<?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%">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%">Velizar Shalamanov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information technologies for good governance in defence, security, and the public sector: Experience and outlook</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%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">project portfolio</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security sector reform</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%">December 2014</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">27</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 author presents the experience in the first five years since the establishment of Department “Research &amp; Development of Information Systems,” the consolidation of the research capacity in the “IT for Security” Department, the necessity of applying advanced information technologies and the outlook for the IT-focused research for the good governance in the public sphere, with focus on defence and security.

Associate Professor Dr. Velizar Shalamanov is the first head of Department “Research &amp; Development of Information Systems” since its establishment on January 1, 2005 till the summer of 2009. At current, he is Director “Customers Management” in the NATO Communication and Information Agency (on unpaid leave from the institute). Dr. Velizar Shalamanov served as defence minister in Bulgaria's Caretaker Government, 6 August - 6 November 2014.</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%">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%">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%">David Greenwood</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A South-East European Defence Transparency Audit</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%">audit</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">budget transparency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MAP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Membership Action Plan</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO enlargement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Partnership for Peace</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PfP</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%">11-33</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The article presents the major findings of a comprehensive study, led by the author in his capacity as Research Director at the Centre for European Security Studies, Groningen, The Netherlands. As a result of this ‘defence transparency audit’ eight countries in South East Europe (SEE) are ranked in terms of their information-disclosure policies, procedures and publications. As of 2002, the two NATO invitees earn highest ratings. The three SEE MAP (Membership Action Plan) countries follow. The troubled states of the old Yugoslavia – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro – come lower in the transparency ranking while Moldova sits in bottom place. In addition the article identifies useful examples of good practice in defence transparency and accountability in SEE.</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>