ABSTRACT
This chapter explains the apparent peculiarities of Swedish and Finnish approaches to security institutions within the context of theoretical debates on security integration. It presents the individual country case studies. The chapter explores the relative strength of Finland's and Sweden's current military non-alignment stance and how they have translated material and ideational preferences into policy. It examines the role of the institutional environment within which Finland and Sweden make their security choices. A distinction is made between an institutionally permissive and non-permissive environment and it is argued that the slow evolution of the European Union's security profile has allowed Finland and Sweden to pursue security policies that have not challenged military non-alignment. The chapter discusses the theoretical implications of identity and security integration. Finnish and Swedish security integration choices reveal that both ideational and rationalist motives guided policies. Both states, for different reasons, are concerned about the impact security integration has on their identity
