I västerländska samhällen lyfts demokratiteorier som direkt deltagande, deliberativ och deltagardemokrati lyfts allt oftare fram som en möjlig åtgärd på problemet med medborgarnas minskade politiska deltagande. Syftet med uppsatsen är att ta reda på om kommunernas satsningar på ökad medborgardemokrati leder till ett ökat medborgerligt deltagande i det politiska livet, samt om deltagandet påverkas av hur kommunerna valt att satsa på demokratiåtgär. Uppsatsen är en triangulering av kvalitativ och kvantitativ metod. Slutsatserna visar att fördelningen för antalet traditionella gentemot medborgardemokratiska åtgärder är relativt jämn, något högre andel medborgardemokratiska åtgärder. Vidare visade resultatet att vilka eller hur många demokratiåtgärder en kommun satsar på inte leder till ökat valdeltagande. Slutligen visade resultatet att vissa demokratiåtgärder är väl fungerande och genererar ett stort medborgerligt deltagande, medan andra inte lockar särskilt många medborgare att delta alls.

Uppsatsen behandlade frågan om varför nya lokala politiska partier uppstått i norrländska kommuner. Den teoretiska utgångspunkten var ett rationellt aktörshandlande och ett metodologiskt individualistiskt synsätt. Den politiske entreprenören bakom partiet stod i fokus, vilka drivkrafter denne haft, motivet bakom partibildningen samt vilken påverkansmöjlighet det lokala partiet har haft i den kommunala politiken. Representanter för fjorton lokala partier i Norrland intervjuades. Vidare undersöktes omgivningsfaktorer såsom arbetslöshet, valdeltagande och diffusionseffekter. Uppsatsens slutsats blev att dessa omgivningsfaktorer endast hade en begränsad förklaringskraft och att ett nybildande av partier främst kunde förklaras genom ett starkt missnöje i samhället och starka politiska entreprenörer.

The aim of this paper is to clarify the up till now somewhat shady definition of legitimacy, and to investigate what happens to this concept when it is transferred from the boundaries of the nation state to the realms of the international arena. By creating a model of legitimacy from which an institution can be evaluated, the purpose of this paper is to investigate what legitimacy is and how important it is for the actors within the international society. The next step involves evaluating what makes the UN a legitimate institution and how its foundation is affected by the blatant disregard of its authority by one of its’ most influential members. The theoretical framework consists of a summary of what contemporary analysts’ views of legitimacy are, which I have incorporated into my own institutional model of legitimacy. The role of institutions is central to all aspects of this study. The study has its point of departure in new institutionalism as a theoretical approach, which entails that I assume institutions to be a vital and necessary part of international relations. In my opinion they play a crucial role in shaping and constraining actors’ behaviour and actions. The paper has one theoretical and one empirical purpose; the theoretical is to analyse the meaning and importance of legitimacy while the empirical is to investigate how and if the foundation for legitimacy within the UN has been damaged by the event following the US decision to invade Iraq. The analysis of both the theoretical and the empirical part of this paper will rest upon a model of my own design, developed from first and foremost David Beethams conclusions about the concept of legitimacy. Like Beetham I initiate the study with the well known and largely accepted Weberian definition of legitimacy. The main conclusions from the study are that once an institution is established, it takes on a life of its own, and is very hard to discredit or undo. As in the case of the UN, even such prominent members as the USA and the UK have instead of damaged the foundations, of which the UN legitimacy rests, severely injured their own reputation and credibility on the international arena.

No description available.

No description available.

C-uppsats

No description available.

Arbetet handlar om publika skjutningar i skolmiljö, d.v.s. dåd där förövare har skjutit mot individer i skolmiljö, utan att ha uppvisat förklaringar till varför gärningen genomförts.   Syftet med rapporten var att finna hur förvaltningsmodeller hanterar effekterna av en skolskjutning, för att se om någon är bättre rustad. Samt, om en koppling mellan modell och effektiv hantering kunde göras och även se vad som skiljde modellerna åt i behandlingen av situationerna. En jämförande, mest-olika-modell har nyttjats, och rapporten begränsades till synen av tre olika förvaltningsmodeller. Undersökningen är även begränsad i tid av hänsyn till förekomsten av de undersökta dåden.   Bruket av Internetkällor har varit omfattande, då mycket av det som skrivits kring dåden förekommit i dagspress. För utvecklandet av förvaltningsteorier har även vetenskaplig litteratur nyttjats.   Resultatet har varit att få säkra slutsatser kan dras av de dåd som inträffat. Samtliga teorier brottas med olika sorters problem gällande sina hanteringar av dåden, och ingen enhetlig bild har kunnat sammanställas.

Federalism is an important and broadly implemented feature in today's international community of polities. Around 70% of the world states are believed to have at least some element of federalism, and around 20 of the world's nations are considered to be federal states, and 40% of the world's population lives in these countries. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to investigate federalism. To see what reasons that is behind federalism and if federalism itself have any effects on issues such as democracy and participation. First of all it is important to understand what federalism is, and as mentioned above countries can have different degrees of federalism; however, two very important aspects are division of power and self rule. Division of power means that the governing power is divided, the federation as a whole has its governing system and the regions or states have their own. Self rule is given in a federation, the goal here is to create a system where regions and states can have their sovereignty and make decisions that they believe are the best for their region, but at the same time they belong to a bigger system and have to obey the rules of the national government as well. This often becomes a source of disagreement, what should be the responsibility of the region and what should the national government control. Political scientists have over time been discussing what the reasons for a country become a federation might be. I will in this thesis discuss five hypothetical reasons: 1) A practical reason- Countries becomes federal because of their areal size and population size 2) historical circumstances- influences from former colonial powers 3) ethical diversity 4) the will to expand territory and 5) the will to give up territory. After looking at different countries evolvement towards federalism it is justified to say that all of the hypotheses, to some degree are correct. All of them do have an effect when it comes to why a country becomes federal. There are reasons to believe that a higher level of democracy, political participation and conservatism are consequences of federalism. After doing some statistical test it can beconcluded that democracy and political participation are somehow correlated to federalism, but it is not justified to say that a country is democratic because of federalism, other factor have to be taken into consideration. Conservatism however can be seen as a result offederalism.

Drawing on a neo-Gramscian conception of global civil society as a sphere where world order is ideologically sustained and contested, this paper examines the extent to which the idea of a human right to food serves to challenge neoliberal globalization or is incorporated into its ideational underpinnings. Through a focus on the negotiations of a set of Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, a discursive struggle over the meaning of the "right to food" is analyzed. On the one hand, the articulation of food as a fundamental right politicizes the "problem" of hunger, casts critical light on the global restructuring of production and subjects the market to the primacy of human rights. On the other hand, the "right to food" as negotiated in the Guidelines process – with its human rights content largely suppressed, recast as a policy goal and molded into a policy approach – is neutralized as a challenge and brought into conformity with the neoliberal project of globalization. Relating these findings back to the force field of contesting globalization from below and co-opting such resistance from above, this study ends with reflections on the limits and possibilities of human rights discourse as part of a counter-hegemonic strategy.