Dominerar suveränitets eller beskyddardiskurs i rättfärdigandet av Amerikanska militära interventioner?

Sammanfattning: This thesis examines the language used in the argumentation for interventions. Language is a mighty tool in every day life but in politics it is the way to survive, which means that language is power. The thesis examines argumentation before the United States interventions in Vietnam 1960 and Afghanistan 2001 to se in which discourse they fit either protective or sovereignty. It finds that the intervention in Vietnam finds can be placed in the protective discourse and Afghanistan 2001 in the sovereignty discourse. But the thesis finds it hard to determine that one discourse dominates over the other.