<?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%">Sarah Backman</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Organising National Cybersecurity Centres</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%">cybersecurity management practices</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cybersecurity organisation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">digital development</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Finland</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Germany</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">national cybersecurity centre</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">National cybersecurity management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">national cybersecurity strategy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Netherlands</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United Kingdom</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United States</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%">July 2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9-26</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The emerging trend in practises of organising national cybersecurity management via national cybersecurity centres unifies preventive and reactive cybersecurity measures and moves towards an all-hazard approach. These centres constitute some of the most modern ways of organising national cybersecurity man&amp;not;agement and originate from a holistic view of cybersecurity. Based on the empirical examples from the UK, the US, Finland, Germany and The Netherlands, the paper identifies basic motivational aspects behind the creation of national cybersecurity centres, as well as common features, such as strategy documents, organisational frameworks, tasks and responsibilities. Moreover, this paper seeks to identify if the national cybersecurity centres appear to be successful. The paper finds that the national cybersecurity centres are given increasing amounts of resources, tasks, responsibilities and/or freedom of action by their governments. This implies that practices of organising national cybersecurity management in national cybersecurity centres has indeed been successful, and that the examined countries aim to further develop and empower them. The paper concludes in recommendations for organising national cybersecurity centres, drawing on the examples of the studied countries.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</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%">Anna Konarzewska</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Outside the European Economic and Monetary Union: Consequences for the United Kingdom</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%">EMU</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Euro</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Financial Center</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Monetary Policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortgage Market</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereignty</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United Kingdom</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spring 2008</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">120-140</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The consequences of staying outside the European Economic and Monetary Union can be divided into three categories: political, economic, and social. For the United Kingdom, most attention has been concentrated on the issue of economic gains and losses. The potential gains include a possibility for the British government to conduct its own national economic and monetary policy, the elimination of socalled social dumping, preserving the British mortgage and housing markets, and promoting London as a worldwide financial center. Moreover, approving the Euro could enlarge British foreign trade and enhance inflows of foreign direct investment. On the other hand, the negative economic consequences focus on lack of transparency of prices, no elimination of transaction costs, and the risk of disrupting the exchange rate of the pound sterling. The political and social consequences of staying outside the Euro zone must also be taken into account when analyzing the British case. Without participating in the common currency, the United Kingdom could preserve her national sovereignty and independence, although this remains questionable in the current world, which is characterized by high levels of interdependence. Likewise, the British stand to lose their influence in the European Union and in the world by not participating in the third stage of the EMU.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record></records></xml>