<?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%">Orhan Dragaš</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zoran Dragišić</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coordination in the Security Sector in Response to Natural Disasters: The Serbia Cases of 2014 Floods and Covid-19</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%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">COVID-19</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disaster risk</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">floods</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Natural Disasters</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security management</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">48</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">213-225</style></pages><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p style=&quot;margin-left:19.85pt;&quot;&gt;This article analyses two different natural disasters, the 2014 floods that hit the Republic of Serbia and several neighboring countries and the Covid-19 pandemic. From the view of coordination in the security sector, these two natural disasters represent excellent case studies, given the entirely different conditions in which the entire national security system had to be engaged.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p style=&quot;margin-left:19.85pt;&quot;&gt;This study examines the similarities and differences in response to two different security challenges and the effects of the measures taken. We have in mind that these are security challenges that have a common origin &amp;ndash; nature. Still, they also have numerous differences, primarily concerning the population and the unequal potential to harm the health of the population, property, and economy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p style=&quot;margin-left:19.85pt;&quot;&gt;With this in mind, we assumed that coordination in the security sector had different models in order to provide the most effective response in addressing the challenges. We concluded that the similarities in these two cases manifested themselves at the normative level. Extraordinary circumstances were declared, and certain regulations changed to provide for the most efficient use of security resources. In both cases, the management of the fight against challenges was centralized. Yet, the difference was manifested in the level of that centralization, which was appropriate to the circumstances and ultimately allowed high efficiency in countering the hazards and their consequences.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">213</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%">Giulia Ferraro</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prospects for Improvement in Peacebuilding: The Choice for Cooperation and Coordination</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%">cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">peacebuilding</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United Nations Support Mission in Libya</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">UNSMIL</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">48</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">171-183</style></pages><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p style=&quot;margin-left:19.85pt;&quot;&gt;In this article, the author argues that there is a systematic tendency of some actors operating in the field of peace and security to resist cooperation and disregard the importance of coordination. Their inability to see the value of interdependence resulting from frailty and short-sightedness leads to unhealthy relationships and unsatisfactory outcomes. Through an analysis of the peacebuilding field, the article reflects on the central role played by cooperation and coordination. Focusing on the case of Libya, the author examines some cooperation and coordination strategies pursued by the United Nations support mission and highlights promising results that have recently been achieved thanks to its dedication and determination. The conclusion is that it is worth investing in cooperation and coordination in the peacebuilding field; however, as it stands today, fundamental changes are needed in the way cooperation is carried out while it remains desirable to reconsider how coordination is pursued.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">171</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%">Velizar Shalamanov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Organising for IT Effectiveness, Efficiency and Cyber Resilience in the Academic Sector: National and Regional Dimensions</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%">consolidation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cyber resilience</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">governance model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">network governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">regional cooperation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49-66</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This article presents an architecture and analysis of the change management aspects of security in public administration, developed as part of a study of best practices in the management of IT organisations with emphasis on effectiveness, efficiency and cyber resilience. The analysis served as a basis for defining a model of academic support to cyber resilience. The implementation envisions use of the BEST environment (Basic/budget Environment for Simulation and Training), which was initially developed for the crisis management domain and later adapted to support organisational and human risks analysis in the cyber domain in research and training activities on cyber resilience. This environment is used for PESTEL analysis of the cyber environment to identify a model for resilience from organisational and human perspective and to support SWOT assessment of the possible implementation paths in order to select the most suitable among all qualified solutions and provide training of the personnel involved. Regional aspects of cyber resilience are addressed in the context of the NATO/EU framework, limited to the academic area. Finally, the article addresses organisational and human aspects and presents a concept of an Academic CERT Association at national level and the possibilities to use it as a model for a regional network.</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%">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>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%">Valeri Ratchev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Civil-Military Interaction at the Core of the EU Comprehensive Approach</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NDU Scientific Quarterly</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">civil-military cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comprehensive approach</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EU</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%">Winter 2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">85</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57-81</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The European Union is a unique and complex power, with a potential to act in the field of security that has been largely underutilized. The particular choices on future EU security roles will be shaped by the structural conditions for EU decision-making, as well as trends and factors that do and will drive the respective decisions. Towards that purpose, the first part of this article presents a study on dimensions, structural conditions, and drivers. It summarises the advances in the implementation of the comprehensive approach and outlines constraints impacting the definition of EU roles in this respect. The second part of the paper focuses on the evolution of civil-military interaction – the key ingredient in the evolution of the comprehensive approach. It looks into the origins of contemporary civil-military interaction in operations and presents the two main concepts of civil-military cooperation, or CIMIC, and civil-military coordination. It then presents current EU policies with major impact on the development and use of civilian and military assets in EU operations, including the interfaces between EU and NATO. The final section examines the civil-military dimension of future EU roles in the implementation of the comprehensive approach. It looks at potential developments in civil-military interaction in ‘external’ and ‘internal’ roles and identifies plausible EU roles in developing ‘mixed’ civil-military capabilities.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</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%">Lachezar Milushev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Methodological Issues in Planning for Crises and Natural Disasters</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%">coordination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">estimates</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">inter­action.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Models</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Organization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Plan</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%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17-26</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Advance planning of actions for crises and natural disasters constitutes a significant element in the preparation of governmental agencies and local au­thorities from the executive branch, the legal entities and individual businesses, which have obligations under the legislation of the country. A basic requirement of emergency planning is coordination, which requires a unified planning methodol­ogy and the establishment of an interdepartmental organization to facilitate the process. The quality of advance planning is of great importance for the efficient management of forces and capabilities in order to ensure timely reaction to crises and natural disasters.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>