This thesis aims at deepen our understanding of the Swedish arms exports, especially the relationship between the spoken words of politicians and actual policy outcome. The research question for the thesis is “To what extent do specific frames deployed by the media and politicians about the character of the importing state, the type of arms exported, the inter-state relationship and the economic interests lead to a legitimation crisis in an arms exporting nation which ends arms exports and military cooperation?” This thesis is especially looking at Swedish arms deals with Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. In a content analysis of the Swedish media and politicians, and by using theories of legitimation and framing, the thesis analyses how these frames can affect the legitimation of an arms deal, and explaining different policy outcomes. The analysis shows that the most common frame to use to frame a receiving country or an arms deal negatively is to frame the character of the importing state in negative terms and also connect the arms exports to the regime in the receiving country. On the other side, to defend an arms deal it is most common to frame it as an economic interest that are of national interest. Lastly, the thesis can show that the Swedish arms deal with Saudi Arabia created a legitimation crisis, which was not the case for the deals with Thailand and South Africa, and this can help us understand why the military cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was ended.

The problem area of the study concerns the Swedish arms export to the United Arab Emirates and if this goes against Swedish legislation regarding weapons export as a rule with the guidelines for human rights and non-armed conflicts, which are also established in law from 2018. These guidelines can be considered important for Swedish foreign policy, with the goal to depict Sweden as a nation that protects human rights, seeks world peace and democratic ideals, which has led to this study that wants to investigate the arms exports to the United Arab Emirates during 2019. The primary goal has been to investigate if these correspond to the Swedish regulations for weapons export as well as how the new Swedish legislation took form and how the discourse around it developed. The study is situated around the theoretic discussion if actors generally are guided by norms (logic of appropriateness) or self-interest (logic of consequences) together with rational choice, and which of these Sweden might have reasoned about when they chose to approve of the exports. The results showed that the Swedish legislation had a loophole that made it possible for earlier approved licence applications to receive sequential deliveries, even though the new legislation made it mandatory to make a new licence application for these as well. / Uppsatsens problemområde behandlar den svenska krigsmaterielexporten till Förenade Arabemiraten och om denna går emot den svenska lagstiftningen för krigsmaterielexport i regel med riktlinjerna för mänskliga rättigheter och icke-väpnade konflikter, vilka också är fastställda i lag från och med 2018. Då dessa kriterier kan anses vara viktiga för Sveriges utlandspolitik, i syfte att skildra Sverige som ett land som värnar om mänskliga rättigheter, världsfred och demokratiska ideal så har denna uppsats velat undersöka krigsmaterielexporten till Förenade Arabemiraten under 2019. Det primära syftet har varit att undersöka om dessa överensstämmer med det svenska regelverket för krigsmaterielexport samt hur den nya svenska lagstiftningen tog form och hur diskursen formats runt denne. Studien är situerad runt den teoretiska diskussionen om aktörer generellt styrs av normer (logic of appropriateness) eller egenintresse (logic of consequences) tillsammans med rational choice och vilken av dessa Sverige kan ha resonerat kring när de valt att godkänna exporten. Resultatet har visat att den svenska lagstiftningen har ett kryphål som öppnar upp för följdleveranser till tidigare godkända tillståndsprövningar, dock ska det enligt ny lagstiftning alltid göras nya prövningar på även dessa.

In late 2014, Sweden became the first country in the world to adopt what it described as ”feminist foreign policy”. This was immediately met by both praise and criticism. While those who praised pointed to its relevance given the current state of global affairs; those who criticized it, did so because of its near utopian fantasies of global politics. While it has, since then, received mixed reviews in both media reporting and in academic reviews, it has never been investigated and compared to what should be perceived as the control — the feminist theory in international relations. This study aims to do so. It will, therefore, investigate the Swedish foreign policy and compare it to the feminist theory in international relations. In order to keep the study manageable, four separate branches of the Swedish foreign policy will be investigated. These are; migration, arms export, aid and diplomacy. While migration and aid are more generalized, arms exports and diplomacy are specifically investigating the United arab emirates, and Palestine, respectively. The outcome of the study was that all areas, except arms exports and aid, are both in keeping with, and against, the feminist theory in international relations. Arms exports, on the other hand, is not in keeping with the feminist theory at all. Aid is, in contrast to this, fully in keeping with the feminist theory. This creates a difficult situation when deciding wether or not the feminist foreign policy really is feminist. Sweden’s position as a weapons exporter causes severe friction with the feminist theory because of its recognition of female suffering during war. The way in which Sweden’s foreign policy aim to help women while also, in some way, perpetrating the suffering of women, creates a double standard. This double standard is what finally decides that the Swedish feminist foreign policy, even though it has many feminist leanings, is not feminist according to the feminist theory of international relations.

The problem area of the study concerns the current debate and claim that much of the Swedish weapon export contradicts the Human Rights criterion and condition for non-armed conflicts set down by the Swedish regulatory framework governing weapon exports. Since these factors are crucial aspects pertaining to recipient countries in granting of ex-ports, this Bachelor Thesis investigate the context and facts relating to the two cases of munitions export to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Russian Federation in 2006. With the primary purpose of investigating if these cases pertain to the regulatory frame-work governing Swedish weapon exports, the study has been based on a deductive method of logical reasoning deriving 4 hypotheses from the regulatory framework. Over all, after testing the hypotheses, the findings show that the decisions are in clear conflict with the Human Rights criterion of the Swedish regulatory framework, but not in conflict with the framework as a whole. Thereby, the study concludes that the decisions to grant export ac-cord the regulatory framework. / Uppsatsens problemområde behandlar den nuvarande debatten och påståendena om hur svensk vapenexport står i strid med kriterierna för mänskliga rättigheter och icke beväpna-de konflikter, vilka är fastställda i riktlinjerna för export. Eftersom dessa är faktorer av av-sevärd vikt gällande mottagarländerna vid beslutsfattandet av export, så har denna uppsats syftat till att undersöka situationerna och empiri i förhållande till de två fallen av vapenex-port till Pakistan och Ryssland under 2006. Det primära syftet har således varit att under-söka om dessa fall är i samspel med svenskt regelverk för vapenexport. Undersökningen bygger på en deduktiv metod av logiskt resonemang som har etablerat 4 hypoteser, vilka är deducerade från svenskt regelverk. Allt som allt, efter att ha testat hypoteserna, så påvisar resultatet av studien att besluten för export står i klar strid med kriterierna för mänskliga rättigheter och icke beväpnade konflikter. Detta förklaras emellertid av andra punkter i re-gelverket, vilket ger slutsatsen att besluten är i linje med svenskt regelverk.

The foreign policy of Sweden is based on peace, security, human rights and democracy. In the documents of the foreign policy, the government writes: The purpose of the foreign policy of Sweden is to create security in our country, and in the world. There is no security without democracy, and there is no democracy without human rights and Sweden has to protect and defend these values. Along with these values, Sweden is the 15th biggest arms trader in the world (2015-2020) and has the highest exportation of arms per capita in the world. Many of these exportations also go to non-democratic states.  The purpose of this study is to provide knowledge about why Sweden acts different when it comes to arms trade towards non-democratic states. The research being conducted is a case study of Sweden’s arms trade to Turkey and the United Arab Emirates and why Sweden acts different in the two cases. Sweden stopped the arms trade to Turkey in 2019 due to the lack of democracy and the violations of human rights, but continues to export arms to the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore the study will be using Kjell Goldmann’s theories regarding real idea politics to explain why Sweden acts different in the two situations. The methods that are used in this study are text analysis and case study. The material has been analyzed on the basis of real and idea politics. The main sources are IPSs’ reports, the laws, government documents and parliament document.  The conclusion of the study is that Sweden still exports arms to United Arab Emirates because they still export on old treaty and no new treaty has been issued since 2017. Furthermore, the cases are a combination of the theory’s, but one of them is more prominent in the different cases. Sweden’s actions to stop arms trade to Turkey is an example of when idea politics is more prominent and Sweden’s actions to continue arms trade to United Arab Emirates is an example of when real politics is more prominent.

In this study I examine the decisions to sign and later terminate the so called Saudi agreement, a military memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Sweden and Saudi Arabia, understood as a gateway agreement for future arms deals as well as exchange of defense technology knowledge. Comparing statements from the Social Democratic Party (SAP), who held government both in 2005 when the agreement was signed as well as in 2015 when it was terminated unilaterally by Sweden, I examine the ideological preferences of Swedish foreign policy. Could the shift in policy be explained by ideology?

In 2005 the Swedish social democratic government settled a defense treaty with Saudi Arabia. Ten years later, a new Social democratic government ends the treaty. This thesis will study the Social democratic party’s motives behind their actions regarding the treaty. Kjell Goldmanns theory regarding the three fields of interest concerning state’s foreign policy, security policy, economy and international values, will serve as the theory and operationalization of this thesis. The thesis will operate an analysis of motives to study the main motives of the party’s actions during four events. After examining the actions of the Social democrats in media and the parliament, the thesis found that the party had changed their main motives between 2005 and 2015. Their main motives in 2005 were economical and in 2015 were their main motives international values, which reaches the conclusion that the Social democrats have changed their motives regarding the treaty.

Sweden’s role internationally is often cited as a paradox which is argued to have its origin in the opposition between the state’s international humanitarianism and its large arms export. The tension here has often been examined from the perspectives of militarization in research on the subject. This thesis instead argued that a comprehensive understanding of peace is needed to analyze the paradox holistically. By semiotically engaging with the Swedish Government's annual reports on arms export control, this thesis could identify the construction of peace within the arms export during the years 2014-2021. A usage of the combined perspectives of pacifization, militarization and an in-depth review of the peace concept, allowed for a comprehensive understanding of peace within these discourses. The thesis discovered that elements of the Swedish arms export were framed as (1) a precondition for peace, (2) an agreement of peace, and (3) an enhancement of peace. Moreover, the material revealed the juxtaposition of two different versions of peace, one liberal and one emancipatory understanding. As these versions are associated with different values and practices of peace, their coexistence in Swedish arms export is argued to be the heart of Sweden’s foreign policy paradox.