One of the big challenges for the European Union today lies in finding a common foreign policy for its 27 sovereign member states with their divided interests, experiences and traditions. New objectives set requirements on the Union to develop and intensify its military ability. The European Union´s view on when military force can be utilized sets concepts like sovereignty and intervention in focus. Can sovereignty be limited and if so can an intervention be justified? How did the Union argue regarding its participation in the intervention in Afghanistan, 2001? The Just War Theory gives the essay a normative framework against which to assess the Union´s view and guidelines for the use of military capabilities. An idea and ideology analysis examines the relevant documents and materials, and furthermore places them in their social context with the help of a critical discourse. The involvement in Afghanistan 2001 serves as a practical example of the Union´s foreign policy in matters of military force and its use. The European Union is shown to follow the Just War Theory and its criteria regarding sovereignty and just interventions. The practical definition adopted in Afghanistan also seems consistent with the theory´s framework.

Syftet med denna studie var att komma till insikt, dels om hur kriget mot terrorismen har präglat diskursen kring det rättfärdiga kriget med dess särskilt utmärkande preventiva krigföring, och dels om huruvida begreppet "illegal kombattant" kan betraktas som legalt eller inte. Denna studie visar hur krigskonceptet har blivit alltmer diffust sedan det kalla kriget och hur attackerna gentemot USA den elfte september 2001 innebar en brytpunkt gällande diskussionerna kring rättfärdig krigföring. Studien visar också att begreppet "illegal kombattant", med dess preventiva syfte, tillvisso skulle kunna betraktas som legitimt i kontext till omfattningen av ovan nämnda attacker men att dess innebörd inte kan betraktas som legalt i vare sig nationell eller internationell bemärkelse. Jag har kommit till denna insikt genom att identifiera en diskursiv företeelse och lyfta fram dess legalitets- och legitimitetsaspekter och genom att identifiera en juridisk företeelse och lyfta fram syftet med dess innebörd med fokus främst på dess legalitetsaspekter. Med en diskursanalys har jag undersökt talet om det rättfärdiga kriget efter den elfte september, och genom en juridisk analys har jag prövat begreppet "illegal kombattant" gentemot nationell och internationell rätt. Dessa två analyser har fogats samman genom en samlad studie av kriget mot terrorismen och dess legalitets- respektive legitimitetsaspekter. / The purpose of this study was to come to realization on how the war on terror has characterized the discourse on Just War with its particularly distinctive preventive warfare, and also on whether the term "unlawful combatant" can be regarded as legal or not. This study shows how the concept of war has become increasingly diffuse since the Cold War and how the attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 represented an inflection point on the discussions of righteous warfare. The study also shows that the term "illegal combatant", with its preventive purposes, to a certain extent might be regarded as legitimate in the context of the magnitude of the above-mentioned attacks but that its content can not be regarded as legal in either a national or international sense. I have come to this realization by identifying a discursive phenomenon and highlighting its legality and legitimacy aspects and by identifying a legal phenomenon and highlighting the purpose and meaning of it, primarily focusing on its legality aspects. With a discourse analysis, I have examined the speach on Just War after September 11, and with a legal analysis, I have tested the notion of "unlawful combatant" against national and international law. These two analyzes have been consolidated in a comprehensive study of the war on terrorism and its legality and legitimacy aspects.

The aim of this thesis is to discuss the ethical issues which arise by nuclear deterrence. I have taken the position that the use of nuclear weapons is morally wrong. Nuclear deterrence is kind of a preventive measure, but not a way of fighting a war. Therefore, I used the ‘just war theory’ as a starting point to formulate analytical questions through which I have interpreted my material. The analytical questions are based on proportionality, utilitarianism, deontology and the ‘Doctrine of double effect’. I have used contemporary material by political scientists which form a symposium where they discussed on the topic of ‘just deterrence’. In my thesis, I argue that the liberty, life and happiness must be defended, but not to any price. I argue that we must see the value life itself has, because if our life, liberty and happiness is threatened, we have nothing to defend. The question that arises is whether there is an ethical approach which can help us understand these questions.