Change search
Refine search result
1 - 21 of 21
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    Danmark2009Report (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Division of Strategy.
    Defense planning beyond rationalism: the third offset strategy as a case of metagovernance2018In: Defence Studies, ISSN 1470-2436, E-ISSN 1743-9698, Vol. 18, no 3, p. 262-278Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article analyzes U.S. defense planning, and more specifically the public administration of the third offset strategy. The U.S. defense bureaucracy is rooted in a tradition of rational planning, which assumes a process of consistent, value-maximizing choices within specified constrains. The cornerstone in this tradition is the program budgeting system, once created to connect plans with budgets according to preferences. The third offset strategy, aimed at dealing with the challenges of geopolitical competition and budget austerity, is influenced by a different public administration philosophy described as metagovernance. Metagovernance is a challenge to rational planning as it entails an indirect approach of organizing arenas for networks, in which start-up companies and civilian corporations get to interact with government officials in order to identify incrementally suitable acquisition projects. Furthermore, the article contextualizes this tendency in reflexive modernity, in which rationality breaks down due to the pace of societal changes and planning processes constantly become subject to feedback.

  • 3.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    Drömmen om samfällighet1998In: Politik & samhälle, ISSN 1402-9170, no 2, p. 102Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 4.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    Eight Essays in Contemporary War Studies2007Collection (editor) (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    Far Away, So Close: Comparing Danish and Swedish Security and Defence Policies2009In: Militært tidsskrift, ISSN 0026-3850, no 3, p. 1-18Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 6.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategiavdelningen med folkrättscentrum.
    Fjärran, så nära: en jämförelse mellan dansk och svensk försvars- och säkerhetspolitik2012In: Norden mellan stormakter och fredsförbund: Nordiskt säkerhetspolitiskt samarbete i det gamla och nya Europa / [ed] Fredrik Doeser, Magnus Petersson, Jacob Westberg, Stockholm: Santérus Academic Press Sweden, 2012Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 7.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    Hur kan Sverige bli medlem i Nato?2011In: Kungl Krigsvetenskapsakademiens Handlingar och Tidskrift, ISSN 0023-5369, no Nr 4, p. 132-137Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 8.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    Lejonet, räven och björnen2008In: Vårt försvar, ISSN 0042–2800, no 4, p. 12-15Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 9.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategiavdelningen med folkrättscentrum (upphört).
    Pooling, Sharing and Specializing: NATO and International Defence Cooperation2013In: NATO beyond 9/11: The Transformation of the Atlantic Alliance / [ed] Ellen Hallams, Luca Ratti and Benjamin Zyla, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 178-197Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article has mapped and analyzed internationaldefence cooperation with an emphasis on developments in NATO. In the mapping ofthe processes of defence cooperation initiatives in NATO after the Cold War and9/11, we concluded that there has been a steady stream of capabilitycatalogues, coordination measures and creation of joint ventures. In theanalysis we noted the different types of defence cooperation initiatives(sharing of capabilities, pooling of capabilities, role- and task sharing,co-development, and pooling of acquisitions), the character of the process(sequential and repetitive), and the dynamic and conditions (trade off dynamicsinfluenced by perceived gains, degree of solidarity, strategic similarities,degree of common understanding of political investment, and geographicproximity). The final part of the text elaborated on the potential consequencesof international defence cooperation; in this part we concluded that the threecategories, that might well mirror the future of the transatlantic securityarchitecture, are minimal defence cooperation, flexible defence cooperation orregional defence integration.

  • 10.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    Solidarity and Sovereignty: The Two-Dimensional Game of Swedish Security Policy2011In: Connections - The Quarterly Journal, ISSN 1812-1098, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 1-23Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 11.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    Solidarity and Sovereignty: The Two-Dimensional Game of Swedish Security Policy2010In: Baltic Security and Defence Review, ISSN 1736-3772, Vol. 12, no 2, p. 26-49Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 12.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    Säkerhetspolitisk teori2004 (ed. 1)Book (Other academic)
  • 13.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    The Military Balance in the Baltic Sea Region: Notes on a Defunct Concept2011In: Nordic Cooperation in the Far North / [ed] Laura Salmela, Helsingfors: National Defence University, Department of Strategic and Defence Studies , 2011, p. 59-79Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 14.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    The Military Balance in the Baltic Sea Region: Notes on a Defunct Concept2012In: Power in the 21st Century: International Security and International Political Economy in a Changing World / [ed] Enrico Fels, Jan-Frederik Kremer & Katharina Kronenberg, Springer, 2012, 1, p. 117-136Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Division of Strategy.
    The NATO question in Sweden under the Trump presidency: Military non-alignment between power politics and feminist foreign policy2017In: Finland, Sweden & NATO: Did Trump Change Everything? / [ed] Jaan Siitonen, Helsingfors: Svenska Bildningsförbundet , 2017, p. 39-56Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 16.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategiavdelningen med folkrättscentrum.
    The Partnerfication of NATO: From Wall-building to Bridge-building?2014In: Cooperative Security: NATO's Partnership Policy in a Changing World / [ed] Trine Flockhart, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) , 2014, p. 60-73Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter tries to supplement some of the early efforts to interpret the development of NATO’s partnership policy, as well as to widen it somewhat into a military operational perspective. Three official speeches on the executive level in the US are analyzed, including their references to military doctrines, in order to find the strategic rationale that underpins the new globalized partnership agenda. Two operational frameworks can be identified for the US: networking and access. Networking is centered on the decapitation of enemies and is being pursued in an on-going global or transnational shadow war. Access is centered on deterrence in Asia. Both frameworks rest on the concept of partnerships, and this is a contributory factor for their growing importance in the Alliance. This ‘partnerfication’ of NATO will certainly contribute to flexibility, but there is a clear risk that it will not be in the interests of all European states, members or partners alike.

  • 17.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    "Till minne av ett Europa vi aldrig mer vill se"2010In: Svensk Tidskrift, ISSN 0039-677X, Vol. 8 oktoberArticle in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 18.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    USA and Europe in the International System - Four American Perspectives2005In: NATO vs. EU? Security Strategies for Europe / [ed] Bernhard May & May-Britt Stumbaum (eds.), Berlin: DGAP , 2005Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 19.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security and Strategic Studies (ISS), Strategy Section.
    Utgångspunkter2009Report (Other academic)
  • 20.
    Christiansson, Magnus
    Swedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    Vägen från Zulu: bilder av en kolonialoperation2008In: Krigsvetenskaplig årsbok 2007 / [ed] Dan Öberg, Stockholm: Försvarshögskolan , 2008, p. 43-60Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 21. Stumbaum, May-Britt
    et al.
    Christiansson, MagnusSwedish National Defence College, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Strategy Section.
    Security Challenges in Times of Change: Regional Options for Co-operation and Development2007Conference proceedings (editor) (Other academic)
1 - 21 of 21
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf