LEADER 01769nam a2200289 i 4500 001 991003898769707536 005 20240118115146.0 008 020430s1999 it ||| | ita 035 $ab11879981-39ule_inst 035 $aExgil148809$9ExL 040 $aBiblioteca Interfacoltà$bita 082 0 $a342.450662 110 2 $aCommissione per l'accesso ai documenti amministrativi$0465490 245 12$aL'accesso ai documenti amministrativi :$btesti, norme, atti, opinioni /$cCommissione per l'accesso ai documenti amministrativi 260 0 $aRoma :$bPresidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, Dipartimento per l'informazione e l'editoria,$cstampa1999 300 $av. ;$c24 cm. 490 0 $aSocietà e istituzioni 500 $aTit. sul dorso del v. 5: L'accesso ai documenti amministrativi. 505 0 $aLe decisioni della Commissione, la giurisprudenza della Corte di Cassazione, del Consiglio di Stato e della Corte dei conti: Normativa, atti e biobliografia : aggiornato al 31 dicembre 1999 / Commissione per l'accesso ai documenti amministrativi 650 4$aDiritto all'informazione$xTutela$zItalia 740 30$aLe decisioni della Commissione, la giurisprudenza della Corte di Cassazione, del Consiglio di Stato e della Corte dei conti$bNormativa, atti e biobliografia$baggiornato al 31 dicembre 1999. - Roma$bPresidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, Dipartimento per l'informazione e l'editoria, stampa 1999. - 502 p. ; 24 cm. 907 $a.b11879981$b28-04-17$c07-01-03 912 $a991003898769707536 945 $aLE002 Dir. IX L 31$cv. 5.$g1$i2002000021113$lle002$o-$pE0.00$q-$rl$s-$t0$u0$v0$w0$x0$y.i12134946$z07-01-03 996 $aAccesso ai documenti amministrativi$9211376 997 $aUNISALENTO 998 $ale002$b01-01-02$cm$da$e-$fita$git$h2$i1 LEADER 06546nam 2200805 a 450 001 9910220124303321 005 20240516095536.0 010 $a9786613530738 010 $a9781280126871 010 $a1280126876 010 $a9780833059116 010 $a0833059114 035 $a(CKB)2670000000133713 035 $a(EBL)830150 035 $a(OCoLC)756461335 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000570936 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11353988 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000570936 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10610989 035 $a(PQKB)10295114 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL830150 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10521987 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC830150 035 $a(oapen)doab114962 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000133713 100 $a20110902d2011 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aLessons from U.S. allies in security cooperation with third countries $ethe cases of Australia, France, and the United Kingdom /$fJennifer D.P. Moroney [et al.] 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aSanta Monica, Ca $cRAND$d2011 215 $a1 online resource (xxiii, 129 pages) $cillustrations (digital, PDF file) 225 1 $aReport 300 $a"TR-972-AF"--P. [4] of cover. 300 $a"Prepared for the United States Air Force." 300 $a"Project Air Force." 311 08$a9780833052629 311 08$a0833052624 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 121-129). 327 $aCover; Title Page; Copyright; Preface; Contents; Figures; Tables; Summary; S.1. Comparing the Allies; Acknowledgments; Abbreviations; Chapter One: Introduction; Objectives; Research Approach; 1.1. Security Cooperation Activities of OET Partners; Key Terminology; Organization of the Report; Chapter Two: Australia's Approach to Security Cooperation; Introduction; Australia's Strategic Outlook; Defence White Paper 2009; Australia's Interests, Defense Policy, and Capabilities; The Royal Australian Air Force; 2.1. Aircraft of the RAAF; 2.1. RAAF Facilities 327 $aAustralia's Approach to Security Cooperation Australian Security Cooperation: Structure, Process, and Priorities; International Engagement Plans; Lessons Learned and Assessments; 2.2. International Engagement Documents; Funding; 2.2. Defence Cooperation Program Budget 2010-2011; Australia's Defense Relationships and Partner Selection Process; 2.3. Strategy Executive, Australian Department of Defence; 2.4. Department of Defence; 2.5. Australia's Strategic Interests and Australia's Defense Relationships; 2.6. Oceania; Australian Security Cooperation Activities 327 $aProfessional Military Education and Australia-Based Training (Defence Cooperation)Staff Talks, Visits, Seminars, Workshops, Conferences (Defence Engagement); Joint Training and Exercises; Advisors In Country and Mobile Training Teams (Defence Cooperation); Military Sales and Training (Defence Cooperation); Conclusions; Chapter Three: France's Approach to Security Cooperation; Introduction; Strategic Outlook; France's View of Itself; Identifying Shortcomings in the French Approach to Security Cooperation; France as a Strategic Partner to the United States 327 $aUpcoming Developments in the French Air Force Organization; Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs; 3.1. Summary of Organizational Structure of France's Security Cooperation Activities; Ministry of Defense; 3.1. French Joint Commands; Ministry of Interior; Coordination Between Ministries; Partner Selection: Strategy and Process Considerations; General Approach; Resourcing; 3.2. France's Bilateral Defense Agreements as of January 1, 2008, and Their Status as of July 1, 2010; Agreements for Partnering; Assessments and Lessons Learned; Security Cooperation Activities 327 $aProfessional Military Education Region-Focused National Schools; 3.3. Region-Focused National Schools as of January 1, 2010; Staff Talks, Visits, Seminars, Workshops, and Conferences; Training and Exercises; In-Country Advisors; Military Sales; Integrating the Different Elements of Security Cooperation: The RECAMP and EURORECAMP Programs; 3.2. Sources of Funding for RECAMP and EURORECAMP Activities; Conclusions; Chapter Four: The United Kingdom's Approach to Security Cooperation; Introduction; Strategic Outlook; The UK's View of Itself; Why the UK Matters to the United States 327 $aThe UK's Armed Forces 330 $aLike the U.S. Air Force, many U.S. allies work with partner countries on security matters, sometimes even with the same partners, but on a smaller scale. But how, where, and why do these allies engage the same countries? Would working together in particular areas be worthwhile or viable and can specific lessons be learned from their experiences, for example, in the areas of planning, resourcing and assessments? This report explores these questions by examining both the positive aspects and the challenges of the security cooperation approaches of three U.S. allies, Australia, France, and the United Kingdom. These three capable allies are experienced in working with civilian counterparts and benefit from higher-level departmental guidance. They generally do so with relatively small budgets, leading them to learn to economize, pool resources, and take advantage of joint and interagency planning. These strategies can inform current U.S. thinking on security cooperation. They also suggest venues for further collaboration between allies, particularly in the three key areas of staff talks, exercises, and training followed by exercises --$cSource other than the Library of Congress. 410 0$aTechnical report (Rand Corporation) 606 $aNational security$xInternational cooperation$vCase studies 606 $aMilitary policy$vCase studies 607 $aAustralia$xMilitary relations 607 $aFrance$xMilitary relations 607 $aGreat Britain$xMilitary relations 607 $aUnited States$xMilitary relations 615 0$aNational security$xInternational cooperation 615 0$aMilitary policy 676 $a355/.031 701 $aMoroney$b Jennifer D. P.$f1973-$0899257 712 02$aProject Air Force (U.S.) 712 02$aUnited States.$bAir Force. 712 02$aRand Corporation. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910220124303321 996 $aLessons from U.S. allies in security cooperation with third countries$92009102 997 $aUNINA