DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Should The Swedish State Export War
Munition?
A normative study on whether war munition export contradicts
Sweden’s democratic values
Noor Alkhamisi
Bachelor Thesis: 15 credits
Program: Political Science
Spring 2022
Supervisor: Sofia Wiman
Word count: 11 987
Abstract
The following thesis invites the reader for a discussion on Swedish war munition export and
in specific the moral justification of the export. Sweden is ranked as one of the countries with
highest democracy and is at the same time one of the world’s top exporters of munitions.
From a normative perspective, this study takes a look at whether Sweden should export war
munition or not and if the export we have today contradict the Swedish democratic values.
With the export a tension is created and manipulated between what is right and wrong, what
should be and what shouldn't: Should the Swedish state export war munition? There is a
division between the two sides and as the topic is sensitive in its nature this paper will test the
two most extreme points against each other. To find out whether, and, if so, how the
arguments contradict the Swedish democratic principles. With argumentation-analysis as
methodology I was able to analyze the relevance, durability and conclusive power of the
arguments from each side in comparison to each other. The results showed that the pro-export
arguments were drastically weaker in comparison to the contra export arguments due to
weakness to support the thesis that the Swedish state should export. Further the
pro-arguments lacked in-depth explanations to be able to reject the contra-side. This is
because it is more difficult for the Swedish state to morally justify the export as equally
imperative as democratic values, fighting for human rights and combating terrorism.
Keywords: Swedish war munition export, argumentation-analysis, normative study, pro et
contra model.
1
Table of content
1. Introduction 3
2. Purpose and research question 6
2.1 Research question 6
2.2 Purpose 6
2.3 Research gap 7
3. Previous research and theoretical framework 8
3.1 Swedish war munition export 8
3.2 Democracy 11
3.3 Human rights 11
3.4 Swedish interests and security policy 11
3.5 Rules and regulations 12
3.6 International co-operation 13
3.7 The war against terrorism 13
3.8 Military-industrial complex 13
4. Material 14
5. Design and methodology 15
6. Analysis 17
6.1 Presenting the arguments 17
6.1 1 Arguments against war munition export 17
6.1 2 Arguments in favor of war munition export 18
6.2 Conducting the analysis 18
7. Results 27
8. Concluding remarks 28
9. Bibliography 30
2
1. Introduction
Sweden has for the first time since World War II, sent munitions to another state in
connection with an armed conflict and for a non-commercial reason (SVT, 2022). The
Swedish state's response to the ongoing war in Ukraine has come as a surprise as war
munitions often come as a result of agreements, profit contracts and networks between
Sweden and the receiving countries (Åkerström, 2016: p. 21-22). Sweden usually conducts
war munition export for profit-making purposes, making the war in Ukraine an exception
(Svenska Freds, 2022). Swedish arms exports have long been operating and despite criticism
from non-violence organizations such as Amnesty and Svenska Freds the Swedish state
continues to export war munitions to both democratic and undemocratic states. The rather
contradictory repercussions are twofold (1) the consequences of such export on the quality of
the democracy and (2) the opportunities created for more war (Quistbergh, 2010: pp. 5-7).
There are two factors that play an important role in Swedish foreign politics: security and
neutrality (Åkerström, 2016: p. 14-15). The Swedish state embraces a neutral foreign policy,
and proclaims values such as human rights. Some – like Svenska Freds and Amnesty –
believe that the arms industry contradicts values and principles such as human rights, world
peace, and results in supporting terror groups (Amnesty, n.d; Svenska Freds, n.d). The neutral
politics refer to the fact that Sweden isn't in any military alliance except for the European
Union and its common security guidelines (Ikegami, 2013: p. 437). This means that the state
has had to stand on its own feet to ‘survive’ but it also has not been restricted by alliances
making it easier to have relations and export to whoever the Swedish state deem as fitting
(Åkerström, 2016: pp. 7-10). With the Swedish state being politically independent, the results
are the freedom to export military technology, arms, war strategies, in other words having a
market for war munition export. The key solution that made it possible for Sweden to stay out
of the world wars and the cold war was ‘armed neutrality’. The Swedish government realized
that for the neutrality to survive, Sweden had to have a powerful military defense and for the
munition to be produced domestically (Åkerström, 2016: pp. 23-25).
The survival factor has created a tension between the need to gain economic security,
international position etc. and living up to the expectations of democracy (Ikegami, 2013: p.
436). Sweden may advocate democracy, but advocating and arguing for democracy is not
necessarily the same as practically implementing such values and principles. Thus, with
3
Sweden’s continued export of war munitions, we can discern a tension between what is being
said, and what is being done. The combination of security and neutral foreign policy in the
Swedish case can be seen as a backbone to the war munitions export (Åkerström, 2016:
7-10). Through time, Sweden has developed a need for greater security (in all fairness so has
almost every other state). The alliance-free politics is a main factor for the Swedish state’s
need for security, which has forced the state to act upon strategies to build up their position in
the international arena (Ikegami, 2013: p. 440, 442). This came as a result as Sweden's
neighbors Denmark and Norwegian joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in
1949 making Sweden the only (exception: Finland) state between its neighbors without a
military alliance (Bäck, Larsson & Erlingsson, 2008: p. 317). As a result of being
alliance-free Sweden obtained both independence (to invest in war munition and export) and
insecurity to survive in the international arena on its own with the help only from traditional
allies (Ikegami, 2013: p. 440, 442).
In this essay, I wish to study the strength and validity of the pro and contra arguments for war
munition export as made by Swedish foreign policy. The material will center on a yearly
rapport on Sweden’s war munition export. The selection of Sweden came naturally and will
be assessed thoroughly under the next section. It was a tactical selection as the state fit the
criteria of being both democratic and being one of the world's largest exporters (Ikegami,
2013: p. 446). In this case, an argumentation-analysis is vital to review the pro and against
stands and the validity of the strongest arguments from both sides. The benefits of such an
analysis, is that it has the ability to explore how circumstances ought to be (Eemeren,
Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002: pp. 52-53; Ejvegård, 2005: p. 31, 33). By doing
an argumentation-analysis there will be further clarity if the export is causing harm to our
democracy. If the results show that the war munition export does contradict Sweden's
democratic values, we will have supported the thesis that Sweden ought not export munition.
If, on the other hand, the results show that such export does not contradict Sweden's
democratic values, this means that Sweden is justified in its munitions export. This result
would not nullify the importance of this study, because previous research has yet to identify
the main reason for the export in a concise and summarized way from a democratic
perspective (Åkerström, 2016: 7-10). If the results show that Sweden should keep exporting,
critics would be more "silenced" and convinced of the value of the export. The research field
would also especially benefit from more consensus for future studies going forward as the
field consists of two extreme points: either pro or against.
4
The terms “government” and “state” will be used interchangeably. Democratic values and
principles will also be used interchangeably. For clarity, there are also multiple words to
describe the export; “arms export” and “weapon export” are two candidates that will be
replaced with the term “war munition export”. While arms/weapon export are more popular
words to address the term, munition is the broad and all-inclusive term for the kind of export
Sweden usually produces. The term fluctuates with the context, in some contracts Sweden
sends ready-to-use arms and in other situations it is war munitions that need further
preparation to be usable (Åkerström, 2016: p. 10). With the all-inclusive term - war munition;
military technology, advanced strategies, information, arms and parts of arms which can be
constructed to be weapons of mass destruction are included and more (Åkerström, 2016: p.
26).
It is plausible to believe that there will be reasonable arguments both for and against weapon
export. What is interesting is how morality and ethics are evoked in the arguments. Since the
aim of the study is to have one ‘winning’ side, which factors and aspects of life are more
important is the side that will win. Are human rights more important than state security or
vice versa? Is not sending war munition to not risk them benefiting a terrorist group more
important than international co-operation? These are the types of moral justifications and
discussion which will eventually give us an answer on which is morally justified and
appropriate. Human rights, combating terrorism, international co-operation, security policy
interest and rules and regulations are all vital points in Swedish democracy and politics and
will be further assessed in the theory section.
In the upcoming section (2), I will present the purpose of this thesis, the current gap in
research on the issue which I aim to fill, and lastly outline the research question that is
guiding this thesis. Thereafter, section (3) will provide the theoretical framework and
previous research, and section (4) addresses the case and material. Further, section (5) will
provide a discussion on design and methodology. Section (6) will discuss the analysis, and
section (7), will contain the discussion on results. Lastly section (8) will present the
concluding remarks.
5
2. Purpose and research question
“Sweden must be a country that consistently stands up for democracy and rule of the people, a country
that actively works for peace and disarmament and a country that condemns every violation of human
rights, regardless of where, by whom or for what motives they are committed. Sweden has every
opportunity to be such a voice, but then it is required that we stop arming authoritarian regimes,
countries that are at war and states that commit serious and extensive violations of human rights. If we
do not do that, we will not be credible in our work for human rights, disarmament, peace and equality."
(2020/21:UU9, p. 15)1
2.1 Research question
The relevance of studying this issue lies in the importance of this topic in the political arena,
democracy and how war munition export relates to human rights, ‘the war against terrorism’,
international co-operation, security policy and rules and regulations. As the quote implies
there is a tension and contradiction between the Swedish democratic values and the war
munition export. For the democracy in Sweden to be sustainable and not become exhausted
the leadership must live up to the democratic values the nation is set up to realize. The
ambition of this thesis is therefore to contribute to a broader understanding of the arguments
made by the Swedish state and in contrast to the arguments against war munition export in
the case of Sweden. The main interest is to analyze whether, and, if so, how the arguments
pro the export contradict the Swedish democratic principles. The importance of this topic lies
in the moral justification of munition export. If the Swedish state cannot morally justify its
export, normatively it would be wrong to keep exporting. The purpose is to understand
whether or not the Swedish contradicts its own democratic principles by allowing and
continuing the export. The research question to be answered is thus; Should the Swedish state
export war munition? The main question will be answered with the help of a sub-question:
Does Swedish war munition export contradict its own  democratic principles?
2.2 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to decide whether Sweden should export war munitions or not by
studying which "side" - pro or contra - is most credible. Further, the aim is to decide whether
the argumentation in the debate is in line with democratic principles and whether the
arguments for/against are credible and strong. In the light of that we can decide whether
Sweden should export weapons. This is important because continued exports can lead to
1 My translation
6
decreased trust in democratic (because it may go against democratic principles). It is further
along up to the results and analysis to provide further clarity.
The specific argumentation analysis to be applied is a pro et contra model, which has the
advantage that arguments for and against can be clearly presented and illuminated, in this
thesis the contra side is presented first and then the pro-side. In this report, the method is
relevant to get the extreme counter-points, i.e. what stands for arms exports not being
justified (Bergström & Boréus, 2005: 94). After reading this thesis I wish for the reader to
gain extensive knowledge on how the war munitions export has been argued for and against
to further clear up whether the export goes against the Swedish democratic values or not.
Moreover, a normative study can help the author to examine how a society should be
structured. This can also help decision-makers at different times as this is the basis for a
discourse analysis. An argumentations-analysis can be used for authorities as a foundation for
decision-taking with the help of a pro et contra overview (Esaiasson, Gilljam, Oscarsson,
Towns, & Wängnerud, 2017: p. 18, 20; NE, n.d). This is for the most part the extracurricular
relevance this thesis has to offer and what we can learn for future reference and going further.
As for the internal validity, the theoretical starting point (democracy and the case of Swedish
war munition), is the contribution. This study will provide cumulative knowledge to the
normative research in the area.
2.3 Research gap
Previous research has not reached consensus on the question whether Sweden should
continue to export munitions or not as there is large division in the field (Åkerström, 2016: p.
23). With the methodology of argumentation-analysis this thesis will be able to point out the
major arguments from both sides and analyze their validity. The diversion between what is
said and what is done has created what can only be described as confusion and disparity in
what democracy stands for. What is specifically missing in previous research are motives for
arms exports in comparison with the arguments that are opposed (Ikegami, 2013: p. 440;
Åkerström, 2016: 23). One reason for the lack of research in the field is because Sweden has
historically been seen as a small state with neutral politics making the motives for Sweden as
one of the world's largest exporters an even more important matter to unpack (Åkerström,
2016: p. 15).
7
By doing an argumentation analysis, this thesis poses as an example to gain further insight
into arguments in favor of keeping the export and the arguments against. With the knowledge
we can compare which is best to proceed with and with the normative element of what is
right to keep in mind for future studies. What is ‘right’ will be shown by the analysis - either
Sweden ought to export war munition or not. In this thesis, this is to be determined by the
following concepts and how they stand in relation to one another: human rights, combating
terrorism, international co-operation, security policy and rules and regulations. With this, let
me turn to the theoretical framework.
3. Previous research and theoretical framework
This section will address what previous research has studied and the theoretical framework
that will form the basis of analysis to answer the question; Should the Swedish state export
war munition? The central concepts will be presented by breaking down the research
question to identify the theoretical starting point. In order to answer the question, Swedish
war munition export, democracy and the central themes - that is, human rights, ‘the war
against terrorism’, international co-operation, security policy and rules and regulations will
be defined and discussed.
3.1 Swedish war munition export
The discussion for Swedish nuclear weapons was highly mainstream from the late 1950s to
the 1960s. There, the bourgeois press, the right wing, commander-in-chief and the military
leadership were the ones who strongly wanted Swedish nuclear weapons. The opposition
consisted of religious, pacifist, communist advocates and the Social Democratic Women's
Union (Bäck et al., 2008: pp. 306-307). Despite the opposition, the first commercial reactor
came in 1972. This was a crucial turning point in Swedish war munition development. This
worked because the leading Social Democrats and the established government was
supporting the development of Swedish nuclear weapons at the time (Bäck et al, 2008: pp.
306-307). Due to the weakness of the opposition, Sweden could begin to integrate with the
rest of the European states to develop its weapons policy. In summary, it was an elite group of
people with political power and influence whose interest lies in keeping the Swedish military
armed with nuclear weapons. The opposition was kept suppressed and with this grew the
Swedish arms exports we have today (Bäck et al, 2008: p. 307, 313).
8
The organization Svenska Freds deem that in order for Sweden to be regarded as a perfect
democracy, the dark figures from arms exports must come out of hiding. Svenska Freds is an
established, politically and religiously independent organization whose main interest is to
monitor conflicts, peacekeeping and non-violence. Today, this is the largest organization
against war munition export in Sweden that works with spreading information and facts about
the export and its consequences (Svenska Freds n.d). This organization plays a big role in
influencing politicians to rethink the current regulations. Svenska Freds claims that the arms
industry is driven by three aspects, namely: (1) without openness; (2) with a special interest;
and (3) by resource dependency (Åkerström, 2016: pp. 25-27). These are the factors that do
not align with the Swedish democratic grounds (Svenska Freds, 2022). As Sweden is
producing and exporting war munition it is contributing to the opportunities of war which
Svenska Freds points out as an ‘undemocratic export’ (Åkerström, 2020). Svenska Freds
further claims that the munition industry does not aim to improve democracy or ensure the
security of the Swedish people. Rather the organization claims that the export is a way to
ensure economic gains and is justified by the fact that it is not the government producing but
it is done through investments in the production (Svenska Freds, n.d).
It is estimated that Sweden is today one of the world's top ten largest munition exporters
(Amnesty, n.d). Sweden has exported weapons to as well democratic as to non-democratic
states such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar and more. The export in
2021 was valued at 20 billion in Swedish currency. This has been criticized precisely because
it goes against the democratic principles that Sweden is supposed to align with such as human
rights, advocates for peace and democracy (Fägersten & Jerdén, 2018: 345). Given the
criteria of Freedom House in 2019, it is estimated that in 2019 one third of the war munitions
exported were sold to undemocratic states (Svenska Freds, n.d; Åkerström, 2020). In the
meantime there has also been pursuits to further restrict Swedish exports to states such as the
United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Qatar. Despite attempts to reduce the export, new permits
to export were granted to deepen co-operation in international relations. Sweden and for
example Saudi Arabia have slowly started to regain the relation they had before the crisis in
2015. This was something which Sweden as a democratic state condemned (Fägersten &
Jerdén, 2018: p. 345). Since then, there has been regulation in the jurisdiction and there have
been attempts to both sharpen and open up for export opportunities to several of the states
mentioned above. The reformed regulations addressed the Swedish government's relation
9
with the buying states in relation to the undemocratic contradictions such as human rights
violence, strengthening terror groups and engagement in war and international conflicts.
In the Swedish case, it is private producers of war munition who, with state help and support
from foreign policy, can stand on their own two feet and constitute their own economy
(Quistbergh, 2010: pp. 5-7). When Sweden first started to produce munitions it was only
meant for the national defense as it was necessary for the neutrality politics and for security
policies. That however changed as other countries started to also produce and sell
internationally and Sweden felt a pressure to also sell internationally to not lose opportunities
and to not seem less interesting in the international arena (Lundmark, 2019: p. 298). There
was also another reason, it was not profitability optimal to only produce for national defense.
For economic gains, international exports grew larger (Ikegami, 2013: p. 443). With that the
contract between private producers and the government increased and today one hundred and
fifty companies have permission to export war munition and many are owned by foreign
concerns. Some of the largest exporters are “Saab, BAE Systems Hägglunds, FFV Ordnance
AB, Norma Precision and Eurenco Bofors” (ISP, 2017: p. 19).
The governmental support consists of “political representation, marketing, the state as
reference, loans and export credit (making it possible for companies to sell without financial
risks in certain cases)” (Åkerström, 2016: p. 185). This means that it is not the government
who has official relations to the buyers or are the ones in charge of the production. It however
does not mean that the direct investments to the business removes the state from
accountability, considering the aftereffect of supporting the war munition export. When it
comes to arms exports to undemocratic states today, several independent organizations,
including Amnesty, have remained critical of the Swedish arms trade (Amnesty, n.d). The
main factor is that the state goes against the democratic values it should be held accountable
for. The fact that it is private producers has led to confusion on who is accountable.
According to Åkerström (2016) it is here the tension between the commercial export and
democratic values has emerged. Since it is technically not the Swedish state that operates the
export but has the power to direct and finance, the accountability gets lost in the process
which is where democracy at the same time becomes fragile for exposure (Åkerström, 2016:
pp. 219).
10
3.2 Democracy
In Sweden, representative democracy is the governing body, which means that we
democratically elect representatives who are then decision-makers in rounds until we elect
new ones (Bäck et al, 2008: 16-18). What distinguishes democracy from other forms of
governance is the norm that representatives are held “accountable for their actions”
(Schmitter & Karl, 1991: p 76). Meaning that the political figures who are democratically
chosen are supposed to reflect and drive the politics that is beneficial for citizens and the
direction of the politics that the nation as a whole has decided to defend. The political
leadership is not supposed to act on their own with a special agenda in mind - that would be a
violation against Swedish democracy (Schmitter & Karl, 1991: p 76). In the 2021 report
Sweden scored 100 percent by Freedom house and with Sweden being in the top 5 most
democratic states worldwide the contradiction with the munitions export unveils itself
(Freedom House, n.d).
3.3 Human rights
The 1948 declaration by the UN is considered the most important declaration for protection
of human rights on an international level. Human rights is one of the core aspects of
democracy as it regulates the state's authority over the individual (Gustavsson & Tallberg,
2014: p. 69, 72). “Human rights are universal and apply to everyone. They state that all
people, regardless of country, culture and context, are born free and equal in value and rights”
(Regeringskansliet, 2018). Sweden has committed to assure that the politics it pursues assures
the human rights declaration (Gustavsson & Tallberg, 2014: p. 357). The Swedish left party
criticizes the credibility of Swedish human rights as the party refer to the munition export as
violation against peace, democracy and human rights. “Sweden will not credibly be a voice
for human rights somewhere on earth as long as this arms export continues” (Motion
2017/18:3826: p. 5). According to the party, Sweden has the ability to stand up for human
rights, that is however not legit unless the government starts disarming (Motion
2017/18:3826: pp. 5-6).
3.4 Swedish interests and security policy
With democracy comes a promise to protect and fulfill security for the citizens of the state. It
means that the state is ‘obligated’ to acquire as much security as possible. This varies from
vital needs such as water, shelter and food to political rights, economic security and high
standard of living (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2021: pp. 7-8). There is, however, a
11
difference between human security and state security. While the aspects above and human
rights refer to human security, for a state, security is a broad concept with a multifaceted
meaning. Within the framework of state security it can mean military capacity, contacts,
position in the international arena, diplomacy or stable economy (Edström, 2016: p. 498). In
this case it could be Sweden seeking for security in vast categories. Security is expressed in
the legislation and regulations. There are two reasons for this: (1) to gain security and (2) not
to lose control over the war munition export. For the former, there are a couple of factors for
gaining security: economy, position in the international arena and military are important and
habituated criteria for measuring the security of a state (Ikegami, 2013: p. 437, 446).
Economic security in this case is gained by selling war munition and gaining financial
independence. A liable position in the international arena is also beneficial for a state to
secure its relation to others and to hold credibility in the international arena. With
international security also comes trust which Sweden has gained by diplomatic relations and
achieving its end of contacts. The last aspect of security, military, refers to the capacity and
monopoly of the military (Ikegami, 2013: p. 446).
3.5 Rules and regulations
ISP (the inspectorate for strategic products) is the governmental authority for control of war
munition export for dual use under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ISP, n.d.a). The
inspectorate works with all questions regarding Sweden's security and foreign policy. It was
the year of 1996 that ISP was established after the constitution of the law (2011:849) which
followed the original law (1992:1300) for war munition export (Sveriges Riksdag, n.d). After
(2011:849) the control of the export was submitted to ISP which was created and ruled as an
independent governmental authority. The responsibility consists of granting, assessing and
co-operation and production for as well ongoing cases as new requests (ISP, n.d.a). Further
there is also the Export Control Council (EKR) and military equipment act which also guide
and restrict war munition export. The control council is responsible for advising and
supporting ISP in matters of counseling, interpretation of the guidelines or of specific cases.
ISP then makes decisions based on the material from the control council (ISP, n.d.b). When it
comes to export control in regards to democracy it is twofold, first it is through EKR.
Secondly it is by the yearly ‘report of the committee on foreign affairs’ which is the material
used in this thesis (ISP, n.d.a)
12
3.6 International co-operation
In this thesis, the two most significant international legislations are the Common position of
the EU (2008/944/CFSP) and UN arms trade treaty. Sweden has signed to obey these
supranational acts as a part of international co-operation and interdependence. These are
international obligations and Sweden's commitments towards its own population and in the
international arena (Edström, 2016: p. 498). The UN security council has multiple charters
for international co-operation, security and peace. Article 26 focuses on international
co-operation to reduce human sufferings and for states to not gain economically from
conflicts. Article 33 directs that if it is possible, conflicts should be settled peaceful trough ie.
diplomatic resolutions (Åkerström, 2016: pp. 221-222).
3.7 The war against terrorism
Furthermore, within the frame of international co-operation a very large challenge today is
the rising terror groups. Combating terrorism and not supporting terror groups (for example
al-Qaeda and the Islamic State) is seen as one of the most important responsibilities to
especially preserve democratic values (Edström, 2016: p. 508-509). The war was first
declared after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States. Terror operations can,
however, be traced further back in time, for examle the first Al-Qaeda’s attack occured in
1998. Two common characterizations of terrorism are: “a pre-meditated intent to create fear;
a motive to affect political behavior especially that of governments and a perception by the
society within which it has taken place that something ‘extra-normal’ has occurred” (Peoples
& Vaughan-Williams, 2021: p. 233). The terror groups often commit crimes against civilian
populations in war and also outside of war which Sweden as an individual state and in
international co-operation is trying to combat. Beside the human lives lost and financial costs
to combat terrorsims, citizens' daily life is exposed to danger (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams,
2021: pp. 232-233). The war against terrorism and the increased number of weapons of mass
destruction is seen as a threat to democracy and human rights (Edström, 2016: p. 508-509).
3.8 Military-industrial complex
Military-industrial complex is a term that describes a collaboration that exists between
politicians, the military and the munitions industry, also called the “iron triangle”
(McCormick, Hague & Harrop, 2016: p. 309). During the rivalry between Germany and
Britain in 1905-1914, military-industrial complexes (MIC) were built for the first time ever.
US President Dwight Eisenhower warned that it would succeed in taking over and governing
13
the state. This would not work towards higher security for the state or its citizens but to drive
more money. This would mean that the military is moving towards a marketing structure
(McCormick et al, 2016: p. 309). Some of the literature on war munitions export trace it to
the military-industrial complex which highlight it as a major factor for ignoring democratic
values and remaining the export. This is important because if MIC succeeds in running the
state, the consequences can lead to democratic values  being squeezed or legislation being
changed to benefit the for-profit arms industry (Gómez, 2009: p. 74; McCormick et al, 2016:
pp. 309-310). There is no consensus on whether the state controls the military-industrial
complex or whether it controls the state. However, due to the scoop of this essay the focus
will be on the arguments for and against war munitions export and not the driving factors that
explain the export in itself. The important thing to keep in mind is that there is a complex of
factors creating opportunities and need for war munition2.
4. Material
As discussed above, the relation between Sweden's democratic values and action is not free
of friction. As a “real case”, it pinpoints the tension between Sweden’s democratic principles,
on the one hand, and its export of weapons on the other. The tension is thoroughly discussed
in the material as members of the parliament gather their arguments against the prevailing
government's politics. The material in this thesis which the argumentation-analysis will
proceed from is the ‘report of the committee on foreign affairs’ noted as 2020/21:UU9. The
title of the material is called “war munition export and military equipment with double area
of use” (2020/21:UU9). Meaning the export for both the production of weapons of mass
destruction or war munition and for civil use. The case was closed the tenth of June 2021 and
is the latest report of the Constitutional Committee which is complete. There is an ongoing
case, but it is, however, only a proposal, therefore as a material not complete. The document
is retrieved from the government's website and can contribute with legitimate results.
Alternatively the material could have been the Minister of defense's press conference or
statements. The problem with this type of material is that it isn't the whole state rather a
single spokesperson. With the written report of the Constitutional Committee the whole
government is presented which strengthens the validity of the results.
2 Large parts of this section were retrieved from my PM2
14
5. Design and methodology
The research design that is best suited to answer the main question; Should the Swedish state
export war munition? is a normative study with the method of argumentation analysis. The
reason being is that in order to identify and map in favor or against munition export, the
arguments in the material have to be identified and analyzed qualitatively. The choice of a
normative study has been made in the light of the fact that such a design aims to answer
questions concerning; how should it be? (Eemeren et al., 2002: pp. 4-5; Ejvegård, 2005: p.
5-6) . This theme works well together with an argumentation analysis as there is tension
between the principles of democracy Sweden claims to follow and the continuous export of
war munitions to many states, and this thesis poses to study how it should be (Ejvegård,
2005: p. 31, 33). In a strict sense, normative studies don't have to be distinguished between
theory development or testing. Despite this, this thesis aims to contribute to
theory-development in the field Swedish war munition export studies by finding justificatory
and  non-justificatory factors (Esaiasson et al, 2017: p. 112).
Since there are two sides to a coin, in this case pro and against arguments for munitions
export, an argumentation-analysis is suited to list out both sides (Esaiasson et al., 2017: p.
214). Argumentation-analysis belongs to the family of idea analysis which aims to analyze
political ideas origin, message and consequences (Beckman, 2005: pp. 12-13). The arguments
in a normative study can be reconstructed and broken down into what is “acceptable human
action” (Esaiasson et al, 2017: p. 30). Most often, these are due to various complex societal
problems (Esaiasson et al, 2017: p. 30-31). Normative studies often consist of contexts from
reality, which is what my research intends to study (Eemeren et al., 2002: p. 27). With
evidence from reality, the research can be driven forward with elements that criticize and
analyze how a certain public debate is shaped and how it should be (Esaiasson et al, 2017: pp.
43-44). The purpose of making an argumentation analysis is to be able to set up and evaluate
the strength of different arguments and when they are set up against each other (Esaiasson et
al, 2017: p. 214).
Every argument consists of three parts; (1) a thesis (which can be both singular or multiple),
(2) premises (assumptions) and (3) a conclusion (Bergström & Boréus, 2005: pp. 136-137).
The arguments identified in this essay respectively underlie either the thesis “Sweden ought
to export war munition” or the thesis “Sweden ought not export war munition”. The main
15
task is to find out if the premises support the conclusion. The premises prescribe the relation
between the argument and the thesis (Beckman, 2005: pp. 38-41). In turn, there are three
main components; (1) durability, (2) relevance and (3) conclusive power (Ejvegård, 2005: p.
54). The most important thing with this type of analysis is that the author must analyze and
consider all the argument’s durability, relevance and so reach the conclusive power of the
thesis (Bergström & Boréus, 2005: p. 136). Relevance is the measurement of the support
applicable for a durable claim. The relevance of an argument to a particular statement
(argument or thesis) is a measure of the support that the argument would provide to the
statement if the argument were tenable. Further, durability stands for the reasonableness of
the argument and how plausible it is to accept it. Durability is not the same thing as being the
truth. Rather it stands for its sustainability and the support available for the claim (Eemeren et
al., 2002: p. 52-53). Conclusive power is the combination of the argument’s durability and
relevance; the overall strength of the argument. There is one important factor that strengthens
the conclusive power in an argument: precision. In the precision of language and formulation
uncertainty can be eliminated making the argument clearer and easier to understand
(Ejvegård, 2005: p. 46).
In this thesis the specific model of argumentation-analysis is a pro et contra list where the end
result is to reach a standpoint on what society should do. A pro et contra carries out the
analysis for both pro and contra with the ambition to find an answer to the normative question
of what kind(s) of human action(s) is acceptable, in this case whether it is acceptable for
Sweden to export munitions. The difficulty with this type of specific argumentation analysis
is that it sometimes requires the author to fully understand the thesis in each argument to be
able to pick out and analyze the premises (Ejvegård, 2005: p. 52). It is important to neither
exaggerate the argument, nor to fail to give justice to the full capacity (Eemeren et al., 2002:
p. 51). Here it is favorable to keep a balance between analyzing what is written and what can
be extravagated underlying in the material (Bergström & Boréus, 2005: p. 137).
An alternative to the argumentation-analysis could be an interview study with questions
asked to either ones responsible or other people related to the industry. The issue here would
be the normativity of the study and the validity in the results as the people in charge may not
be as truthful. Secrecy, obligation to observe silence and the risk of disclosing sensitive
information is on the line. In short an interview study was not chosen because the topic is
sensitive and it could be difficult to gather honest answers. Further it is rather difficult to
16
assess what ‘should be’ based on interviewee answers. Another method could be a
toulmin-scheme which belongs to the family of argumentation-analysis. The reason why this
method was not applied is because it does not compare arguments to each other and in a list
of strengths. A toulmin-scheme examines the data, warrant and backing in each argument in
depth which has its benefits in breaking down the structure of individual arguments and
scrutinizing them. Pro et contra model has the advantage of comparing stances to each other
which fulfills the purpose of the thesis.
6. Analysis
6.1 Presenting the arguments
In this section, the analysis will be conducted. Before turning to the analysis, however, I will
present the arguments to be tested (section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). Those arguments are chosen
because they represent strong standings of both sides of the debate and since they are
helpful in answering the research question posed in this thesis. As the original quotations are
in Swedish, I have for the purpose of this thesis translated them, and I tried to do this as
verbatim as possible. With this, let us look at the chosen arguments in order, starting with
the arguments against export. Here the contra arguments are noted as (C) and the pro
arguments as (P).
6.1 1 Arguments against war munition export
(C1) “However, there is no doubt that Sweden's continued arms exports to dictatorships and
warring countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are in direct opposition
to Sweden's commitments. It also risks eroding our credibility as a voice for democracy,
human rights and world peace.” ( 2020/21:UU9, p. 26)
(C2) “Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are the largest importers of
Swedish munitions, are involved in the horrific civil war in Yemen, and like other actors, they
spare no means to achieve their political goals. The conflict has not only led to the world's
greatest humanitarian catastrophe, but it has also strengthened al-Qaeda and the Islamic
State.” ( 2020/21:UU9, p. 26)
17
(C3) “The parliament supports what is stated in the motion to call on the government to use
its powers to stop all arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia, including consequential deliveries, to
clarify that the intentions in the Swedish arms export legislation are not to allow arms exports
to nations that like Saudi Arabia clearly commit serious crimes against human rights and
serious crimes against the civilian population in war, and this is announced by the parliament
to the government.” ( 2020/21:UU9, p. 28)
6.1 2 Arguments in favor of war munition export
(P1) “An internationally competitive level of technology also contributes to Sweden
remaining an interesting country for international co-operation and leads to better
opportunities for Sweden to influence international co-operation in export control. It is in
Sweden's security policy interest to safeguard long-term and continuous co-operation in
material issues with a number of traditional partner countries, which is based on both exports
and imports of munitions.” (2020/21:UU9, p. 7)
(P2) “It is important to recall that even before the renewed regulations for munitions exports,
there was a principle ban on arms exports in Sweden. According to the Act (1992: 1300) on
munitions, such may only be exported if there are security or defense policy reasons for it and
it does not conflict with Sweden's international obligations or Sweden's foreign policy.”
(2020/21:UU9, p. 18)
(P3) “The committee notes that the regulations are followed up and evaluated on an ongoing
basis, e.g. through the parliament's consideration of the Government's annual letter to the
Government and through consultations with the Swedish Export Control Council (EKR).
Therefore, the committee does not currently see any need for further evaluation or revision of
the regulations.” ( 2020/21:UU9, p. 7)
6.2 Conducting the analysis
As we can see from these arguments, the ones against the export mainly refer to the three
following themes (the relevance of which were discussed in my theoretical framework):
(1) Democratic principles (argument 1 against)
(2) Human rights (argument 1 and 3 against)
(3) Combating terrorism (argument 2 against)
18
The arguments in favor of weapons export, on the other hand, rely on the following themes:
(1) International co-operation (argument 1 in favor)
(2) Security policy interest (argument 1 and 2 in favor)
(3) Rules and regulations (argument 2 and 3 in favor)
We can thus state that all arguments - both for and against - are relevant in themselves, (i.e.
they are all relevant to the thesis (thesis for arguments against export: "Sweden should not
export war munition." and the thesis pro the export: “Sweden should export war munition”).
Given my theoretical framework in section 3, all have a connection to their respective thesis,
and are important features of democracy. All arguments for and against are also sustainable
in themselves because they have bearing, i.e. they are reasonable to accept, given my
theoretical framework. Since all arguments are relevant for their respective thesis the second
task of my analysis is to test which “cluster” of arguments are most relevant, sustainable,
and therefore which thesis have the highest conclusive power. This part of the analysis
examines which of these themes hold the strongest force; that is, it will discuss whether and,
if so, in what ways, human rights is a more important value than competition, international
co-operation, security politics, and rules and regulations. Likewise, it will examine whether
supporting terrorism is “worse” than the themes mentioned in the “in favor of-section” and
so on. Examining this will help answer the research question – should the Swedish state
export war munition? – in the following ways: If it turns out that democracy, human rights,
and avoiding to support terrorism are the more important values, we will have evidence that
support the conclusion that Sweden should not export weapons. If, on the other hand,
security policy etc. shows to be the more important themes, we can argue that Sweden
should export weapons. As we can see from above – where the arguments refer to different
“themes” – the arguments pro- and contra-munition export are not based on the same
premises. They can therefore not be set up against each other in a neat list of premises. I
have to test all counter-arguments against all pro-arguments, in order. The following three
questions will act as a template for the analysis:
(1) Is the argument relevant (given the premises and the thesis)?
(2) Is the argument durable (do the premises lead to the conclusion)?
(3) Is the argument as a whole strong (conclusive power)?
19
C1 (democratic principles) against P1 (international co-operation)
It is difficult to completely reject the relevance of P1 as the opportunities to export creates
room for continuous relations with partners. To ‘safeguard’ Sweden’s security policy
interest is important for influencing the export in both the domestic and internationally. It is,
however, not as relevant and important as keeping one’s word and not risking credibility in
such important categories as human rights and world peace. Regarding the relevance of the
first argument, the following can be said: democracy is an important principle, and Sweden
has a long tradition in valuing democratic principles. The idea that export may erode or
undermine such principles – and that it may undermine Sweden’s credibility as a democratic
factor – is therefore highly relevant. The winning factor for C1 is the fact that credibility is
important to have international co-operation and defend security interests. Therefore, in
order for Sweden to have continuous co-operation it must first keep its credibility in the
promised values of democracy.
With the durability of P1, it is weaker than C1. The argument focuses on securing better
opportunities for the Swedish state which is by no means more acute than valuing the
current democratic values. Further, what makes this argument weak is the fact that Sweden
may as well be able to keep influencing the laws and regulations without exporting
themselves. Sweden is already part of the EU and the United Nations regulations for export
control. The Swedish state’s export cannot be justified with this argument as there are other
ways the export can be controlled through such as diplomatic relations, legislation and
reinforcement of supranational co-operation. Also, the war munition is not the only
international market for Sweden to remain interesting as the state has foreign policy and
connections with several states. The fact that it is important to safeguard traditional relations
is not enough proof to justify the export in what is morally right. While both can be fairly
accepted, C1 has higher durability. Since Sweden exports also to dictatorships and warring
countries this argument becomes stronger. P1 would be able to further withstand C1 if it was
more crucial for Sweden’s security to keep exporting war munition. Since the state's security
is not at risk as the democratic principle is at risk, C1 has greater conclusive power.
Undemocratic values contradict Sweden’s commitments, and as such risk eroding Sweden’s
credibility as an advocate of democracy. The argument is more durable as the premises lead
to the conclusion and the follow each other in a logical way. Here, the argument which holds
the largest support for the original thesis and largest conclusive power is C1.
20
C1 (democratic principles) against P2 (security policy interests and regulations)
Given the premises C1 is highly relevant because there is evidence to prove that there is a
contradiction between the commitment Sweden has to democracy and what the war munition
stands for. There are clear causes that risk the Swedish state as a credible voice for
“democracy, human rights and world peace” (2020/21:UU9, p. 26). If the Swedish state keeps
advocating for democracy and still entertain the export it means that the words are empty,
empty promises of democracy and international human rights justice. The examples given in
C1 are more forceful and relevant than the examples presented in P1. In C1 it is clear to
understand that the export is risking Sweden's credibility. In P1, however, the lack of
referencing to the relevant laws weakens its durability. It is true that the original law regulates
other laws but there have been in the meantime exceptions to the law which makes the initial
law secondary. Empty promises paint the state as an unreliable actor which in turn leads to
consequences such as distrust etc. While P2 has relevance the argument only supports
Swedish foreign policy and international obligations leaving the domestic democratic
principles unannounced. Here the argument would benefit from mentioning how and why the
export does not contradict the Swedish democracy.
C1 has stronger durability than P2. Following the theme on national security, the second
argument in favor of the export, also supports the idea that the export is not contradictory to
Sweden's obligations. Rather, the argument centers around the idea that the export is
following the Act (1992: 1300) and that the export is only allowed for “security or defense
policy reason’s (2020/21:UU9, p. 18). The ‘principle ban’ do, however, not align with the
amount of export. If there really was a principle ban and there had to be a ’security or
defense’ reason, wouldn't then the export be very limited? There is a lack of convincing
power that shows how important the export is to both Sweden and the receiving countries.
Furthermore P2 contradicts P1, as a matter of facts they disprove each other even though
they seek to support the same thesis. There is incoherence between- Sweden values its
relation with long-term traditional partners- and for the principle ban to exist at the same
time. Some states perhaps use the war munition to fight against terrorist groups, that could
be a convincing reason for defense reasons. That argument is however not in the material
which could have strong conclusive power for this type of argument. Since there is no
strong evidence or examples of the need for defense, the argument lacks conclusive power
and the conclusion drawn does not completely follow the original thesis. While the
statement needs arguments that support the need to keep exporting, the argument focuses on
21
the circumstances under which Sweden is permitted to export. Hence, C1 has the stronger
conclusive power and wins in this comparison.
C1 (democratic principles) against P3 (rules and regulations)
The relevance for C1 stands as highly supportive for the thesis as there is tension between
what the democratic values stand for and what the export has potential to create, the
argument has strong conclusive power. As support to the thesis that the Swedish state should
not export war munition the argument provides a clear example on the contradiction
between what is said and what is done. Without war munition many wars cannot happen,
strategic plans, arms and technology is needed for an actor to gain insight on its ‘opponent’
and attack. If the Swedish state simply would not provide war munition in exchange for
economic gains the potential of war would be less. Sweden, of course, does not stand as a
sole responsible for war munition. That however does not take from the fact that Swedish
war munition is being used in wars committed in human catastrophes. Argument number
three (P3) can be summarized by: the exports do not go against the legislation - there is no
reason to revise the regulations. For P3 the relevance is also large, it is however not enough
to reject C1 as the committee’s reasoning regarding the regulations. The Swedish Export
Control Council (EKR) is still under governmental control which makes it possible for the
military-industrial complex to be an influence on the export or another underlying factor.
The committee notes that the regulations are followed up and evaluated on an ongoing basis,
e.g. through the parliament's consideration of the Government's annual letter to the
Government and through consultations with the Swedish Export Control Council (EKR).
Therefore, the committee does not currently see any need for further evaluation or revision
of the regulations.” ( 2020/21:UU9, p. 7). The argument that the regulations are being
followed up is durable, there is however no place in the argument that reassures the reader
of the results from the evaluations and or how they are being done. The argument would be
more durable if it was less vague as there may be more details for the argument to present.
There is, also, no evidence to prove that the law is what is morally right or what we should
keep doing. The conclusion is that the committee sees no need for further evaluation making
the support to the original thesis weak. If the argument was more developed it would have
more potential to have stronger conclusive power and greater support for the favor of the
export.
22
C2 (combating terrorism) against P1 (international co-operation)
The second argument against the export focuses on the war in Yemen and makes two points:
(1) the world's biggest humanitarian crisis and (2) the fact that it has strengthened terrorism.
First off, there are many actors involved in the conflict, and among them there is both Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which also are among the biggest importers of Swedish
war munition. The conflict has led to an unbearable amount of causality and human rights
violations. Since the states involved do not plan on changing their political goals in the
conflict: is it right to keep exporting to them? For the second point, the war has also
strengthened the terrorist groups al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. While both arguments are
relevant, C2 rejects P1 as the export cannot be morally justified for the Swedish state on the
basis of the ‘strengthening opportunities’ and gaining further security interest. It is difficult to
elaborate that Sweden's continuous export to traditional partners is more morally important
over what C2 presents. For P1 to win the argument need a security cause enough that shows
signs of threat, vulnerability or insecurity. Therefore, C2 has greater relevance.
For durability, C2 wins. With the war in Yemen, human lives are being lost. For Sweden it
should be more important to stand up for their democratic values and not send war munitions
than to preserve its position in the international arena and remain an ‘interesting’ country. For
Sweden to in the first place remain interesting and influence the export it must not lose its
credibility in a category as important as being one of the world’s strongest democracies. To
preserve a position in the international arena also means keeping the ‘domestic promise’. It is
also highly likely that the war in Yemen might not have been as great without the Swedish
war munitions. The war munitions has been used to strengthen terrorism in other parts of the
world which point out exactly why the Swedish state should not keep exporting. These two
factors combined have built the argument with durability and relevance to withstand
resistance. As the analysis conducted, C2 has stronger conclusive power as it is more
reasonable that human rights are more important for the Swedish democracy than Sweden's
preferred export to its partners.
C2 (combating terrorism) against P2 (security policy interests and regulations)
With the test of C2 against P2 the subjects overlap as they are related to each other. Within
the frame of security politics, combating terrorism plays an important part. And in the
politics on how to oppose terrorism, security politics is also a priority topic. With the
relevance for their thesis the arguments reject each other. Here, the case of the export to
23
Ukraine as an example becomes relevant. According to P2 Sweden exports if there is a
defense reason and in this case the munitions are used to combat a humanitarian catastrophe
(war in Ukraine) making the arguments reject each other, they are equally relevant.
Even though it was not decided which of the arguments had greater relevance, the question
of durability is clearer. With P2 the main backing is that if war munition would be exported
it should not “conflict with Sweden's international obligations or Sweden's foreign policy.”
(2020/21:UU9, p. 18). Here the contradiction between what is being said and what is being
done is presented well because as C2 demonstrates that is not the truth. Swedish war
munition is being used in the war in Yemen which is the “greatest humanitarian
catastrophe”( 2020/21:UU9, p. 26) making P2 an unreasonable argument in comparison
with C2. As the arguments have as high relevance as each other and the greater durability
landed on C2, making C2 the argument with stronger conclusive power.
C2 (combating terrorism) against P3 (rules and regulations)
P3 does not have enough power to reject C2 as for relevance, C2 has the advantage. If there
are no signs of the receiving countries using the war munition for better ends there should be
a change in the regulation to stop exporting to countries that go against universal democratic
values. Otherwise, the Swedish democracy would be contradicted and only applied to the
Swedish state and not its foreign policy. One cannot preach democracy and disregard it as a
part of foreign policy. Therefore, it is more important to stand up for human rights and
prevent humanitarian catastrophes than keeping the regulations as they are.
Many of the actors that Sweden sent war munition to have no means to (at least so far) to
change their political decisions in the war in Yemen as C2 describes. With P3, the arguments
state that there are yearly evaluations of the regulations. How come the committee is
following up on an ongoing basis without noticing that the war munition is being used to
kill civilians and strengthen terrorist groups? The durability of C2 is far greater than P3. In
summary, the conclusive power of C2 is larger than P3.
C3 (human rights) against P1 (international co-operation)
Moving on, the third argument, clarifies the intention of the Swedish export not only to Saudi
Arabia but also to other nations that openly commit crimes against civilians and go against
human rights. Regarding its relevance, the argument has high relevance which supports the
24
thesis that the Swedish state should not export war munition to straighten out the violation
between democratic values and what the export is standing for. The argument has forceful
conclusive power and supports the original statement.
When comparing C3 against P1 we are putting the importance of not supporting
governments that are committing serious crimes to both their own civilian population and
participation in war against Sweden's security interest and better opportunities. It is more
fair to accept that Sweden should put aside their interest for the sake of saving lives.
Furthermore, there may be an even stronger chance for Sweden to influence the export
control by stopping the export. One can believe that if one of the world’s top exporters stops
exporting it would lead to a controversy and be an influence by itself. Hence, Sweden does
not have to be exporting themselves to influence the export, making P1 unable to reject C3.
C3 (human rights) against P2 (security policy interests and regulations)
When comparing C3 and P2 we are putting the Swedish states credibility against continuous
exceptions which is the exact reason for the contradiction between what is being said and
what is being done. It is more important for the Swedish state's democracy to keep its
credibility and for the intentions of the war munition to not land in the hands of states
committing serious crimes against humanity. For the government to refer to the act (1992:
1300) and still make exceptions with the support that the export is allowed as long as it
“does not conflict with Sweden's international obligations or Sweden's foreign policy”
(2020/21:UU9, p. 18). Here the problem is that the ‘defense’ reason is going to be for
nations such as Saudi Arabia and their gains in the war in Yemen. Even if the export does
not contradict Sweden's international obligations its intentions still stand as supportive of
the crimes committed with the help of the munitions exported. Therefore P2 is not relevant
enough to reject C3 as C3 has stronger morally justifiable evidence and hence more relevant
to its thesis.
It is not reasonable that the security and defense policy that the Swedish state is sending war
munition for is resulting in “nations that like Saudi Arabia clearly commit serious crimes
against human rights and serious crimes against the civilian population in war”
(2020/21:UU9, p. 28). C3 clearly demonstrates the morally unjustifiable export that Sweden
is exporting to states as Saudi Arabia. In the meantime P2 points out that there must have
been security or defense policy for the export to happen. There may be policy reasons for
25
the export, since they however are not mentioned anywhere (in the material overall) we
cannot conclude how necessary they are. For P2 to be able to reject C3 examples of what the
security and defense policy means must be shown and examples given. Otherwise it can be
the security of anything, as the security for a state involved in a war or their economic
security. Since there is no example of the kind of policy reason P2 cannot be morally
justified over the crimes committed by the munitions. Therefore C3 has stronger durability
and conclusive power.
C3 (human rights) against P3 (rules and regulations)
There is tension between C3 and P3 as on one hand the parliament suggests that the
government should stop all exports to Saudi Arabia and nations with similar politics to set
the tune for the Swedish intentions. On the other hand, the committee notes that there is no
reason to revise the regulations. Between these two arguments the greater relevance is
delivered by C3 as the arguments precisely details the negative outcomes of Swedish war
munition which P3 does not have the strength to reject. For P3 to reject C3 it must give an
example on why the Sweish state does not need to change the regulations.
Even though P3 has strong durability it is not sufficient enough to be more justifiable than
C3. The export control committee is yet to analyze the consequences of war munition as C3
describes it as. For this test C3 has stronger durability than P3. The fact that the committee
does evaluations and follows up and concludes that a revision on the regulation is not
needed is not enough to reject C3. Sweden is allowing the export to nations such as Saudi
Arabia and without following up, the accountability for the consequences of war munition is
being lost. If Sweden is willing to send arms etc. and Saudi Arabia is free to use it in crimes
against human lives no one is held accountable and the cycle continues. C3 has stronger
support to its thesis as it presents how and why the Swedish state should not export as it
cannot be morally justified against the crimes committed with the help of Swedish munition.
For the strongest conclusive power C3 is the winner as P3 lacks the support for its thesis to
conclude how it can be morally justifiable to keep exporting. P3 presents why we can keep
exporting, not if we should.
26
7. Results
C1 C2 C3
P1 tested P1 tested P1 tested
Relevance: weaker Relevance: weaker Relevance: weaker
Durability: weaker Durability: weaker Durability: weaker
Conclusive power: rejected Conclusive power: rejected Conclusive power: rejected
P2 tested P2 tested P2 tested
Relevance: weaker Relevance: equal Relevance: weaker
Durability: weaker Durability: weaker Durability: weaker
Conclusive power: rejected Conclusive power: rejected Conclusive power: rejected
P3 tested P3 tested P3 tested
Relevance: weaker Relevance: weaker Relevance: weaker
Durability: weaker Durability: weaker Durability: weaker
Conclusive power: rejected Conclusive power: rejected Conclusive power: rejected
As we can see from the analysis above, the arguments against the export seem to hold the
most conclusive power in that they are more relevant and durable. It is more reasonable to
accept the importance of the argument of human rights in comparison to arguments of
international co-operation, security interests, and rules and regulations. The same holds for
the other arguments, contra-arguments about credibility are more reasonable to accept in
comparison to co-operation and so on for all arguments tested against each other. From this,
we can conclude that the answer to the question: “should the Swedish state export war
munition”? is no. This is because the arguments against the export turned out to be the
stronger arguments when compared to the arguments in favor of such export. Because
Swedish weapon exports clearly go against Swedish principles, Sweden should not export
munitions. In addition to the discussion above, there seem to also be contradictions between
the arguments in the pro-side making it harder to accept the pro-export stance.
27
Democratic states have the tendency to advocate for democracy, which is the case for
Sweden, making the Swedish state contradictive. The export has the ability to undermine
Sweden’s credibility as an advocacy of democratic principles. This is troublesome on both the
international and the national level. Because the Swedish government is advocating for
democracy and is one of the world’s largest exporters they are speaking against themselves in
the attempts to proclaim democracy. Therefore, the argumentation pro the export is
non-plausible. The justification for arms exports for commercial reasons reflects the reality
we have today, which partially shows that profit is more important than fighting wars in other
parts of the world. Furthermore it shows that the Swedish government prioritizes their own
agenda, interests and securing better opportunities over preserving democratic values and
human rights.
8. Concluding remarks
When it comes to generalizability to other cases such as the export of other democratic
states it is difficult to estimate how the results from this thesis can be generalized in specific
to other cases. We need to keep in mind that Sweden is a rather special case with strong
democracy and is yet one of the largest exporters in the world. However, the relevance,
durability and conclusive power of the arguments still stand and can in other tests with
similar pro-arguments generate similar results. The fact that Sweden also exports war
munition even to undemocratic states (as evident from the arguments and mentioned in
section 3), constitutes a further problem for advocates of continued export. This strengthens
my conclusions even more, because it seems extra morally awful to export to countries that
obviously violate democratic principles.
However, the arguments analyzed in this thesis are of course not the only arguments made
from either side. This thesis chooses to test the arguments in sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2
because they hold important information, which brings at least a piece to the puzzle of
whether Sweden ought to export weapons. The outcome of the thesis could be different with
other arguments, for example if there were arguments that pointed to the strong need for
economic gains from the export. Even with that I think that the argument on human rights,
democratic principles and combating terrorism hold great(er) relevance, durability and
conclusive power. One specific argument which would hold great relevance and durability
against contra-arguments would be security arguments and in specific if the Swedish
28
security for human rights was at risk. The same ‘security’ logic can be applied to the war in
Ukraine where Sweden exported munitions for the sake of democracy, human rights and
international security. Moreover, there was also more in the material regarding permit
examination, laws and the obstacles to granting a permit which need to be further examined.
There are likewise many more aspects of democracy and theoretical starting points that need
to be assessed in future studies. For example, due to the scoop of this essay, concepts such
as “freedom” and “justice” were not included. Had concepts such as these been analyzed, it
is possible that my conclusions would have differed. The same applies to the Swedish
import of war munition which also is an important factor for the relation between Sweden
and its partners. Questions to keep in mind for future studies are: How has the Swedish state
justified arms export to explicitly undemocratic states? If Sweden should export,
normatively speaking, who should it export to? Should any state export?
At the time of writing this thesis the Social Democrats' party board has decided to apply for
NATO membership to strengthen Swedish security. This could have definitive effects on the
Swedish war munition as nearly two hundred years of alliance-free politics comes to an end.
With time to tell the future of Swedish foreign policy on security policy and military this
thesis is concluded.
29
9. Bibliography
Amnesty. (n.d) Vapenhandel. Retrieved 2022-03-11 from
https://www.amnesty.se/vara-rattighetsfragor/kris-och-konflikt/vapenhandel/
Beckman, Ludvig. (2005) Grundbok I Idéanalys: Det Kritiska Studiet Av Politiska Texter
Och Idéer. Print.
Bergström Göran and Boréus Kristina. (2005) Textens mening och makt: metodbok i
samhällsvetenskaplig text-och diskursanalys. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bäck, Henry, Torbjörn Larsson and Gissur Erlingsson. (2008) Den svenska politiken:
struktur, processer och resultat. (2:e upplagan) Malmö: Liber.
Edström, Håkan. (2016) Efter EU-medlemskapet. Nya linjer i svensk utrikespolitik?.
Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 118(4).
Eemeren, Frans H. Van, Rob Grootendorst, and Arnolda Francisca Snoeck Henkemans.
(2002) Argumentation : Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates. Print.
Ejvegård, Rolf. (2005) Argumentationsanalys. Print
Esaiasson, Peter, Gilljam, Mikael, Oscarsson, Henrik, Wängnerud, Lena. (2017)
Metodpraktikan. Nordstedts förlag. 5th edition
Freedom House. (n.d) Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report. Retrieved 2022-05-19
from https://freedomhouse.org/country/sweden/freedom-world/2021
Fägersten, Björn, & Jerdén, Björn. (2018) En moralisk stormakt i post-neutral tappning:
Svensk utrikespolitik 2011–2018. Internasjonal Politikk, 76(4), 343-354.
Gómez, Christina. Commentary: Organizing Tensions—From the Prison to the
Military-Industrial Complex. (2009) Social Justice, 36(2), 116.
30
Gustavsson, Jakob and Jonas Tallberg (red). (2014) Internationella relationer. Stockholm:
Studentlitteratur. 3rd edition
Ikegami, Masako. (2013) The End of a ‘National’Defence Industry?: Impacts of
Globalization on the Swedish Defence Industry. Scandinavian Journal of History, 38(4),
436-457.
Inspektionen för strategiska produkter. (n.d.a ) Introduktion till försvarsmateriel. Retrieved
2022-05-05 from
https://isp.se/krigsmateriel/introduktion-till-krigsmateriel-och-tekniskt-bistand/
Inspektionen för strategiska produkter. (n.d.b) Exportkontrollrådet. Retrieved 2022-05-19
from https://isp.se/om-isp/vara-rad/exportkontrollradet/
Inspektionen för strategiska produkter. (2017) Annual Report 2017.
https://isp.se/media/1269/isp_annualreport2017_web.pdf (retrieved 2022-05-15)
Lundmark, Martin. (2019) 15 The Swedish defence industry. The Economics of the Global
Defence Industry.
McCormick, John, Hague & Rod, Harrop, Martin. (2016) Comparative Government and
Politics. An Introduction (10:e upplagan). Palgrave.
Motion 2017/18:3826. Svensk försvarsindustri
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/83BABFD5-38EC-463F-880A-C5555309C951
Nationalencyklopedin. (n.d) argumentationsanalys. Retrieved 2022-05-05 from
http://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/lång/argumentationsanalys
Peoples, Columba & Nick Vaughan-Williams. (2014) Critical Security Studies. An
Introduction. London: Routledge. 2nd edition
Quistbergh, Fredrik. (2010) Så snurrar vapenkarusellen. Rapport/ Svenska freds-och
skiljedomsföreningen. Stockholm: Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen.
31
Regeringskansliet. (2018). Vad är mänskliga rättigheter? Retrieved 2022-05-02 from
https://www.regeringen.se/regeringens-politik/demokrati-och-manskliga-rattigheter/fakta-om-
manskliga-rattigheter/vad-ar-manskliga-rattigheter/
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl. (1991) "What democracy is... and is not."
Journal of democracy 2.3. 75-88.
Sveriges Riksdag. (n.d) Lag (1992:1300) om krigsmaterial. Retrieved 2022-05-06 from
http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=1992:1300
Svenska Freds. (n.d) FAQ Vapenexport. Retrieved 2022-03-11 from
https://www.svenskafreds.se/vad-vi-gor/vapenexport/faq-vapenexport/
Svenska Freds. (2022) Kommentar: Svensk vapenexport till Ukraina. Retrieved 2022-03-11
from
https://www.svenskafreds.se/upptack/forsvars-och-sakerhetspolitik/vapenexportentillukraina/
SVT. (2022) Sverige skickar fler vapen till Ukraina. Retrieved 2022-04-23 from
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-skickar-fler-vapen-till-ukraina
Åkerström, Linda, and Svenska Freds- Och Skiljedomsföreningen. (2016) Den Svenska
Vapenexporten Print.
Åkerström, Linda. (2020) Nära en tredjedel av vapenexporten 2019 till ickedemokratier.
Retrieved 2022-04-29 from
https://www.svenskafreds.se/upptack/nedrustning/nara-en-tredjedelav-vapenexporten-2019-til
l-ickedemokratier/
2020/21:UU9. Strategisk exportkontroll 2020 - krigsmateriel och produkter med dubbla
användningsområden.
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/59F179DC-AB1B-4D78-AD93-147408CF102A
32