image, per se, brings difficulties in achieving cooperation, substantially when both parties contempt high levels of enmity. However, the newly established U.S.-DPRK relationship brings hope for cooperative possibilities regarding denuclearization on the Korean peninsula. The relationship between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un is not based on trust, instead, it is dependent on the concrete steps taken by the other. The enemy image of North Korea has been settled on the U.S. political agenda firmly because of the principles regarding denuclearization and security. The enemy image is also an important factor to consider when examining political agendas, since the changing dynamics are dependent on how state A interpret state B and vice versa. What has articulated the dynamics of the U.S. enemy image against North Korea? and how has its enemy image changed? To answer the question at issue, a theory consumption of Eriksson and Noreen’s explanatory model is necessary. Which consists of context-dependent external and informal factors that will contribute different but coherent hypotheses.