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.

This thesis battles with the question on how we can create peace and solve conflicts withoutthe use of violence. It mixes the academic disciplines of peace and conflict, sociology and thestudy of human rights. Using the theories concerning conflict and conflict resolution of JohanGaltung and the theories of strategic nonviolence of Gene Sharp the tools of creating peace bynonviolence is crafted in a comparative study. Then, by conducting hypothetical experimentswithin the conflict of Western Sahara using the tools the conclusion is reached. Differentaspects of violence, peace and power is discussed and analyzed and different weaknesses andstrengths of nonviolent strategies is scrutinized. Finally the different subjects are put togetherin a discussion of what it takes to create peace by nonviolent means. What are the costs ofpeace, what to we have to be willing to pay to solve conflicts, what should our ultimate goalbe? The conclusion is perhaps slightly underwhelming but ultimately crucial to understand.There is no shortcuts to peace and there is no quick fix to solving conflicts. / Den här uppsatsen behandlar frågan om hur vi kan skapa fred och lösa konflikter med hjälp avickevåldet. Den berör både studier om fred och konflikt, sociologi och mänskliga rättigheter. Ien jämförande studie av Johan Galtungs teorier om fred och konflikt och Gene Sharps teorierom strategiskt ickevåld så skapas verktygen för att stifta fred med ickevåldsliga medel. De härverktygen prövas sedan i hypotetiska experiment i konflikten i Västsahara. Olika aspekter avvåld, fred och makt diskuteras och analyseras. Olika svagheter och styrkor med ickevåldsligastrategier behandlas. Slutligen behandlas dessa olika ämnen i en diskussion kring vad somkrävs för att skapa fred med ickevåldsliga medel. Vad kostar fred, vad behöver vi vara villigaatt betala för att lösa konflikter och vad borde det slutgiltiga målet vara? Slutsatsen ärmåhända underväldigande men likväl avgörande att förstå. Det finns inga genvägar till fredoch det finns ingen snabb metod för att lösa konflikter.

The purpose of the study is to investigate the Western Sahara policy within the Swedish Parliament and Government, as well as how the policy has changed since. The study will help to get a broader understanding of how Sweden's foreign policy works and how the various international relations are covered. The theory of the study encompasses small state pragmatism as well as neutrality policy from Sweden's perspective. Sweden's policy on Western Sahara has changed in line with the aforementioned time periods: cold war, relaxation and terrorism. These periods of time have put in concrete work there you get an understanding of how the policies and Sweden have adapted during the different periods.

AbstraktDenna uppsats handlar om mänskliga rättigheter och utilitarism. Vi vill utreda om man kanförstå mänskliga rättigheter utifrån ett utilitaristiskt perspektiv. Vi har valt utilitarismen dådess tanke om att den mest moraliska handlingen är den som maximera nyttan kan verkasjälvklar men dess följder motsätter sig ofta våra moraliska intuitioner. Det är intressant attjämföra utilitarismen och mänskliga rättigheter då mänskliga rättigheter utgår från en tankeom naturliga rättigheter som tillkommer människan endast i egenskap av att vara justmänniska. Våra frågeställningar är om utilitarismen kan förklara iden om mänskligarättigheter och om FN:s resolutioner och konventioner kan förstås genom en utilitaristiskteori. För att göra detta har vi ett teorikapitel som går igenom dels olika tankar om rättigheteroch dels om utilitarismen. I detta avsnitt går vi även igenom teorin om naturliga rättigheter dådet är dessa mänskliga rättigheter hänvisar till. I vår analys tar vi upp några av FN:skonventioner och resolutioner. Vi har valt barnkonventionen, folkmordskonventionen ochWienkonventionen och resolutioner som följer av dessa. Vi redovisar genom dessa FN:sståndpunkter och riktlinjer och analyserar dem genom vår teori, alltså utilitarismen, för att seom man kan förstå dessa utifrån ett utilitaristiskt perspektiv. Genom denna analys har vikommit fram till att den utilitaristiska teorin kan försvara de flesta av FN:s riktlinjer somkommer av dessa konventioner och resolutioner. Trots att utilitarismen har en motsattutgångspunkt än FN kan utilitaristen försvara dessa rättigheter då de tenderar att öka nyttan.Om man kan gå med på att syftet med en rättighet inte har någon betydelse kan mänskligarättigheter förstås utifrån ett utilitaristiskt perspektiv. / AbstractThis essay deals with Human Rights and Utilitarianism. We intend to investigate whether it ispossible to understand Human Rights from a utilitarian perspective. We have chosenutilitarianism as it is based upon a philosophy in supports of the action which creates thegreatest good and while this at first may seem obvious, its consequences often contradict ourmoral intuitions. It is interesting to compare Utilitarianism to Human Rights since HumanRights are based upon a belief of Natural Rights applicable to all humans solely on the criteriaof being humans. The question we pose is whether the idea of Human Rights and the UN’sresolutions and conventions can be understood from a utilitarian theory. In this chapter wewill also deal with the Theory of Natural Rights as these will be referred to. In our analysis weconsider some of the UN’s conventions and resolutions. Namely; the Child Convention; theGenocide Convention; and the Vienna Convention and the resolutions as a result of these.Through them we intend to explain UN guidelines and principles and analyse them throughour theory, utilitarianism, to find out whether it’s possible to understand them from autilitarian perspective.Our analysis has made us conclude that most of the UN’s guidelines, as a result of theseconventions, can be by supported a utilitarian theory. Despite contradictive basic valuesutilitarianism defend UN rights as these strive to increase the greater good. If you agree thatthe aim of an action has no relevance Human Rights can be understood from a utilitarianperspective.

No description available.

Abstract  Western Sahara’s history is marked by Spanish colonization until 1976 followed by Moroccan invasion and nearly 50 years of occupation. The right to self-determination, applicable to territories under colonial or occupational rule, remains unrealized in Western Sahara. Despite Morocco’s occupation, the EU maintains a robust relationship to its neighbor, notably through the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement. This study scrutinizes the EU-Moroccan fisheries trade, focusing on the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement, and EU-Morocco Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement. Despite the Court of Justice of the EU consistently nullifying or declaring these agreements inapplicable to Western Sahara due to public international law violations, the EU persists in trade negotiations with neighboring Morocco.  Reflecting on the dilemma, the purpose of this thesis is to examine the responsibility of the EU in relation to Western Sahara’s right to external self-determination, by scrutinizing the EU-Morocco fisheries trade with specific focus on the aforementioned agreements. Upon scrutinizing the EU’s stance on its neighboring conflict, five key conclusions are drawn. Firstly, that Western Sahara holds the right to self-determination on dual grounds – as a non-self-governing territory awaiting decolonization and due to unlawful annexation by Morocco. The right includes an economic and a political aspect. However, the political right to self-determination through a referendum remains unrealized. Secondly, the EU, bound by international law, has obligations to respect Western Sahara’s right to self-determination and to not recognize serious breaches of this right as lawful. Thirdly, the EU falls short in respecting Western Sahara's economic right to self-determination, violating both respect and non-recognition obligations through entering into the aforementioned fisheries agreements with Morocco. Fourthly, these violations invoke international organization responsibility. Lastly, while the agreements do not impact the theoretical applicability of the right to self- determination, they are exploitative and hinder the realization of Western Sahara's permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources. Even with amendments of the fisheries agreements to adhere to international law, the likelihood of realizing the right remains minimal, partially due to criticisms towards the self-determination regulation.