My master thesis concerns Sweden during the Second World War, and Sweden´s relation to occupied Norway. During the last spring of the war, German troops still sized 300 000 men terrorized the Norwegian country and populations. Troops evacuated the population in “Finnmark” and destroyed their settlements. As afraid of continued destruction of Norwegian industrial and other interests, the Norwegian government, now seated in London, appealed to Sweden at the beginning of February for a possibly coming and needed military help against remaining German soldiers. Sweden hesitated and waited for the end of the war to come and didn’t want to make any commitment of future actions, but ostensibly started up planning for an eventual military intervention. In April the Norwegian government appealed once again for help and suggested Sweden to mobilize the military as a press on the germen remaining troops to surrender. Sweden hesitated once again and consider to have had full information of the situation in Norway and therefore could hold an opinion of an inoffensive end to the war in Norway. The Norwegian government went very upset, not accepting another state to have better information of the situation in their own country and felt betrayed by Sweden. This thesis tries to describe the disagreement between the two countries and to scrutinize the information Sweden could have had to assert a position of a peaceful end in Norway.

Syftet med denna kandidatuppsats är att beskriva gällande rätt kring om och när en konkursgäldenärs skiljeavtal binder dess konkursbo samt konsekvenserna av detta. I dagsläget är rättsområdet osäkert och enbart grundat på praxis, uppsatsen utreder därför även om lagstiftning eller annan utveckling på området är erforderlig. Det har i praxis konstaterats att en konkursgäldenärs skiljeavtal binder dess konkursbo då tvister gäller obligationsrättsliga anspråk och bevakningsförfaranden är aktuella. I praxis kan vidare konstateras att i tvister av sak- och föreningsrättslig karaktär är ett konkursbo inte bundet av konkursgäldenärs skiljeavtal. Tvister avgörs då i enlighet med konkursrättens tvistlösningsmetoder. Juridisk metod används för att beskriva gällande rätt och för att bringa klarhet i de grundläggande bestämmelserna på området används en deskriptiv metod. En problemorienterad metod används för att analysera rättsläget. Konsekvenserna av att ett konkursbo är bundet av konkursgäldenärens skiljeavtal är att en borgenär kan, genom sin skiljeklausul, komma att tillgodogöra sig mer ur konkursboets egendomsmassa än övriga borgenärer med bevakade fordringar i konkursen som inte avtalat om skiljeförfarande. Att konkursboet i obligationsrättsliga fall är bundet att tvista i ett skiljeförfarande, trots att boet inte existerat vid skiljeavtalets uppkomst, innebär att en kollision mellan offentlig- och civilrätt uppstår. Författarna anser avslutningsvis att konkursgäldenärs skiljeklausul inte ska binda dess konkursbo. De sak- och föreningsrättsliga rättsfallen är mer klara i sina argument och utveckling av rättsläget bör därför, enligt författarna, ske i samförstånd med dessa bedömningar. / The purpose of this bachelor’s thesis is to investigate current law whether if and when a bankruptcy debtor’s arbitration agreement is binding towards its bankrupt’s estate and the consequences of this. The legal position is in the current situation uncertain and is solely based on legal cases; the thesis investigates therefore whether legislation or other development within the area is required.  It has been stated through legal cases that bankruptcy debtor’s arbitration agreement is binding towards its bankruptcy estate when the conflict refers to claims on law of obligations and when monitoring procedures are in question. Case law furthermore state that the bankruptcy estate is not bound by its bankruptcy debtor’s arbitration agreement in conflicts concerning law of property and rights of association. A traditional legal method has been used in order to investigate current law and a descriptive method has been used to clarify the fundamental provisions in the area. A problem-oriented method has been used in order to analyze the legal position. The consequences of the binding effect of the arbitration agreement towards the bankruptcy’s estate is that a creditor can, through its arbitration clause, utilize more from the bankruptcy’s estate property than the rest of the creditors, whom have not agreed on an arbitration clause. That the bankruptcy’s estate is considered forced to dispute in arbitration, even though the bankruptcy’s estate did not exist when the arbitration agreement occurred, implies that an impact between public- and civil law arises. The authors consider that the bankruptcy’s debtor arbitration clause should not be binding towards its bankruptcy’s estate. The authors is of the opinion that the case law conflicts concerning law of property and rights of association are more clear in their argument’s and development of the legal position should take guidance from these legal cases.

The fact that interventions take place on dubious grounds is not a new phenomenon, but it isan area that is constantly interesting to study as the forms of foreign and security policy areconstantly changing. The Russian intervention in Georgia in 2008 is a formative crossroad forRussia's foreign and security policy. Since then, Russia motivates the Russian interventions,in other sovereign states, by referring to the protection of its own citizens. This studydemonstrates how Russia uses securitization theory as part of its foreign and security policy.By referring to the protection of its own citizens in the intervened state, Russia seekslegitimacy for the Russian interventions. Russia is constructing a threat to Russian citizens,which aims to legitimize Russian action to the international community. The study analyzesthe UN Security Council's meeting records from the Georgia War 2008 and the CrimeanCrisis 2014 based on the Copenhagen School's securitization theory. The analysis examineshow Russia argues that there is a threat to the Russian population in Georgia and Ukraine,during their statements in the Security Council. The study also examines how Russia justifiesits actions and how the other states in the Security Council perceive the stated threat and theRussian measures. The results of the analysis clearly sheds light on how Russia construct athreat, how Russia repeatedly justifies its actions and how the member states of the SecurityCouncil criticize the Russian actions. The Russian action is not perceived as legitimate by theSecurity Council, which is required for the securitization to be considered successful, butthere are clear signs that Russia has conducted a security attempt in both Georgia in 2008 andUkraine in 2014. Because of the many similarities between the cases, the study also shows atrend over time, which justifies the conclusion that Russia uses securitization as part of its foreign and security policy.