Att legitimera ett normativt avsteg? : En innehållsanalys av Finlands argumentering för utträdet ur Ottawafördraget
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines to what extent securitization and humanitarian identity-maintaining discourses are represented in the Finnish governments and parliament’s arguments for the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty in 2025. The study's method consists of a qualitative content analysis of the Finnish government's proposal and the Defence Committee's statement. Through the study's theoretical framework of securitization and human rights as socially constructed, the analysis identifies recurring patterns for how the withdrawal is discursively motivated. The results of this study indicate that the argumentation has been largely characterized by the securitization discourse where the security environment is presented as altered in relation to Russia's aggression and the war in Ukraine, which is portrayed as exceptional and existential. The threat image presented interacts with arguments about commitments that normal commitments and procedures are considered insufficient, which legitimizes extraordinary measures in the form of withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty. In parallel with the securitization arguments, the analysis shows that humanitarian norms persist where the humanitarian identity is maintained through a strategic reinterpretation of Finland's humanitarian self-image. The Government and the Defence Committee present the withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty as consistent with Finland's humanitarian values, where the emphasis on continued humanitarian commitment to international law and arms control suggests fulfilling the country's humanitarian goals but by other means. In summary, this study contributes to the research field of norms and small states in international relations, where the study presents one way of how states can legitimize normative deviation through the use of both securitization and reinterpretation of their humanitarian identity. The study's findings highlight the way language can be used and play a central role in states' argumentation and management of potential normative costs in times where security requirements compete with a recognized international humanitarian norm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".