Despite the number of decades dedicated to research the causes of conflict, an answer has yet to be found. The theoretical discussions to date have in large been blind to the implications of gender. However in 2009, in spite of gender’s general dismissal as ultimate cause, five professors joined together and formulated the ‘Women and Peace’ thesis. It argues, with the statistical significance to show, that women’s physical security greatly effects state security. To explain how women’s physical security affects state security the ‘Women and Peace’ thesis use, amongst other theories, the controversial choice of evolutionary biology and psychology. The purpose and aim of this study has its point of departure within that choice; it aims to critically examine the statements of the ‘Women and Peace' thesis that are based in evolutionary biology and psychology, and social learning theory. It has done so by conducting a process tracing in the case of Kenya, with the help of a theoretical framework derived from segments of the ‘Women and Peace’ thesis. The findings in this study represents a first step towards the essential empirical research for it to be possible to decide wether there is causality and not just covariation behind the statistical significance presented in the 2009-study. In this case, the findings largely corroborate the initial skepticism towards evolutionary theory, while also concluding that social learning theory shows signs of having some explanatory power to it. This study argues that, if found to be empirically accurate, the results of the ‘Women and Peace’ thesis have the potential to completely change the universal strategies used for peacebuilding today. Therefore this study argues that it should not be dismissed, but developed to a state where it is less dependent of evolutionary theory due to its issues with measurement and causality.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

C-uppsats

No description available.

<p>Arbetet handlar om <em>publika skjutningar i skolmiljö</em>, d.v.s. dåd där förövare har skjutit mot individer i skolmiljö, utan att ha uppvisat förklaringar till varför gärningen genomförts.</p><p> </p><p>Syftet med rapporten var att finna hur förvaltningsmodeller hanterar effekterna av en skolskjutning, för att se om någon är bättre rustad. Samt, om en koppling mellan modell och effektiv hantering kunde göras och även se vad som skiljde modellerna åt i behandlingen av situationerna.</p><p>En jämförande, mest-olika-modell har nyttjats, och rapporten begränsades till synen av tre olika förvaltningsmodeller. Undersökningen är även begränsad i tid av hänsyn till förekomsten av de undersökta dåden.</p><p> </p><p>Bruket av Internetkällor har varit omfattande, då mycket av det som skrivits kring dåden förekommit i dagspress. För utvecklandet av förvaltningsteorier har även vetenskaplig litteratur nyttjats.</p><p> </p><p>Resultatet har varit att få säkra slutsatser kan dras av de dåd som inträffat. Samtliga teorier brottas med olika sorters problem gällande sina hanteringar av dåden, och ingen enhetlig bild har kunnat sammanställas.</p>

No description available.

<p>The purpose of this essay is to examine the Swedish relations to Nato and by doing so see on what terms the cooperation is executed and why. However, Sweden is not a member of Nato and is thereby not seen as an ally of the organization but even so Sweden has a close cooperation with Nato. The theories used in this essay is The Rational Actor Model and The Organizational Behaviour Model by Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow. To this a number of additional theorises are used as to complement these two main theories. The aim with these theories is to see which one gives the most satisfying explanation of the Swedish strategy to cooperate with Nato and still not be a member of the alliance or if all theorises are needed. A qualitative approach is used with a case study and qualitative text analysis of the Swedish military defence strategy. To form this essay a number of documents are used from the Swedish government and its defence committee where explanations are given to the cooperation with Nato. The documents that are used in this essay span from 1995 to 2009 and the reason to why this time period is used is because Sweden prior to the end of The Cold War had a strict defence strategy that was very neutral. After the end of The Cold War Sweden has opened up more to international cooperation, among others the membership of the EU and the sister organization Partnership for Peace by Nato. Further on, this essay also gives an explanation of the Swedish analysis of the security aspects in the world since this helps give an understanding to why Sweden form its defence strategy the way it does. The result of this essay is that the actions of Sweden are rational in its cooperation with Nato on the basis of the security conditions Sweden face. The military neutrality is one aspect Sweden chooses to preserve, and to do so and still cooperate with Nato Sweden is a member of the Partnership for Peace by Nato. In this organization Sweden chooses in which operations they participate. The defence strategy of Sweden is to preserve peace in the world around oneself and by doing so make sure peace is secured for oneself. To reach this goal international crisis operations are performed through cooperation with Nato in the Partnership for Peace. One explanation to why Sweden does not apply to be members of Nato is because of its organizational structure concerning defence strategy. Sweden only cooperate with Nato through Partnership for Peace because the goal of the Swedish organization is to keep the country military neutral. The reason for this is its standard operational procedures which the organization has when it comes to defence strategy. A Swedish membership in Nato could however also be seen as a rational choice since Sweden most unlikely would stand by and do nothing if another EU-country would be attacked. Many countries in the EU are members of Nato which means that Sweden would also defend that alliance. Thereby it would be seen as Sweden is prepared to contribute defensively if a member is attacked.</p>