Despite the fact that the issue has been discussed for several decades, there are still no rules in Sweden mandating political parties and candidates to disclose received donations. Because of this lack of transparency, Sweden is not fulfilling some of its international obligations and has fallen behind in the international trend to increase the transparency of election campaign finance. The lack of disclosure rules in Sweden has led to extensive criticism, most notably from the Council of Europe´s group of states against corruption, Greco, who criticized Sweden in light of the guidelines on the subject from the Council of Europe. At this writing, a new proposal for disclosure rules is being prepared at the Department of Justice, DoJ. The proposal is to be presented in spring 2013. For the time being, the only thing that exists regarding transparency of election finance in Sweden is an agreement from 2000, struck between some of the parties in parliament, to voluntarily disclose some of their received donations. In 2004 a government report proposed implementing disclosure rules. The proposal received extensive criticism from the reviewing bodies regarding its compliance with the rights protection in the Swedish Instrument of Government, RF. RF provides absolute protection against the government forcing individuals to disclose their opinions in political matters and absolute protection against the government keeping records of individuals' political opinions. Since these rights are absolute, they can be restricted only by constitutional amendment. It is uncertain if disclosure rules can be considered infringements under these absolute provisions, but even if they are considered infringements, it is likely that the disclosure provisions can be designed so as not to violate the RF absolute protections. Furthermore, RF provides relative protection of the freedom of expression and association. Disclosure rules would probably not infringe the freedom of expression but are likely to be considered infringements of the freedom of association. Restrictions of the freedom of association can only be implemented in the order specified in RF and since the order for restricting the freedom of association is very rigid, it is unlikely that such a restriction would be allowed under the current RF. The DoJ has expressed that the pending proposal will not include a proposal for a constitutional amendment. For Sweden to fulfill its international obligations in regards of transparency in campaign finance, more extensive disclosure rules must be implemented than those included in the agreement between some parties in parliament and those included in the 2004 proposal. The DoJ has expressed, however, that the pending proposal will be modeled upon both the voluntary agreement and the 2004 proposal. It is therefore not entirely unlikely that the pending proposal will be either illegal under the constitution or not far reaching enough, or both. / I Sverige saknas regler som kräver av politiska partier och kandidater att redovisa mottagna donationer (redovisningskrav). Detta trots att frågan diskuterats under flera decennier. Frånvaron av redovisningskrav innebär att Sverige inte uppfyller vissa av sina internationella åtaganden och att Sverige halkat efter i den mycket tydliga internationella trenden att öka transparensen kring valkampanjernas finansiering. Frånvaron har även lett till omfattande kritik, framförallt från Europarådets grupp mot korruption, Greco, som kritiserat bristen utifrån Europarådets riktlinjer i ämnet. I skrivande stund bereds vid Justitiedepartementet ett förslag till redovisningskrav som kommer att presenteras under våren 2013. Tills vidare är det enda som finns avseende transparens i valkampanjfinansieringen en överenskommelse från 2000, mellan några av partierna i Riksdagen om att frivilligt redovisa vissa mottagna bidrag. År 2004 föreslog en offentlig utredning införandet av redovisningskrav. Förslaget mötte omfattande kritik från remissinstanserna gällande dess förenlighet med regeringsformens, RF:s, rättighetsskydd. RF innehåller ett absolut skydd mot att det allmänna tvingar en enskild att tillkännage sin politiska åskådning och ett absolut skydd mot att det allmänna registrerar en enskilds politiska åskådning. Eftersom dessa skydd är absoluta kan de endast inskränkas genom grundlags-ändring. Det är osäkert om redovisningskrav kan anses vara inskränkningar av dessa absoluta skydd. Om redovisningskrav är inskränkningar av dessa absoluta rättigheter torde det ändock vara möjligt att utforma kraven så att de är förenliga med skydden. RF innehåller även relativa skydd för yttrandefrihet och föreningsfrihet. Redovisningskrav skulle förmodligen inte vara en inskränkning av RF:s skydd för yttrandefriheten men troligtvis vara en inskränkning av RF:s skydd för föreningsfrihet. Detta innebär att inskränkningen endast får göras enligt i RF stadgad ordning. Eftersom möjligheterna att inskränka föreningsfriheten enligt RF är mycket små är det tveksamt om en sådan inskränkning är möjlig att införa utan grundlagsändring. Justitiedepartementet har dock uttryckt att det nya förslaget inte kommer att inkludera något förslag till grundlagsändring. För att Sverige ska uppfylla sina internationella åtaganden avseende öppenhet i valfinansieringen måste mer långtgående redovisningskrav införas än de som ingår i den frivilliga överenskommelsen och som föreslogs av utredningen 2004. Justitiedepartementet har dock uttryckt att just utredningen från 2004 och den frivilliga överenskommelsen ska ligga till grund för de nya redovisningskraven. Det är alltså inte helt osannolikt att det kommande förslaget till redovisningskrav kommer att vara antingen oförenlig med regeringsformen eller inte tillräckligt långtgående, eller både och

The purpose of this study is based on a implementation theoretical perspective, to understand, want, and be able to study the conditions for social studies and science teachers at the upper secondary school level to implement the content of The Instrument of Government on freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and discrimination. The study is based on the political scientist Lennart Lundqvist’s implementation theory of understanding, will and ability. To fulfill this purpose, we have conducted eight semi-structured interviews, which consists of four social studies teachers and four science teachers. Based on the material we received through the eight interviews, we can conclude that not all teachers that participated in this study understand the content on freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and discrimination. All teachers described through their self- image a will to implement the content of The Instrument of Government on freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and discrimination when they handle value conflicts. Even though many teachers haven’t experienced discrimination in value conflicts it is still important to work with it. The teachers had the knowledge in common as the main factor which enabled them to implement.

This thesis considers the individual drivers of migration in modern Swedish emigration and the subsequent decision to remain in the host country. The study draws on primary data from 14 semi-structured digital interviews with Swedes who have emigrated and permanently settled down in different locations in the United States. Through the push- and pull framework, individual cases have been considered whilst also comparing the findings with previously identified drivers in migration research. The sociological findings of this study present the collectivist Swedish norm Jantelagen (‘The Law of Jante’) as a prospective push-factor in both the decision to emigrate and to permanently settle down in the U.S. Subsequently, certain discrepancy exists on the macro level of Swedish society as both radically individualistic with collectivistic norms expecting individual conformity. The result implies that emigration is an option to break free from normative restrictions for certain individuals. Relatedly, the perception of a negative political development, restricted freedom of opinion, and self-censoring political correctness are explicit push-factors for some Swedes to emigrate and/or reside permanently. Furthermore, higher levels of stimulation in education and work, easy access to the job and housing market in the U.S. could be linked to the migration driver subjective well-being/happiness. Network often influenced the emigration and led to perceived lifestyle improvement. Moreover, the initial push and pull factors proved to be inconstant as motives and circumstances in the migration process changed e.g. in case of separation from a partner.

Le renouveau du constitutionnalisme amorcé dans les années 1990 en Afrique subsaharienne francophone et la menace sécuritaire grandissante à travers le monde réorientent la problématique des rapports qu’entretient la liberté d’opinion avec l’ordre public sécuritaire. La reconnaissance constitutionnelle de la liberté d’opinion exige que l’exercice de cette liberté se fasse dans le respect de l’ordre public matériel, avec au coeur de cet ordre juridicisé, la sécurité des personnes, des biens et du territoire national par extension. Cette reconnaissance impose de s’interroger sur la conciliation de la liberté d’opinion avec l’ordre public sécuritaire en Afrique subsaharienne francophone (Bénin- Côte d’Ivoire-Sénégal) à la lumière de l’expérience des grandes démocraties contemporaines (Allemagne-France). Dans la présente recherche, l’exigence de conciliation s’appuie sur des fondements constitutionnels et son respect doit être assuré par un ensemble de garanties juridiques. Cependant, la conciliation trouve ses limites dans les contingences politiques, économiques et sociales propres aux États de l’Afrique subsaharienne francophone. En effet, dans des pays où l’État de droit est en gestation,la conciliation de deux normes de valeur constitutionnelle est incertaine, surtout lorsque l’une d’entre elle, la liberté d’opinion, peut être mise en oeuvre contre le pouvoir politique tandis que l’autre, l’ordre public sécuritaire, peut lui servir de prétexte pour limiter l’exercice de cette liberté. La réflexion invite in fine à repenser la conciliation de la liberté d’opinion avec l’ordre public sécuritaire comme un nouveau principe constitutionnel en Afrique subsaharienne francophone. / The renewal of constitutionalism, initiated in the 1990’s in francophone sub-Saharan Africa,and the worldwide growing security threat reorient the issue of the relationships between freedom of opinion and public security order. The constitutional recognition of freedom of opinion requires that the exercise of this freedom be done according to substantive public policy, with, at the heart of this legalised policy, the safety of people, property and, by extension, national territory. This recognition demands that we question the conciliation of freedom of opinion with public security order in francophone sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal) in the light of the experience of great contemporary democracies (Germany, France). In this research, constitutional grounds support the conciliation requirement and its respect must be ensured by legal guarantees. However, conciliation finds its limits in the political, economic and social contingencies specific to the francophone sub-Saharan States of Africa. Indeed, in these countries where the rule of law is building up, the conciliation of two constitutional standards is uncertain, especially when one of them, freedom of opinion, can threaten political power whereas the other one, public security order, can become an excuse to limit the exercise of this freedom. The essay invites in fine to reconsider the conciliation of freedom of opinion with public security order as a new constitutional principle in francophone sub-Saharan Africa.