<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Simon Lunn</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ensuring Democratic Control of Armed Forces – The Enduring Challenges</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Connections: The Quarterly Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">democratic control</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">oversight</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">parliamentary control</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security sector reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">29-52</style></pages><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Armed forces constitute the foundation for the defense and security of their societies. They protect against external threats and, when required, provide coercive power. As a corporate body, they play a prominent role in the ordering of the nation’s affairs, in the development of national security policy, and in the allocation of national resources. Their role is guided by a single principle: their subordination to democratically elected political leadership. This democratic control ensures they serve the societies they protect. 
This article identifies the key elements needed to ensure effective democratic control. It examines the role of the executive in the organization and employment of the armed forces and the legislature in providing oversight and accountability. The tensions in defining competence and responsibility where the political and military worlds and perspectives intersect are alleviated in the process of fusion, collision, or reconciliation at all levels, from policy to operations. Democratic control must reflect societal developments as in the influence of information technology or the impressive “genderization” of defense and security. Two decades of transition in Europe have shown that democratic control is a process in which each country adapts the basic principles to its own circumstances.
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><num-vols><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">29-52</style></num-vols></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nadja Milanova</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institutional Resilience and Building Integrity in the Defence and Security Sector</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Connections: The Quarterly Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BI</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Building Integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">corruption</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense and security sector</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">institutional resilience</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Summer 2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">67-75</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The concept of resilience in defense and security is evolving towards the inclusion of a wide-ranging and multi-dimensional set of vulnerabilities and associated mitigation strategies across the spectrum of military and non-military mechanisms of response. This article argues that while corruption and poor governance are now recognized as a security threat, as articulated in the NATO Warsaw Summit Declaration, the strengthening of defense and related security institutions in both Allied and partner countries remains to be further embedded as an integral part of the concept of resilience. Institutional resilience based on integrity, transparency and accountability is critical for ensuring the fulfilment of NATO’s resilience commitment and its baseline requirements, which include inter alia continuity of government with the ability to make decisions and provide services to the population. Corruption and poor governance undermine public trust and perpetuate instability and fragility. NATO’s Building Integrity policy contributes to the fulfilment of the Alliance’s three core tasks – collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO’s work on Projecting Stability vis-à-vis partners has recognized the role of good governance as a component of improving partners’ resilience. This needs to be further institutionalized through consistent efforts at strengthening defense institutions. The contribution of institutional resilience to NATO’s defense and deterrence task needs to be further conceptualized. The article argues for a more consistent approach to operationalizing Building Integrity as an integral part of the concept of resilience and the need for robust institutional capabilities to mitigate vulnerabilities stemming from the risk of corruption as a security threat.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">67</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO Initiatives in Support of Defence Management Reform and Integrity Building</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence institution building</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">June 2014</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Centre for Security and Defence Management</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In a presentation to the 86th Rose-Roth seminar, organized by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, 16-18 June 2014 in Baku, Azerbaijan, Dr. Tagarev elaborates on the need to merge efforts to strengthen defence institution, and in particular to introduce advanced approaches to defence management, and initiatives to build integrity and reduce corruption in defence.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Management Priorities of the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Bulgaria  in the 2013 Caretaker Government</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December 2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Centre for Security and Defence Management</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence governance principles, priorities, and tasks of minister Tagarev as member of Bulgaria’s Caretaker Government, appointed by President Rossen Plevneliev, and his team, aim to provide stability of the defence sector and military operations, open dialogue with the organizations active on defence policy issues, and enhanced cooperation and interaction with our Allies and national security sector organizations. These priorities were publicly announced on 20 March 2013.
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Assya Davidova</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anton Lazarov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rossen Ivanov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Report for the activity of the Ministry of Defence in the period of Bulgaria’s Caretaker Government, 13 March – 28 May 2013 (in Bulgarian)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Common Security and Defence Policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence capabilities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">operations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December 2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Centre for Security and Defence Management</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The minister, deputy ministers and Chief of Cabinet of the MOD in Bulgaria’s Caretaker Government, 13 March – 28 May 2013, account for the results and implementation of the main priorities and tasks, including the provision of stability of the defence sector and military operations, open dialogue with the organizations active on defence policy issues, and enhanced cooperation and interaction with our Allies and national security sector organizations. This document was presented publicly and published on the MOD website on May 28, 2013.
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Challenges of Implementation of National Security Strategies in Transition Democracies from a Governance Perspective</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">corruption</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">efficiency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec reports</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security strategy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">smart security</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">terrorist attack at Burgas airport</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September 2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">103</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute of Information and Communication Technologies</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Notes for the report to the conference on “Transforming National Security Concepts as a Response to New Global and Security Challenges and Threats: Experiences from Ukraine and NATO,” Kyiv, 19 September 2012, session “National Security Concepts of NATO and EU countries: Lessons Learned.”</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Countering Corruption in the Defence Sector: Main Risks and Challenges</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence audit.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence resource management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec reports</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">83</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute of Information and Communication Technologies</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence is not immune to corruption. Several factors make the defence sector even more susceptible to corruption than other sectors, which sometimes manifests in unexpected forms. Hence, the corruption challenge has to be analysed comprehensively, while integrity initiatives are focused and build on success. Transparency and accountability are the most powerful tools to enhance integrity and reduce corruption in a democratic society. Their implementation in the defence sector along with other, more problem-specific measures, has to be provided in a single good governance framework. This presentation presents examples from the experience of Bulgaria, that could of use to the ongoing anti corruption endeavours of the Ukrainian defence sector.  </style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phases and Challenges of Security Sector Reform in the Experience of Bulgaria</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">armed forces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">civilian control</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Consortium.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">efficiency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec reports</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PfP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security sector reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">85</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute of Information and Communication Technologies</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports 85 includes the main theses of a presentation at the “Oversight and Accountability of the Defense Sector” panel of the Annual Conference of the Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 22-23 June 2011. The report describes the Bulgarian experience along the three main phases of reform in the post-communist transition of the country: (1) Establishing key mechanisms for civilian control over the armed forces and protection of human rights in the early 1990s; (2) Building democratic defense institutions, starting in the late 1990s and continuing to be in the focus throughout the first decade of the new century; and (3) Transformation of the security sector as a whole – the current focus of reform efforts.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philipp Fluri</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adrian Kendry</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark Pyman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Simon Lunn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ashley Thornton</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Building Integrity and Reducing Corruption in Defence: A Compendium of Best Practices</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">corruption</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-92-9222-114-0 </style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency and corruption challenges in the defence sphere often affect not only transition states but also established democracies. This compendium, the product of cooperation between Transparency International UK, the NATO PfP team and DCAF, focuses on concepts and tools which can ensure good practices in defence management and policy through enhancing transparency, increasing accountability and building integrity. Designed primarily as an introduction and reference tool for defence personnel, civilians in the defence sphere, democratic institutions, and civil society will also find materials on integrity building and anti-corruption measures which are relevant to their own security governance activities</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Improving Governance in the Management of Resources in the Security and Defence Sector</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">armed forces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">civilian control</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">efficiency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec reports</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">regional cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security sector reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">South Eastern Europe.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">41</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute of Information and Communication Technologies</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports 41 includes the main theses of a presentation at the NATO-RACVIAC conference on “Better Management of Defence Resources, including Integrity Building in the Armed Forces,” Rakitje, Croatia, 14-16 September 2009. It sees resource management in security and defence as traditionally judged in view of effectiveness and efficiency. However, when the decisions are made by a few insiders and under the veil of secrecy, there is no guarantee that the interests of society will be protected. Further, there are no guarantees that the use of public resources will deliver anticipated effects in an efficient manner. In approaching this general problem, the paper outlines general principles of democratic governance of the security sector. It then focuses on the institutional perspective on democratic governance, underlining ways in which a defence minister can greatly contribute to improving governance in managing resources for security and defence. Finally, the paper lays out ideas on how the cooperation among countries in South Eastern Europe could contribute to strengthening the governance of security and defence sectors, and resource management in particular.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nilufer Narli</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Initiatives for Transparency-Building in Turkey:  International, Regional and Domestic Factors</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">armed forces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Civil-military relations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Force planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">procurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Turkish military</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34-54</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Taking Turkey as a case study, this article addresses a specific question: What are the factors that support citizens' initiatives for transparency of defence resources planning and budgeting? It assumes that transparency-building is usefully analysed at three levels – the national or “domestic,” the regional and the international – and, therefore, differentiates relevant influencing factors at these levels. Hypothesised to be significant at the international level are shifts in the balance of power (e.g., the demise of the Soviet Union, ending of the Cold War), international treaties concerning armament (e.g., the Conventional Forces in Europe /CFE/ accord) and international documents on various security matters (e.g., the Vienna Document 1999), new global threats (e.g., terrorism, especially following the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001) and wars, real or likely (e.g., the recent fighting in Iraq). At the domestic level, the article considers several economic, political and socio-political factors as variables affecting citizens' demands for transparency of defence resources planning and budgeting. The following factors shape the transparency-building attitude: fiscal crises and poverty; perceived and real threats to national security; the activities of separatist or extremist movements; how the country’s political culture defines the position of the military vis-à-vis society and the political elite, plus the nature of civil-military relations; and the impact of reforms that change legal and political frameworks..</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Means of Comparing Military Budgeting Processes in South East Europe</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Budget Transparency Initiative</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">framework</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">methodology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">military budgeting</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">questionnaire</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">95-135</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This paper presents a methodology for comparative assessment of military budgeting systems and practices. It is intended for implementation within the Budget Transparency Initiative (BTI) of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SEE). The methodology shall allow BTI participants and other beneficiaries to identify promising areas for dissemination of  good local practice among SEE countries, as well as areas where all SEE countries lack necessary expertise or experience and the region as a whole would need outside support to improve the military budgeting practices. In a hierarchy of criteria, the methodology covers military budgets, budgeting process, budget execution, and assessment of budget execution. Special attention is paid to the issues of transparency and assurance of integrity of military budgeting. The paper includes a description of an idealised military budgeting process to serve as a benchmark, a comprehensive questionnaire to compare existing systems and practices to the benchmark, sets of possible answers to the questions, and guidance on how to process respective answers to the questionnaire. 
Potentially, the proposed methodology may be useful in other studies aiming to improve democratic governance, transparency and accountability in the public sector, in particular in the defence and the security sector.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tilcho Ivanov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency of Defence Policy in Progress</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">access to information</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">accountability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria’s defence reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Civil-military relations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence resource management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information Security</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">procurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">public tenders.</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">55-72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This article describes general principles and evaluates Bulgaria’s progress in transparency-building in the areas of defence policy and public communication; defence planning, programming, and budgeting; procurement policy; information security policy; and operational defence management. Drawing heavily from organizational communication theory, the author relates the concepts of openness and transparency to recent Bulgarian practice in planning defence strategy, modernising defence management and changing core defence ministerial structures.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>