War-peace dialectic revisited

Abstract The increasingly blurred distinction between war and peace described by Leonard (2021) as an alternation of two interrelated labels, i.e. ‘unpeace’ and ‘unwar’, is crucially relevant to the need to reevaluate the interdependence of the closely related concepts of neutrality, non-alignment and security in political and legal discourses. Sweden is a case in point: having been a ‘nation of peace’ during its long-standing neutrality ( Parker 2017 ), it turned into a ‘militarily non-aligned country’ in the post-neutrality period, and it eventually became a NATO member in 2024, having abandoned its neutrality after Russia’s brutal, illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine in the quest for security. The aim of this chapter is to scrutinise the major paradigm shifts that have marked the political statements delivered by top Swedish politicians in the post-cold war period, by analysing keyword recontextualisation and reconceptualisation processes, as well as reframed argumentation strategies. Using a pragmatic approach to keywords ( Ilie 2007 , 2013 ; Wierzbicka 1997 ) and an argumentation framework of analysis ( Ilie 2018 , 2021 ; Rigotti and Rocci 2005 ; Walton, Reed, and Macagno 2008 ), the focus has been on context-based (re)definitions of political concepts used by Swedish politicians in order to persuade domestic and international audiences about the justification and legitimacy of Sweden’s paradoxical and apparently contradictory positions: on the one hand, persevering in upholding its neutrality and non-aligned status during the post-cold war period, and, on the other, abandoning its long-standing neutrality status to join NATO after Russia’s invasion and war on Ukraine.