The purpose of this essay is to investigate what kind of motives where behind the long term decisions for the Swedish military defense in 2000 and 2004. This leads to the questions that the essay is meant to answer; 1. Were the motives behind the two decisions for the Swedish military defense of economic character or an adjustment of security and defense policy? 2. Was the parliament united in the two decisions and if they were not, why? 3. Were there any differences in motive between the two decisions? To answer these questions I have investigated the government bills, private member bills and the parliament debate concerning the two decisions. The result of the essay is that the decision of 2000 was a compromise between security and state finances. The essay can’t define the motives for the later decision. There was a greater understanding in the parliament in the later decision and the biggest difference between both decisions is that the parties who made the decisions in the parliament were not the same at both events.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:oru-10963 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Oskarsson, David |
| Publisher | Örebro universitet, Akademin för humaniora, utbildning och samhällsvetenskap |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds