<?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>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paul Ballinger</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lessons from a Customer-Funding Regime in a Large IT Organization</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%">agility</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">financial management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">managing change</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">transition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49-62</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The author highlights 10 personal takeaways for a NATO IT Agency operating under a customer-funding mandate. Takeaways represent reflections from ten years of experience leading the financial management of the large not-for-profit NATO IT organization. The emphasis is on service delivery, cost efficiency, continuity, transparency, teamwork and community. </style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49</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%">Key Prerequisites for Integrity in Defence - Role of Parliament</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%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence budgeting</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%">parliamentarian oversight</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">April 2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">29</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 report to the session “Defence Management Reform and Integrity Building” of the 88th Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Belgrade, 31 March - 2 April 2015, the author outlines three key prerequisites for integrity in defence: having a balanced, adequate, acceptable, and affordable defence policy; assessment of plans, budget proposals, and reports with a view on planned or actual results; and effective cooperation and coordination among key security stakeholders. The report further suggests roles of parliaments and parliamentarian committees on security and 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%">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>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Valeri Ratchev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to develop an effective, efficient and democratic defence institution - the lessons we are learning</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">civil-military</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence institution building</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">institutional perspective</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PAP-DIB</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></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In a presentation to the Georgian MPs, staffers and defence experts Amb. Ratchev discusses the institutional perspective to defence reform and the key lessons from the experience of Bulgaria and other Central and Eastern European countries. He outlines principles, requirements and challenges in creating a modern defence institution that is effective, transparent, and accountable.</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%">Robert K. Murphy</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">G. Richard Cathers</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency in Force Modernization Decisions</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%">acquisition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">capabilities-based assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">capability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">force modernization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">requirements</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">strategy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transformation</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><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">207-223</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency, as defined for this paper, is the continual process of 
openness, accountability, and governance, plays a vital role in force modernization 
decisions. It is essential in capabilities-based planning (CBP), and because of rising 
acquisition costs, transformation has become the overall vision for military strategy. 
Transformation is implemented by capabilities-based planning resulting in force 
modernization decisions. Without a well defined, repeatable, and transparent 
evaluation process, national vulnerabilities and required capabilities might be incorrectly identified, resulting in wrong solutions. Force modernization decisions based 
upon transparency can provide the basis for a highly effective, low cost solution. 
The solution does not have to be a technical solution, but can be a change in Doctrine; Organization; Training; Leadership development; Materiel; Personnel; or Facilities (DOTLMPF). By including transparency for identifying requirements, we 
can ensure that the requirement answers the how, what, why, when, and who so that 
a credible decision can be made. Force modernization decisions using capabilities 
based planning and value tools that help structure and evaluate requirements have 
been used very effectively. A simple, top-down approach of Strategy to Need is 
used to initiate the evaluation. Force modernization decisions should be made using 
processes, methodologies, and supporting tools which allow for fully transparent 
assessments for the decision-maker. In other words, assessments should be traceable and accountable. Processes should be clear, methodologies should be simple, 
and the tools should be easy to use and understand. Several countries have successfully used this process for evaluating alternatives against a set of requirements. 
These assessments have included upgrading fleets, restructuring organizations, and 
acquiring new equipment.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue></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><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gueorgui Stankov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lozan Bizov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Atanas Natchev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Framework Methodology to Support the Selection of a Multipurpose Fighter</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%">AHP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">contract management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Decision Support</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense acquisition management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defense procurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DSS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">82-91</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The procurement of multipurpose fighter planes is one of the major procurement, or modernization projects, announced by Bulgaria’s Ministry of Defense in 2002, but a procurement case has not been initiated so far. This article calls for a transparent decision-making process within a rational framework, based on both qualitative and quantitative analysis, that would allow to select “the best” multipurpose fighter for the Bulgarian Air Force. After outlining the main assumptions, the authors examine the issue of identifying and structuring the criteria for selection of a multipurpose fighter, describe the main steps of a rational, quantitatively-based, transparent decision-making process and analyze the major decision support requirements, as well as methods and tools that may be used in providing analytical support to both the selection process and the follow-on contract and project management.</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%">Marko A. Hofmann</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heiko Hahn</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Is it Apprpopriate to Use the Objective, Rational Decision- Making Framework as a Foundation for Modelling Social Systems?</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%">Heuristics.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Objectivity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rational-Analytic Decision Making Framework</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Social Systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17-27</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In general, the developers of Decision Support Systems (DSS) look for objectivity and the support of the rational choice. These guiding principles are rarely reflected upon because they are so successful for technical problems and within the humanities. However, the majority of DSS for military purposes—especially in the context of the new tasks related to transformation of the armed forces—have to deal with social systems. These systems differ significantly from systems with no human interaction. First, there is an irreducible amount of uncertainty about the cause-effect-relations in such systems, which leads to unpredictability of many phenomena. Second, there is also a non-negligible amount of uniqueness in each event that makes it extremely hard to find general rules, which may help to find reproducible behavior. Third, most events cannot be evaluated from an objective point of view since every evaluation depends on subjective criteria. In the quest for objectivity and using the Rational Analytical Decision-Making Framework (RADMF) easily leads to erroneously take personal assumptions for apodictic postulations, which are originally based on prejudice and dogmatism. It also often results in lack of critical discussion because an objectively-best solution can only be questioned outside the decision framework. Therefore, this article ad¬vises on the use of transparency instead of objectivity and of heuristic decision frameworks instead of the RADMF.</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%">Georgi Pavlov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Veselina Aleksandrova</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E-Tender - An Approach for Ensuring Transparency  in Defence Budget Management</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%">defence policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">e-Government</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electronic tender</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information technology impact</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Internet online application</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">public procurement</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%">148-162</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The authors present a software product development in support of conducting of electronic tenders (“e-Tender”). The product may be implemented in accordance with the purposes of the Law on Public Tenders - the law that establishes terms and procedures for public procurement. E-Tender will facilitate transparency of defence policy concerning planning and budgeting processes - one of the main objectives of Partnership for Peace programme. This article considers the e-tender not only as an Internet on-line application for improving transparency of defence management but also as a decision support tool.
The following objectives are achieved through successful realization of a public web site for electronic submission of documents: increased public access and transparency of tenders; confidentiality of any company information provided; and confidentiality of proposals made by the prospective contractors. Each participant, through specialized programmes called agents, is able to ask for the opinion of “independent” experts (for example, experts from foreign centres for analyses and prognoses) and to add to the database of potential project contractors. Another advantage is that the possibility to create a database for those companies that have successfully executed contracts, as well for companies that have had significant problems in meeting the customers’ expectations. The software realization of such tenders would also provide excellent opportunities for accelerating the execution of urgent requests, for example, procurement of perishable products. In addition, an interested observer would be able to check what were the criteria and the method of analysis chosen by a contractor. As a whole, the transparency of public procurement relates closely to the widely discussed issues of e-Government.</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%">Dobromir Totev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bisserka Boudinova</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information Support for Effective Resource Management</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%">Cost Module</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defense Resource Management Model (DRMM)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">deterministic computer model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Force Module</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Integrated planning system</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">program structure</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Programming</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">138-150</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defense planning is a complex process that accounts for qualitative factors such as changes in security environment and political priorities, and quantitative factors such as costs, resource constraints and various measures of capabilities and risks. This article describes the Bulgarian experience in implementing advanced information technologies to support the process of defense planning, including phases of long-term planning, programming, and budgeting. The focus is on the implementation of the Defense Resource Management Model (DRMM) to match required capabilities and available resources during the programming phase</style></abstract></record></records></xml>