Denna studie tar avstamp i det mycket komplexa fenomenet terrorism. Ett stort problem med terrorism är svårigheten att förutspå när och var människor kommer använda detta verktyg. Terrorismens orsaker omgärdas av en tät dimma som denna studie ämnar hjälpa till att skingra i form av en teorikonsumerande fallstudie. Tre olika teorier om strukturella orsaker till terrorism appliceras på fallet Nordirland för att illustrera hur olika teoretiska ansatser kan användas för att förklara ett och samma fall. Dessutom görs ett försök att värdera dessa tre teorier gentemot varandra. Den tid som ledde fram till att vissa individer på Nordirland börjar använda terrorism som verktyg analyseras sedan ingående enligt de olika faktorer som sätts upp av respektive teori. Dess faktorer utgörs av bland annat urbanisering, typ av politiskt system och social ojämlikhet. Slutsatsen från denna analys blir att teorierna kan hjälpa oss att förstå fallet i olika grad men att djupare studier behövs för att en adekvat värdering ska vara möjlig.

Non-state actors have for centuries been used by states in order to achieve their strategic ends in armed conflicts. Even though the reasons and motives, as well as the possible consequences, often are subject to research within the field, few have investigated what roles the irregulars might have in a conflict and their relations with a state actor. This study examines the roles that non-state actors had in the Georgian war. Through a qualitative text analysis, the level of coordination with a state and what type of value they added to the state’s regular forces was analyzed, in an attempt to categorize the groups according to Rauta’s theory. The results of the research shows that analyzed non-state actors may have had different roles from the time leading up to the war, during and after the war ended. This may indicate that they are more dynamic in their roles and relations with a state than it may appear and could point to how non-state actors may be used in the future.

The research problem that has been identified for this study is that earlier research has heavily depended on strained financial situations in military organizations in order to explain why interservice rivalry occurs. This study seeks to complement this by looking at other possible factors as to why interservice rivalry emerges.  The purpose of the study is to look at interservice rivalry within the Swedish military between 1965 and 1975 and to establish what kind of interservice interactions can be identified in this time period in which the Swedish military also suffered from downsizing. However, a different approach will be used to study this case. The study will utilize Major Nicholas J. Clemens's theory on interservice rivalry which is explained in his report Fighting to get along, 1993. In his theory, Clemens established two main causes as to why interservice rivalry occurs. These are uncommon doctrine and resource allocation between the different services within the military. These factors can be combined to establish four possible interaction types between the different service branches.  With this in mind the main research question of the study has been established; What does Clemens’ theory contribute to our understanding of Swedish interservice rivalry during the Cold War? The study uses a theory-consuming approach with its foundation in Clemens’ theory. The method used is a qualitative text analysis with a hermeneutic approach. The material used is military journals produced either specifically for a given branch of the military or an all-encompassing military journal.  Ultimately, the study concludes that the army and airforce had a hostile interaction and that the same is true between the army and navy. However the airforce and navy had a cooperative interaction.

During the last ten years the European union has faced several new challenges, especially with regards to the democratic backsliding that has been happening in its member states. Poland, which has had a positive democratic development and has been seen as being in the forefront of positive democratic consolidation, has since 2015 changed course towards becoming authoritarian regimes. EU has acted against this development, but this hasn’t stopped Poland in growing even more in an authoritarian direction.The aim of this paper is to examine what actions the European union has taken to stop the democratic backsliding in Poland through normative power, and what are the reasons for the failure of EU’s earlier sanctions against Poland. The conclusion of this thesis is that EU has used all the tools at its disposal to deal with Poland, without much success. What can be seen is that the member states in the union don’t always agree on defending the same values. But also, that the legal procedure to pursue a member which has gone against the core values of the union, are far too complicated. But it is not only dark, but as brighter future might also be ahead of EU, as its latest actions against Poland might be having an effect.

The purpose of this thesis has been to explore if the communicative approach towards Russia, from the European Union and the United States has changed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. To achieve this a comparative mixed method approach has been used, based on three theories of international relations: liberalism, realism and social constructivism. The mixed method was compiled of an ideological analysis and a frequency analysis conducted on speeches and statements from leading figures from both the European Union and the United States.  The main conclusion of this thesis states that the communication from both actors has changed from a liberal standpoint to a more realistic standpoint since the start of the conflict. The main difference between the actors was seen before the conflict, where the United States used a mixed approach of liberalism and realism, and the European Union used a primarily liberal approach. The changing state of the world could be used as an explanation of the changed communicative approach.

Denna undersökning kommer analysera Kinas handelspolitiska strategier med finanskrisen och handelskriget som tidpunkt samt även påpeka hur dess strategier förändrades underrespektive tillfälle. Undersökningen redogör för vilka likheter och skillnader det finns i handelspolitiken mellan perioderna med syfte att förklara förändringen i handelspolitiska preferenser. Den handelspolitiska förändringen som Kina genomgick mellan perioderna är viktig att undersöka då Kina fortsatt växer sig starka på den globala marknaden. Metoden i studien utgörs av en teorikonsumerande fallstudie där rational actor model används för att undersöka och förklara den rationella aktörens beslutsfattande i respektive situation. Spelteori används som en komplimenterande teori för att förklara Kinas vägval under handelskriget. Slutsatsen i undersökningen är att Kinas främsta mål och rationella val i krissituationer är att främja sin egen ekonomiska tillväxt oavsett vilka långsiktiga konsekvenserna detta kan innebära. Mot den bakgrunden återfinns även den främsta skillnaden mellan kriserna som var hanteringen av protektionism. Kina förebyggde mycket protektionism under finanskrisen men utövade det själva under handelskriget. Förändringen av agerandet mellan kriserna berodde likaväl på USA som på Kina och kan förklaras som det mest rationella valet för Kina för att främja sitt främsta mål med handelspolitiken, ekonomisk tillväxt. Förändringen förklaras som en tillfällig avvikelse från deras handelspolitik givet att det var det mest rationella beslutet givet omständigheterna och rådande situation.