Sida 1 Av 64 Självständigt Arbete (30 Hp) Författare Program/Kurs John
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Självständigt arbete (30 hp) Författare Program/Kurs John Theander HOP 18-20 Handledare Antal ord: 19725 Peter Mattsson Beteckning Kurskod Självständigt arbete 2HO013 mastersuppsats, krigsvetenskap Sveriges anslutning till Joint Expeditionary Force – Varför och till vilken nytta? This master thesis deals with the driving forces and perceived benefits that form the basis for Sweden's accession to the defence cooperation Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). Since Sweden is already involved in a number of different defence and security collaborations, the question arises for what value another cooperation should be entered, and why JEF is considered appropriate. With Russia's annexation of Crimea, there was a crucial change in the close environment which created a security policy situation that has put more focus on Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region. This caused a need for new cooperation strategies in which Sweden together with others has to deal with this change. By using Graham Allison's theoretical models this thesis analyse the underlying process of connecting JEF from a rational and bureaucratic perspective. The models intend to explain on what reasons connection to JEF was made, but also reveal different actors and their role and impact on the decision. From this, driving forces and benefits with JEF can be identified. The results point to a strong political and military consensus with equal perception of external threats and opportunities. An overarching driver is to create a military integration with other regional actors in order to create a threshold and counterbalance to Russian action. Here, the UK is seen as a valuable player that Sweden wishes to have strong ties with in any crisis and conflict scenario. The cooperation is also expected to create the conditions for development of important military capabilities together with partners in the region. In contrast to former research this study shows that reasons to join cooperation’s has become more threat-driven. That might be a sign of tendency towards realism as a suitable explanatory model in times of increased threat and the pursuit of military utility in wake of Russian behaviour. Nyckelord: JEF, Försvarssamarbete, Allison & Zelikow, Storbritannien, Interoperabilitet Sida 1 av 64 Innehåll 1. INLEDNING ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Problemformulering, Syfte och frågeställning ................................................................. 5 1.1.1 Problemformulering .................................................................................................. 5 1.1.2 Syfte ........................................................................................................................... 7 1.1.3 Forskningsfrågor ........................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Joint Expeditionary Force – Introduktion ......................................................................... 7 1.3 Forskningsöversikt ............................................................................................................ 9 1.3.1 Forskningstraditioner ................................................................................................ 9 1.3.2 Drivkrafter i säkerhetspolitiska samarbeten ........................................................... 11 Sammanfattning ............................................................................................................... 15 1.3.3 Uppsatsens forskningsbidrag .................................................................................. 16 1.4 Material och avgränsningar............................................................................................ 16 1.4.1 Källmaterial ............................................................................................................. 16 1.4.2 Källkritik ................................................................................................................... 17 1.4.3 Avgränsningar .......................................................................................................... 17 1.5 Disposition ...................................................................................................................... 18 2. FORSKNINGSDESIGN ........................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Teori ................................................................................................................................ 19 2.1.1 Rationella aktörsmodellen ...................................................................................... 20 2.1.2 Byråkratiska modellen ............................................................................................. 22 2.1.3 Jämförelse av modell I & III ..................................................................................... 23 2.1.4 Operationalisering ................................................................................................... 23 2.1.5 Kritik mot vald teori ................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Metod ............................................................................................................................. 25 2.4.1 Metodöversikt ......................................................................................................... 25 2.4.1 Metodologiska överväganden ................................................................................. 26 2.4.2 Valet av fallstudie .................................................................................................... 26 2.4.3 Val av fall ................................................................................................................. 27 2.4.4 Datainsamling .......................................................................................................... 27 2.4.5 Intervjuer ................................................................................................................. 28 2.4.6 Validitet, reliabilitet och generaliserbarhet ............................................................ 28 2.4.7 Etiska överväganden ............................................................................................... 29 3. EMPIRI OCH ANALYS ............................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Bakomliggande försvarsberedningar och inriktningsbeslut .......................................... 31 3.2 Rationella aktörsmodellen ............................................................................................. 34 Sida 2 av 64 3.2.1 Analys av rationella aktörsmodellen ....................................................................... 38 3.3 Byråkratiska modellen .................................................................................................... 41 3.3.1 Analys av byråkratiska modellen ............................................................................. 47 3.4 Sammanfattning av analys ............................................................................................. 50 4. RESULTAT ............................................................................................................................... 51 4.1 Rationella aktörsmodellen (Svar delfråga 1) .................................................................. 51 4.2 Byråkratiska modellen (Svar delfråga 2) ........................................................................ 52 4.3 Resultatdiskussion .......................................................................................................... 53 Resultatet - Svar på uppsatsens frågeställning ................................................................ 54 Resultatet och tidigare forskning ..................................................................................... 54 Resultatets tillförlitlighet .................................................................................................. 56 5. DISKUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 57 5.1 Slutsatser ........................................................................................................................ 57 5.2 Reflektion ....................................................................................................................... 58 5.3 Förslag på fortsatt forskning .......................................................................................... 60 REFERENSER ............................................................................................................................... 61 ÖVRIGA KÄLLOR ......................................................................................................................... 64 INTERVJUER ............................................................................................................................... 64 Figurförteckning Figur 1 Författarens schematiska bild av processen inspirerad av Allisons rationella aktörsmodell ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figur 2 Författarens schematiska bild inspirerad av Allisons byråkratiska modell .................. 22 Figur 3 Övergripande forskningsdesign ...................................................................................