Vojenské Rozhledy

Czech Military Review

Vojenské rozhledy / Czech Military Review Nr. 3/2022: 3-22

Analýza přístupů NATO a EU plánování schopností a možné sjednocení národních plánovacích procesůRecenzované - Přehledový

Zdeněk Petráš

Článek představuje souhrn analytických výstupů zaměřených na zmapování současných přístupů NATO a EU k problematice plánování schopností a jejich dopad na proces plánování na národní úrovni, které provedly národní a mezinárodní bezpečnostní a obranné instituce. Výsledky poukazují na skutečnost, že značný počet zemí NATO a členských států EU využívá přístupy k plánování schopností, které odrážejí specificky národní strategické cíle. Je třeba poznamenat, že žádná země nezavedla postupy, které by bylo možné považovat za standardizované z hlediska jednotného plánovacího procesu v rámci NATO nebo EU. Na druhé straně analýzy poukazují na skutečnost, že v krátkodobém horizontu lze jen stěží očekávat sjednocení plánovacích procesů NATO a EU. Členské země NATO a EU by nicméně měly věnovat velkou pozornost výstupům svých národních plánovacích procesů, aby splnily jednotný soubor požadavků na schopnosti, jak jsou implementovány v příslušných plánovacích procesech NATO a EU.

Klíčová slova: schopnosti; obrana; EU; NATO; plánování

Analysis of NATO and EU Approaches to Capability Planning and Potential Alignment of National Planning Processes

The article presents a summary of analytical outcomes aimed at mapping current NATO and EU approaches to capability planning and their impact on national planning processes, which were carried out by security and defence institutions. The outcomes point out the fact that significant number of NATO nations and EU member states are using approaches to capability planning which reflect specifically national strategic objectives. It is of note that no country has implemented procedures that could be considered as standardised in terms of a single planning process within NATO or the EU. On the other side, analyses point out the fact that NATO and EU planning processes can be hardly expected to be unified in the short term. Nevertheless, NATO and EU member countries should pay close attention to the outputs of their national planning processes in order to comply with the single set of capability requirements as implemented in the relevant NATO and EU planning processes.

Keywords: Capability; Defence; EU; NATO; Planning

Zveřejněno: 15. září 2022  Zobrazit citaci

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Petráš, Z. (2022). Analýza přístupů NATO a EU plánování schopností a možné sjednocení národních plánovacích procesů. Vojenské rozhledy / Czech Military Review, 103(3), 3-22
Sdílet...
Stáhnout citaci
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Zobrazit celý článek

    Reference

    1. Brustlein Corentin (ed.). Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges. Focus stratégique, No. 93, IFRI: Paris, France. 2020. ISBN: 979-10-373-0082-9. p. 24.
    2. NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization Research and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018, 58 p. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
    3. NATO (ed.). The NATO Defence Planning Process. NATO Secretary General, PO(2016)0655 (INV). Brussels, Belgium, 2016. 1-1 p.
    4. MAULNY, Jean-Pierre, Sylvie MATELLY, Fabio LIBERTI. Analyse comparée des planifications capacitaires par pays de l'Union européenne et perspectives pour des orientations communes dans le cadre de la PESD et impact sur les programmations nationales. Notes de l'IRIS Septembre 2005. Paris, France: IRIS, 2005. p. 209.
    5. NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization Research and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018, 58 p. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
    6. NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. Chapter 2. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
    7. EEAS (ed.) EUMC guidance for the further development of the EU Headline Goal Process into a new EU Military Capability Planning Process. EEAS(2018) 939. Belgium: Brussels. 2018.
    8. PETRÁŠ, Zdeněk. Analysis of approaches to capability planning used by NATO nations and EU member states within their national defence planning processes. Economics and Management, 2016, no. 2/2016, p. 48. ISSN 1802-3975.
    9. NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096. NATO Science and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
    10. SHAPE/ACT (ed.). BI-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements. CPPCAMFCR/JM/281143. Mons, Belgium, 2011. - SHAPE/ACT (ed.). BI-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements. SH/SDP/SDF/CFR/DPF/19 003782. Mons, Belgium, 2020.
    11. SHAPE/ACT (ed.). Bi-SC Capability Hierarchy. SH/PLANS/JCAP/FCP/15-310118. Mons, Belgium, 2015.
    12. PETRÁŠ, Zdeněk. Analysis of approaches to capability planning used by NATO nations and EU member states within their national defence planning processes. Economics and Management, 2016, no. 2/2016, p. 48. ISSN 1802-3975.
    13. MAULNY, Jean-Pierre, Sylvie MATELLY, Fabio LIBERTI. Analyse comparée des planifications capacitaires par pays de l'Union européenne et perspectives pour des orientations communes dans le cadre de la PESD et impact sur les programmations nationales. Les Notes de l'IRIS Septembre 2005. Paris, France: IRIS, 2005. p. 209
    14. EEAS (ed.) EUMC guidance for the further development of the EU Headline Goal Process into a new EU Military Capability Planning Process. EEAS(2018) 939. Belgium: Brussels.2018.
    15. Brustlein Corentin (ed.). Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges. Focus stratégique, No. 93, IFRI: Paris, France. 2020. ISBN: 979-10-373-0082-9. p. 25.
    16. NATO (ed.). The NATO Defence Planning Process. NATO Secretary General, PO(2016)0655 (INV). Brussels, Belgium, 2016. 1-7 p.
    17. NATO RTO (ed.). Analytical Support to Defence Transformation - Analytic Implications of the NATO Defence Planning Process. Meeting Proceedings RDP. RTO-MP-SAS-081. MP-SAS-081-09. CSO: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. p. 9-12. ISBN 978-92-837-0116-3.
    18. COUNCIL OF THE EU (ed.). European Union Global Strategy: Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. General Secretariat of the Council. Brussels, Belgium, 2016, 60 p.
    19. EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY (ed.). The EU capability Development Priorities - 2018 CDP Revision. EDA Brussels, Belgium: EDA, 2018, 20 s.
    20. Kepe, Marta, James Black, Jack Melling, Jess Plumridge. Exploring Europe's capability requirements for 2035 and beyond - Insights from the 2018 update of the long-term strand of the Capability Development Plan. RAND Europe, EDA Brussels, Belgium: EDA, 2018, 44 s
    21. SEDE (ed.). EU Defence: The White Book implementation process. Study. European Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE): Brussels, Belgium. 2018. 99 p. doi:10.2861/534879, ISBN: 978-92-846-4341-7.
    22. NATO STO (ed.). Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Military Outputs - Capability Planning. STO Technical Report, STO-TR-SAS-096.
    23. NATO Science and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO, 2018. p. 3-24. ISBN 978-92-837-2153-6.
    24. NATO (ed.). Defence Planning Capability Survey 2010. AC/281-N(2010)0014-FINAL (EWG(R)). Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
    25. SHAPE/ACT (ed.). BI-SC Agreed Capability Codes and Capability Statements. SHAPE/CPPCAMFCR/JM/281143. Mons, Belgium, 2011.
    26. SHAPE/ACT (ed.). Bi-SC Capability Hierarchy. SH/PLANS/JCAP/FCP/15-310118. Mons, Belgium, 2015.
    27. DE LANGLOIS, Maurice. OTAN et PSDC: vers un rapprochement des processus capacitaires. Note de recherche stratégique n°20 - juin 2015Paris, France: IRSEM, 2015, p. 1 2. ISSN 2430-598. Available at: http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/operations/notes-de-recherche-strategique

    Zpět na obsah