Strategy in flux: NATO’s adoption of risk management and the elaboration of a new framework of command and control

References

• Adam, B. and van Loon, J., 2000. Repositioning risk: the challenge for social theory. In: B. Adam, U. Beck, and J. van Loon, eds. The risk society and beyond: critical issues for social theory. London: Sage, 1–32.10.4135/9781446219539
   Google Scholar
• Alberts, D., Huber, R., and Moffat, J., 2010. NATO NEC2 maturity model. Washington, DC: DOD Command and Control.
   Google Scholar
• Aligne, F., 2009. Which information and decision support system for crisis management? RTO-MP-IST-O86. Neuilly sur Seine: Research and Technology Board, 12-1–12-14.
   Google Scholar
• Ariely, G., 2009. Operational knowledge management as an international interagency interoperability vehicle RTO-MP-IST-O86. Neuilly sur Seine: Research and Technology Board, 5-1–5-12.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., 2004. World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., 2007. Power in the global age: a new global political economy. Polity: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Bigo, D., 2002. Security and immigration: toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27 (1), 63–92.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, B., 1985. Strategic command and control: redefining the nuclear threat. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Buzan, B., 1997. Rethinking security after the cold war. Cooperation and conflict, 32 (1), 5–28.10.1177/0010836797032001001
   Google Scholar
• Cimbala, S., 1995. Collective insecurity: US defense policy and the new world disorder. Westport, CA: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Claude, I., 2006. Collective security as an approach to peace. In: P. Williams, D. Goldstein, and J. Shafrite, eds. Classic readings and contemporary debates in international relations. Belmont, CA: Thomson, 289–302.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, B. and Boiney, J., 2012. Social radar RTO-MP-HFM-201. Neuilly sur Seine: Research and Technology Board, 3-1–3-12.
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J., 2012. US sees Europe as not pulling its weight militarily [online]. New York Times, 6 February. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/world/europe/07iht-letter07.html?pagewanted=all [Accessed 15 January 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Dombey, D. and Spiegel, P., 2011. Rift over command of Libya campaign [online]. Financial Times, 21 March. Available from: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/14be41f4-53f8-11e0-8bd7-00144feab49a.html#axzz3OuEwzUdE [Accessed 15 January 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Ek, C., 2012. NATO common funds burdensharing: background and current issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Office.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, R., 2011. The security and defense agenda, (Future of NATO) [online]. Brussels, 10 June. Available from: http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1581.11 [Accessed 20 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Gheciu, A., 2008. Securing civilization? The EU, NATO and the OSCE in the post-9/11 world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, S., 2012. Leaders and led in an era of global crises. In: S. Gill, ed. Global crises and the crisis of global leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–37.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, S., 1996. Nuclear command and control in NATO: nuclear weapons operations and the strategy of flexible response. Houndmills: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hallams, E. and Schreer, B., 2012. Towards a post-American alliance? NATO burden sharing after Libya. International affairs, 88 (2), 313–327.10.1111/inta.2012.88.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindley-French, J., 2006. The capability-capacity crunch: NATO’s new capacities for intervention. European security, 15 (3), 259–280.10.1080/09662830601094683
   Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, J., 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the cold war. International security, 15 (1), 5–56.10.2307/2538981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdock, C. and Smith, B., 2011. The Libyan intervention: a study in US grand strategy. In: C. Cohen and J. Gabel, eds. Global forecast 2011: international security in times of uncertainty. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 61–63
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 1949. The North Atlantic treaty. Brussels: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 1996. NATO establishes new research and technology board [online]. Available from: http://www.cso.nato.int/Main.asp?topic=28 [Accessed 13 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 1999. The alliance’s strategic concept. Brussels: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2007. Exploring new command and control concepts and capabilities RTO-TR-SAS-050. Neuilly sur Seine: Research and Technology Board.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2008. Improving common security risk analysis. Neuilly sur Seine: Science and Technology Organization.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2010a. NATO 2020 assured security; dynamic engagement: analysis and recommendations of the group of experts on a new strategic concept for NATO. Brussels: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2010b. Active engagement, modern defence: strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the north atlantic treaty organization. Brussels: NATO.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2011. Risk based planning RTO-MP-SAS-093. Neuilly sur Seine: Science and Technology Organization.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2013a. About the STO [online]. Available from: http://www.sto.nato.int/Main.asp?topic=18 [Accessed 13 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2013b. NATO organization [online]. Available from: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/structure.htm [Accessed 13 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2013c. Advisory group for research and development [online]. Available from: http://www.cso.nato.int/Main.asp?topic=24 [Accessed 13 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2013d. From AGARD to RTO [online]. Available from: http://www.cso.nato.int/Main.asp?topic=27 [Accessed 13 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2013e. NATO defense research group [online]. http://www.cso.nato.int/Main.asp?topic=26 [Accessed 13 September 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, B., 2010. Globalizing and localizing counter-terrorism intelligence sharing. In: E. Aydinli ed. Emerging transnationalist (in)security governance: a statist-transationalist approach. London: Routledge, 143–162.
   Google Scholar
• Pavel, B. and Lightfoot, J., 2012. The transatlantic bargain after the pivot [online]. Atlantic council issue brief. Available from: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/files/publication_pdfs/403/032012_ACUS_TransatlanticBargain.pdf [Accessed 15 January 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, M., 2006. The risk society at war: terror, technology and strategy in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491634
   Google Scholar
• Rid, T. and Hecker, M., 2009. War 2.0: irregular warfare in the information age. Westport, CA: Pragear Security International.
   Google Scholar
• Robb, J., 2007. Brave new war: the next stage of terrorism and the end of globalization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Rolander, N., 2013. Arms sales by big firms hit first slump in years [online]. Wall Street Journal. 18 February. Available from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323764804578312053764944218 [Accessed 15 January 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Royal United Services Institute, 2011. Accidental heroes: Britain, France and the Libya operation [online]. Available from: https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RUSIInterimLibyaReport.pdf [Accessed 14 December 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, G., 1997. Alliance politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanton, N., et al., 2009. Digitising command and control: a human factors and egronomics analysis of mission planning and battlespace management. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Stares, P., 1991. Command performance: the neglected dimension of european security. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2013. World military spending falls, but China, Russia’s spending rises, says SIPRI [online]. Available from: http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/2013/milex_launch [Accessed 14 December 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Strategic Comments, 2011. Early military lessons from Libya. Strategic Comments, 17 (7), 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• United States Government Accountability Office, 2010. NATO partnerships: DOD needs to assess US assistance in response to changes to the partnership for peace program. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
   Google Scholar
• van Creveld, M., 1985. Command in war. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verdon, J., 2012. The wealth of people: how social media re-frames the future of knowledge and work RTO-MP-HFM-201. Neuilly sur Seine: Research and Technology Board.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K., 1993. The emerging structure of international politics. International security, 18 (2), 44–79.10.2307/2539097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, K., 2000. Structural realism after the cold war. International security, 25 (1), 5–41.10.1162/016228800560372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, M.J., 2009. NATO, security, and risk management: from Kosovo to Kandahar. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar