Authority record. Showing 206 results

Dossier sujet - Traité sur la non-prolifération

  • NPT
  • Corporate body
  • 1963-1969

Le TNP a été accueilli comme un document qui marquait un tournant et qui proposait une solution à un ensemble complexe de problèmes auxquels le monde devait alors faire face. Avant l’établissement du TNP, plus de vingt pays cherchaient activement à se doter de l’arme nucléaire. Le TNP a mis en place un cadre juridique distinguant des États dotés d’armes nucléaires et des États non dotés d’armes nucléaires et définissant le contexte pour leur coopération dans ses trois domaines fondamentaux.

Le TNP est fondé sur trois piliers : la non-prolifération, le désarmement et l’utilisation de l’énergie nucléaire à des fins pacifiques. Parmi les documents considérés, bon nombre portent sur les négociations qui ont eu lieu entre les États-Unis et l’Union des républiques socialistes soviétiques concernant les articles I et II du Traité, relatifs à la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires, et sur les pourparlers concernant l’article III, relatif aux garanties.

Subject File - Non-Proliferation Treaty

  • NPT
  • Corporate body
  • 1963-1969

The NPT was hailed as a landmark treaty, offering a solution to a complicated set of problems facing the world at the time. Prior to the NPT, more than 20 countries were actively seeking nuclear weapons. The NPT created a legal framework defining nuclear weapon possessor and non-possessor states, and providing the context for their cooperation on all three pillars.

The Treaty is founded on three pillars: non-proliferation; disarmament; and peaceful use of nuclear weapons. Many of the records focus on US-USSR negotiations on Articles I and II of the Treaty regarding stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and talks about Article III, on safeguards.

Special Group on the Future Tasks of the Alliance

  • AC/261
  • Corporate body
  • 1966-12-13

In late 1966, the approaching 20th anniversary of NATO and the adjustments made necessary by the French decision of 1966 to withdraw from the military integrated structure prompted the Alliance to re-examine its relevance and adaptation to the existing political context.

At the December 1966 NATO Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Pierre Harmel, Belgium’s Foreign Minister, tabled a proposal calling for a joint analysis of the major events of the past twenty years. He recommended the study be used to determine the effect of events on the objectives and methods of the Alliance and decide whether it was necessary to improve consultation within it. The Foreign Affairs Ministers responded favourably to Harmel’s proposal and empowered Manlio Brosio, NATO Secretary General and the Permanent Representatives to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) with a comprehensive mandate to develop procedures for the study and determine its scope.

In February 1967, the NAC decided to constitute an open-ended Special Group of representatives designated by governments, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary General. The NAC gave the Special Group on the Future Tasks of the Alliance (also known under the reference AC/261) the task of studying “ (a) the development of political events as it affects the purposes of the Alliance; (b) the consequent future tasks of the Alliance”. The Special Group was to establish such special procedures, sub-groups and rapporteurs, and request such staff work from the International Staff as it deemed necessary” [ see reference C-M(67)11].

During the month of March 1967 the Special Group met on five occasions in private session to encourage wide ranging discussions. It was during these meetings that they decided on the framework for the conduct of the study . The Special Group created four sub-groups were created, each working on a broad subject of interest to the Alliance and under the guidance of a rapporteur of repute:

• Sub-Group One, East/West Relations: Mr. K.Schutz, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Germany and Mr. J.H.A. Watson , Assistant Under Secretary of State. Foreign Affairs, United Kingdom
• Sub-Group Two, Inter-allied Relations: Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, Minister of State, Belgium
• Sub-Group Three, General Defence Policy : Mr. Foy Kohler, Deputy Under Secretary of State, United States
• Sub-Group Four, Relations with other Countries: Dr. C.L. Patijn, Professor of International Relations, University of Utrecht (Netherlands)

The NATO International Staff provided secretarial support and was tasked with gathering background material for the sub-groups .

The sub-groups met several times from May to June to prepare a draft interim report which was approved by the NAC [se reference C-M(67)33] following some amendments at their Ministerial meeting of 13 - 14 June in Luxembourg.

Following this initial phase, the sub-groups began to address the substantive issues. Although the reports were prepared under the responsibility of each rapporteur, a meeting of all the sub-groups took place in July to harmonise the work and avoid duplication. After having gone through several stages, the reports were reviewed and their findings compared during a last meeting in October at Ditchley Park (UK).

The following month, the Special Group held a high-level meeting over two days during which the substance of the Report was discussed. The Secretary General circulated a draft Report which was discussed and amended by the Special Group on 22 November 1967.

The Report on the Future Tasks of the Alliance was presented at the NATO Ministerial Session and after some last amendments was approved by Foreign Affairs Ministers on 14 December 1967 and subsequently released to the press [See reference C-M(67)74(2nd revised) and M4(67)3, respectively].

Working Group on Trends in Soviet Foreign Policy

  • TSP
  • Corporate body
  • 1956

The TSP chronological series contains the memoranda of the Working Group on Trends of Soviet Policy(1). The first document is dated 6 June 1956. The object of the last meeting of the Group, which was held on 19 November 1956, was to finalize the document for the Ministers.

Standing Group Liaison Office (SGLO / 1952-1956) and Office of the Standing Group Representative (SGREP / 1956-1967)

  • PARSEC
  • Corporate body
  • 1952-1967

This chronological series contains the messages sent to the secretariat of the Standing Group (SG) by the Standing Group Liaison Office in Paris (SGLO, renamed SGREP after 25 December 1956). The SGLO/SGREP served as the link between the the military authorities based in Washington (the Standing Group - SG, the Military Representatives Committee - MRC, and the Military Committee in Permanent Session - MC/PS) and the Council, committees and International Staff (IS) based in Europe. The Director of the SGLO/SGREP was tasked with informing the military authorities and communicating their points of view to the Council. He therefore needed a thorough knowledge of the SG's positions and had to be able to anticipate potential problems. He achieved this by making frequent trips to Washington, taking part in meetings of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session (MC/CS) and of the SG in London, then in Paris and at SHAPE, and also by exchanging memoranda and messages.The messages sent by the Director or the secretariat of the SG to the Liaison Office of the SG Representative in Europe were given various names: •SECLON when the Liaison Office was in London (July 1951 to April 1952) •SECPAR (April 1952 to April 1954), then STASEC (April 1954 to October 1967) after the Office was transferred to Paris The replies received from Paris were named PARSEC.

Standing Group Liaison Office (SGLO / 1952-1956) and Office of the Standing Group Representative (SGREP / 1956-1967)

  • PARMI
  • Corporate body
  • 1952-1967

This chronological series contains the messages produced by the secretariat of the SG Liaison Office in Paris (SGLO, renamed SGREP after 25 December 1956) and sent to: -the military authorities in Washington (to inform them about ongoing discussions and request instructions) -the NATO institutions in Paris (to communicate the position of the military authorities) The SGLO/SGREP served as the link between the the military authorities based in Washington (the Standing Group - SG, the Military Representatives Committee - MRC, and the Military Committee in Permanent Session - MC/PS) and the Council, committees and International Staff (IS) based in Europe. The Director of the SGLO/SGREP was tasked with informing the military authorities and communicating their points of view. He therefore needed a thorough knowledge of the SG's positions and had to be able to anticipate potential problems. He achieved this by making frequent trips to Washington, taking part in meetings of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session (MC/CS) and of the SG in London, then in Paris and at SHAPE, and also by exchanging memoranda and messages.

International Planning Team of Standing Group

  • MEMO(IPT)
  • Corporate body
  • 1957

The Standing Group (hereinafter referred to as the SG) had an internal structure of technical and consultative committees (see SGM-1702-53). The International Planning Team (IPT) was one of these. Under its terms of reference, established on 11 March 1957 (SGWM-175-57), the IPT consisted of three national teams, one for each nation represented in the SG (France, the United Kingdom and the United States). Each national team was in turn divided into three cells. The functions of each cell were determined by their nation. Their field of activity was always the same. The IPT's mission was to study and make proposals to the SG on a wide range of issues: -military (strategy, defence planning, force assessment, annual review, training) -administrative (organization of SG agencies, personnel management, etc). The IPT worked under the instructions of the SG (communicated by the SG secretariat in the form of a directive). This directive was first discussed by the secretariat and the delegations of the three IPT nations. It was then passed to one of these nations. The subject of study could be dealt with permanently or on a case-by-case basis. When appropriate, the IPT could consult the Military Representatives Committee (MRC) and work together with other technical or consultative committees of the SG. The IPT could suggest a new subject of study to the Steering Committee or the Standing Group. It reported to the SG and also kept the SG secretariat and the MRC informed.

Standing Group Liaison Office (SGLO / 1952-1956) and Office of the Standing Group Representative (SGREP / 1956-1967)

  • LOM
  • Corporate body
  • 1951-1967

This chronological series contains the memoranda sent to the Standing Group by the SG Liaison Office in Paris (SGLO, renamed SGREP after 25 December 1956). During the period when Vice Admiral M.R. Dick (Director of the SG Liaison Office) was working in Washington (March to November 1954), the LOMs were renamed LOM(W). The Liaison Office served as the link between the the military authorities based in Washington (the SG, the Military Representatives Committee - MRC, and the Military Committee in Permanent Session - MC/PS) and the Council, committees and International Staff (IS) based in Europe It was tasked with informing the military authorities and communicating points of view. It therefore needed a thorough knowledge of the SG's positions and had to be able to anticipate potential problems. It achieved this by making frequent trips to Washington, taking part in meetings of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session (MC/CS) and of the SG in London, then in Paris and at SHAPE, and also by exchanging memoranda (SGM and LOM) and messages (STAND, LOSTAN, etc). LOM memoranda and LOSTAN messages were often requests for SG positions. The SG replied by means of STAND messages via its secretariat. LOM memoranda were produced from September 1951 to June 1967.

Standing Group NATO

  • SGN
  • Corporate body
  • 1961-1967

Index of Effective Military Committee papers.

Senior Communications-Electronics Group

  • AC/260
  • Corporate body
  • 1966-1969

The AC/260 chronological series contain the documents of the Senior Communications-Electronics Group. In a 29th June, 1966 meeting, the United States made a statement to the Council on the topic of communication satellites (see C-R(66)30). The US suggested, based on the potential needs of NATO’s future communication system, that a part of the United States Advanced Defence Communication Satellite Program might be made available for NATO purposes. Additionally, it was suggested NATO should make a co-operative effort in the research and development of Ground Terminals. This statement lead to a briefing by the US at a 28th September Council Meeting (C-R(66)52) where the Council came to a general agreement of the direction in which a group would work, and would await a paper by the International Staff that would propose a decision for the Council on the creation of a Senior Communications-Electronics Group, its Terms of Reference and its co-ordination with existing NATO bodies. On the 5th October Meeting, the Council approved the creation of the interim Group, as described in PO/66/457, with an open-ended term, to be eventually converted into a permanent high-level communications, electronics policy committee. The main task for the Senior Communications-Electronics (C-E) Group was to make recommendations on the desirability of establishing a NATO Communications Satellite Programme and propose how that programme could be carried out with respect to legal aspects and cost sharing. The proposals to the Council by the US consisted of three phases: Phase I to test and evaluate satellite communications, Phase II to acquire one or two synchronous satellites in order to service unique and vital communication needs of NATO (which would include the acquisition by NATO of some ten ground terminals) and Phase III for NATO participation in the United States ADCSP. With these proposals in mind, the Senior C-E Group addressed the complex technical, legal and financial contributions required for the Programme. Through the next few years, detailed plans for Phases I and II were developed and presented to the Council and the Defence Planning Committee. Such elements addressed included the procurement of Ground Terminals both in North America and many European countries, progress reports for the Phase implementation, and the consultation of a NATO-Wide Communications System for use in times of tension and crisis. On 6th October 1967, the Terms of Reference for the Group were expanded (See AC/260-D/29), based on recommendations to Council by the Study Group on Reorganization (See C-R(67)41). The new Terms of Reference included NATO’s civil communications whose requirements, which still needed to be assessed, could ultimately be co-ordinated with those of the military. The Group continued to produce detailed documents outlining Phase II of the Programme and the co-ordination of NATO civil and military communications. In a progress report on 24th June 1969 (AC/260-D/92), the Group reported that no slippage was expected in the date of the launch of the first satellite (January 1970). In an 18th July 1969 meeting, the Defence Planning Committee agreed to the establishment of a Joint NATO Communications and Electronics Committee as proposed by the Group in AC/260-DS/4. This committee would become responsible for the tasks that were being undertaken by the Senior C-E Group, and thus the Senior C-E Group would be rendered obsolete and would be disestablished.

Working Group in charge of studying the Supervision, Operation and Maintenance of the NATO Pipeline System

  • AC/76
  • Corporate body
  • 1954-1956

The AC/76 chronological series contains the records of the Working Group in charge of studying the Supervision, Operation and Maintenance of the NATO Pipeline System. This working group was set up by the Council on 12 May 1954 (C-R(54)21). It was tasked with studying the proposals of the Permanent Group (SGM 234-54) for the supervision, operation and maintenance of the NATO POL pipeline system. Its first meeting took place on 21 May 1954, chaired by Mr. A.R.G. Barnes, the Deputy Executive Secretary, assisted by national representatives, members of the International Staff and representatives of the Permanent Group and SHAPE.

At its fifth meeting on 15-16 February 1955, the Working Group in charge of the Supervision, Operation and Maintenance of the NATO Pipeline System decided to entrust the organization of the pipeline system for the Central Europe area to an ad hoc working group made up of representatives from the countries concerned. A second working group, composed of representatives from the Host Nations and User Nations located in the North and South Command zones, was tasked with examining the question of how to organize the system for the north and south European regions.

Their deliberations resulted in a report to the Council, submitted as C-M(55)74 and dated 5 August 1955. In its work, the Group took into account, inter alia, the following points:
(a) the NATO POL pipeline system is an extensive and complex network with an estimated length of approximately 7,000 km and a storage capacity of about 1,743,000 m3.
(b) The Organization must be ready to commence operations as usable sections are completed.
(c) The networks must be capable of meeting military requirements at all times.
It was proposed to structure the NATO POL system as follows:
(1) Central Europe region- NATO Pipeline Committee- Central Europe Pipeline Policy Committee- Central Europe Pipeline Office- Central Europe Operating Agency
(2) North and South European Regions - NATO Pipeline Committee - National pipeline agencies (made up of representatives from the NATO nation hosting a particular pipeline system).

At the Council meeting on 14th September 1955, Report C-M(55)74 was approved, and the Working Group was invited to continue its deliberations in this area and to submit a second report to the Council in a timely fashion (C-R(55)37).On 23 September 1955, the Working Group in Charge of Studying the Supervision, Operation and Maintenance of the NATO Pipeline System appointed a subgroup made up of representatives from the user nations in Central Europe and tasked it to develop a detailed Programme of Work for the Central Europe Pipeline Office and the Central Europe Operating Agency (AC/76-R/8). This Central Europe Subgroup, under reference AC/76 (CE), began its work that same day.

The Working Group's second report to the Council (C-M(56)30, dated 12 March 1956) dealt with the issue of initial linefills. Following on the above two reports, a third and final report by the Working Group was submitted to the Council (C-M(56)83, dated 20 June 1956). Developed by the Central Europe Subgroup, it contained a draft TOR for the Central Europe Pipeline Office. On 11 June 1956, after completing its work, the Working Group decided to disband.

Standing Group

  • SG
  • Corporate body
  • 1949

The SG subfonds contains the records of the Standing Group. In accordance with Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the guidance given by the Working Group on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during the first Council session in Washington in 1949, the Defence Committee (DC) rapidly established the Standing Group (C1-D-1/1 and C1-D-1/2). The Standing Group was subordinate to the Military Committee, and responsible for the everyday business of the latter, which met very rarely. It was made up of representatives of the United States, French and United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff. Its office was fixed in Washington. Other member states with military forces could each appoint a special representative for continuous liaison with the Standing Group.

For the purposes of a unified defence of the North Atlantic area, the Standing Group provided the Regional Planning Groups and the other military bodies with the political instructions and military information which they needed. On the basis of the Regional Groups’ defence plans, which it coordinated and combined, the Standing Group made recommendations to the Military Committee, as it was also invited to do on other strategic questions (C1 D 1/2, DC 1/2). From 1951 to 1966 the Standing Group underwent various changes as part of the reorganization of NATO’s main structures in order to meet the Organization’s increased responsibilities effectively. With the aim of improving coordination between the various bodies, after the Defence Committee(1) was disbanded the Military Committee, which fell directly under the Council’s authority in 1951, became the Organization’s highest military authority, and the Standing Group provided the prime channel of communication with the Council Deputies. In Lisbon in 1952 the Council decided not to change its position with regard to the military bodies, and to further intensify its links with them (D-D(51)86 (Final), C9-D/4). The progressive dissolution of the Regional Groups in favour of commands headed by a Supreme Commander, the need to involve the other nine nations more closely in the work of the Standing Group and the poor liaison between the military bodies and those responsible for armaments or financial and economic questions led the Military Committee to delegate more power to the Standing Group, and to create the Military Representatives Committee (MRC) and the post of Standing Group Liaison Officer (SGLO). At the end of 1950 the Military Representatives Committee was set up to represent the member states not belonging to the Standing Group. It came under the Military Committee, and comprised a representative of the Chief of Staff of each member nation of the Military Committee. However Iceland, which has no military forces, was not represented on the Committee, while Belgium also represented Luxembourg. The Committee was informed about Standing Group activities, and gave opinions that were supported by the staffs of all the member states. It sat permanently in Washington, and took decisions on certain questions in the name of the Military Committee when the latter was not in session. The Standing Group remained the agent and executive body of the Military Committee. It was the higher body to which the Supreme Commanders were responsible. It was also the directing and executive body of the Military Representatives Committee. The Chairman of the Standing Group was also the Chairman of the Military Representatives Committee. The chairmanship was held for three months in rotation. To ensure close cooperation between NATO’s civil and military authorities a Liaison Officer supported by a small staff represented the Standing Group with the Council in London. This official had no power of decision.

In 1952 a Standing Group Liaison Office at the new NATO Headquarters in Paris was set up. The Standing Group Representative (SGREP) with the North Atlantic Council represented the Standing Group as the agent of the Military Committee and directing and executive agent of the Military Representatives Committee. Other military bodies established in 1951 and 1952 received instructions from the Standing Group, i.e. the Military Agency for Standardization (MAS), the Advisory Group on Aeronautical Research and Development (AGARD), the NATO Defence College, the Air Training Advisory Group and various communications agencies in Europe such as the European Military Communications Coordinating Committee (EMCCC) and its sub-committee the European Naval Communications Agency (ENCA), the European Long Lines Agency (ELLA) and the European Radio Frequencies Agency (ERFA) (MC 22/2, MC 4th meeting, DC 24/3 (Final), C6-D/5 (Final), MRC 1, SG 112/11)(2) . For this purpose the Standing Group had working teams, a Secretariat and a Director (forming the embryo of the future Standing Group Planning Staff) with only French, British and American personnel, and stationed in Washington. The working teams prepared joint recommendations to the Standing Group, as well as recommendations on decisions which the Group had to take. There were permanent national working teams, made up of three qualified officers each belonging to one of the three member states, and temporary working teams set up as required. The working teams received instructions from their respective representatives with the Standing Group, and if necessary from the national staffs in Paris, London and Washington. The Standing Group and the working teams were supported by a Secretariat. Besides acting as a military secretariat, this provided for liaison with the military representatives of the Standing Group, the liaison representatives to the Standing Group, and with the Military Production and Supply Board (MPSB). A Director, reporting immediately to the Standing Group, was responsible for the smooth running of the working teams and the Secretariat.

From 1950 the operation and the staff of the Standing Group were extended so that it could deal effectively with all questions. A COSMIC Registry Section, a Communications-Electronics Coordination Section (CECS), Materiel Planners and a Logistics and Materiel Planning Section were put in place. The Logistics and Materiel Planning Section advised the Standing Group on questions concerning the Military Production and Supply Board. It cooperated closely with the Military Production and Supply Board Permanent Working Staff (PWS) liaison group. The Section also coordinated and supervised the advisory technical committees then entrusted with questions not in its remit. The nine advisory technical committees were: the Security Coordination Committee (SCC), Intelligence Committee (IC), Public Relations Policy Committee (PRPC), Standardization Policy and Coordination Committee (SPCC), Research and Development Ad Hoc Committee (RDC), Military Operating Arrangements Ad Hoc Committee (MOAC), Hydrographic Information Ad Hoc Committee (HIC), Meteorological Information Ad Hoc Committee (MC) and the Air Navigation Ad Hoc Committee (CAN). In 1951 the Materiel Planners (three officers each from one of the three member states as from 1952) became a permanent working team. The working teams, now known as international planning teams and composed of nine officers from each of the member states, were grouped in the Planning and General Studies Section. The Materiel Planners formed the Logistics and Materiel Planning Section. There was also a Statistical Section attached to the Secretariat. Finally, at the start of 1951, a Steering Committee comprising three assistant directors designated by each member nation of the Group was created to establish firm links between the Director and the representatives on the one hand, and between the Director and the working teams on the other.

After Lisbon, the responsibilities of the Director and the Standing Group Secretariat were combined, and the secretary also became an assistant director (C1 D 1/2, DC 1/2, SG 2/1 to SG 2/4, SG 2/6, DSGM-31-51, SG 7 (Final), SG 2/8 and DSGM-222-52).In 1955 an International Planning Team report was approved which really embodied the wish for increased cooperation between the Standing Group and the Military Representatives Committee, recommending that the Military Representatives be given all the documents required for their work, systematically informed of and consulted about studies planned, and given regular briefings by the International Planning Teams (SG 14/6 (Final)). The many criticisms of the higher military structures and the solutions proposed by the different players led to significant changes in 1957. The Military Representatives Committee, henceforth known as the Military Committee in Permanent Session (MC/PS), began to function continuously. The Standing Group remained the executive agent of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session (MC/CS), but also became that of the Military Committee in Permanent Session. The Chairman of the Military Committee in Permanent Session was also the standing Chairman of the Military Committee. Designated by the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session, he was preferably from a member state not belonging to the Standing Group. The Chairman had a purely international role, with a term of office of two years that might be extended to three. The Chairman was aided by the Director of the Standing Group staff. Planners from non-members of the Standing Group were assigned to the Standing Group Planning Staff, while the Secretariat was also internationalized by personnel from countries outside the Standing Group (MC 57/1, MC 71/1 (Revised), C-R(57)49 and MCM-60-63). Finally, for the sake of equitable participation by all member states on the one hand and efficient working of the Standing Group on the other, the Standing Group Planning Staff was made fully international in 1964 following approval of the Standing Group report by the Military Committee in Permanent Session. The Staff was thus made up of the Director’s Office, four divisions (the Long Term Planning Division, the Organization, Training and Operational Plans Division, the Logistics and Infrastructure Division and the Research and Development, Agencies, and Special Projects Division), the Assistant Director for Meteorology and the Chairman of the Communications-Electronics Committee. The Director’s Office comprised the Director and a small personal staff of four officers. The Director, the head of the international organization, was selected by the Military Committee in Permanent Session from the candidates put forward by the non-Standing Group nations, for a term of two years which could be extended by up to one year. Each division had an Assistant Director and about ten staff officers tasked with the study projects (MCM-60-63; MC 2/2, section 2). At the end of this reorganization the Standing Group Staff was at the service of all member states, while the members of the Standing Group and their national delegations represented the interests of their respective countries. It was the withdrawal of France from the Alliance’s integrated military structure in particular that led to the abolition of the Standing Group in 1966. The powers of the Standing Group were transferred to the Military Committee as of 1 July 1966. The International Planning Staff, in the person of its Director, was then put under the authority of the Military Committee Chairman. The Standing Group Representative, henceforth the Military Committee Representative (MCREP) with the North Atlantic Council, together with his staff, was likewise put under the authority of the Military Committee in the person of the Chairman. The military bodies previously under the authority of the Standing Group, including the Military Agency for Standardization (MAS), the Advisory Group on Aeronautical Research and Development (AGARD), the NATO Defence College (NDC), the Allied Communications Security Agency (ACSA), the Allied Long Lines Agency (ALLA), the Allied Naval Communications Agency (ANCA) and the Allied Radio Frequencies Agency (ARFA), henceforth also came under the Military Committee (C-M(66)59, C-R(66)26, MCM-85-66 (Revised), MC 112, MC 2/4 (Final) and MC 2/5 (Final)(3).

Defence Review Committee

  • DRC
  • Corporate body
  • 1967

The Defence Review Committee (DRC), the senior advisory committee to the Defence Planning Committee(1) (DPC), came into being as a result of the re-organization of defence planning following France’s withdrawal in 1966 from the integrated military structure and the subsequent transfer of responsibility for all defence planning aspects of the Alliance from the Council to the DPC.Because of circumstances at the time, the DRC was established without official terms of reference. As of 1 September 1967 the DRC replaced the Defence Planning Working Group(2); it also took over the functions of the Committee of the Annual Review(3). The main activities of the DRC consisted in the preparation of Ministerial Guidance, the Force Goal process, the Defence Review and work related to the exchange of force planning data. The original membership included those nations taking part in the integrated defence structure; the Military authorities were also represented in the committee and the Assistant Secretary General for Defence Planning chaired the meetings. In 1974 Greece suspended its participation in the work of the DRC following its withdrawal from the military structure. It resumed participation in 1980 when it rejoined NATO’s integrated military structure. The following working groups and sub-groups were established under the authority of the DRC: - DRC(GK LF) 1968 -1970 Sub-Group on the Means of Strengthening Greek Local Forces - DRC(TK LF) 1968 -1970 Sub-Group on the Means of Strengthening Turkish Local Forces - DRC(DRWG) 1971-1973 Open-Ended Working Group on Defence Planning Data Requirements and Reporting Procedures and Methods - DRC(WR) 1972-1974 Standing Sub-Group on War Reserve Stocks.

Defence Planning Committee

  • DPC
  • Corporate body
  • 1963-2010

The DPC chronological series contains the records of the Defence Planning Committee (DPC).The Defence Planning Committee is the principal decision-making authority on matters relating to NATO’s integrated military structure. The DPC is chaired by the Secretary General and includes representatives from all member nations that belong to NATO’s integrated military structure. The DPC implements decisions taken by the participating nations for collective defence planning, and approves Force Goals and Ministerial Guidance for future NATO defence planning.The DPC’s origins lie in the final May 1963 Communiqué issued at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Ministerial Session in Ottawa. The so-called "Ottawa Communiqué" outlined the challenges NATO faced from an increasingly complex international political and military situation. Ministers were especially concerned about the need for a balance between the Alliance’s conventional and nuclear capabilities and so they directed the Council to review the inter-related issues of strategy, force requirements, and available resources (see C-R(63)56). At the end of September 1963, NATO military authorities were told to develop a strategic plan, while nations were asked to report on available resources. It was also decided that the North Atlantic Council would constitute itself as a Defence Planning Committee to direct and supervise the Review. As a result, the DPC met for the first time on 10th October 1963, when it established a subordinate, advisory Defence Planning Working Group composed of nations with an interest in planning(1). The DPC made its first report to Council in December 1965, in response to a request for a five year force goals plan. In that same month, Council also decided to base defence planning on a five year cycle, complemented by yearly and triennial reviews (see C-M(65)138 and C-M(65)139).When France withdrew from NATO’s integrated military structure in 1966, the Council extended the DPC’s mandate beyond strictly military planning to include all integrated matters and all matters concerning bodies in which France no longer participated.

Secretary General

  • SG
  • Person
  • 1952-04-04

The Secretary General is the Alliance’s top international civil servant. This person is responsible for steering the process of consultation and decision-making in the Alliance and ensuring that decisions are implemented. The Secretary General is also NATO’s chief spokesperson and the head of the Organization’s International Staff. The function of Secretary General is filled by a senior statesman with high-level political experience in the government of one of the member countries. The person is nominated by member governments for an initial period of four years, which can be extended by mutual consent.

In his day-to-day work, the Secretary General is directly supported by a Private Office and a Deputy Secretary General, who assists the Secretary General and replaces him in his absence. The Deputy Secretary General is also the chairman of a number of senior committees, ad hoc groups and working groups. More generally speaking, the entire International Staff at NATO Headquarters supports the Secretary General, either directly or indirectly.

The Secretary General has three principal responsibilities: Chairman of the North Atlantic Council and other key bodies, spokesperson of the alliance and head of the International Staff.

First and foremost, the Secretary General chairs the North Atlantic Council - the Alliance’s principal political decision-making body - as well as other senior decision-making committees. These include the Nuclear Planning Group, the NATO-Russia Council, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Mediterranean Co-operation Group. Additionally, together with a Ukrainian representative, he is the chairman of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, as well as the chairman of the NATO-Georgia Commission. Above and beyond the role of chairman, the Secretary General has the authority to propose items for discussion and use his good offices in case of disputes between member states. He acts as a decision facilitator, leading and guiding the process of consensus-building and decision-making throughout the Alliance. He maintains direct contact with heads of state and government, foreign and defence ministers in NATO and partner countries, in order to facilitate this process. This entails regular visits to NATO and partner countries, as well as bilateral meetings with senior national officials when they visit NATO Headquarters. Effectively, his role allows him to exert some influence on the decision-making process while respecting the fundamental principle that the authority for taking decisions is invested only in the member governments themselves.

Principal spokesperson - The Secretary General is also the principal spokesman of the Alliance and represents the Alliance in public on behalf of the member countries, reflecting their common positions on political issues. He also represents NATO vis-à-vis other international organizations as well as to the media and the public at large. To this end the Secretary General regularly holds press briefings and conferences as well as public lectures and speeches.

Head of the International Staff - Third and lastly, the Secretary General is the senior executive officer of the NATO International Staff, responsible for making staff appointments and overseeing its work.

North Atlantic Council

  • NAC
  • Corporate body
  • 1949

The North Atlantic Council is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. It brings together high-level representatives of each member country to discuss policy or operational questions requiring collective decisions. In sum, it provides a forum for wide-ranging consultation between members on all issues affecting their peace and security.All members have an equal right to express their views and share in the consensus on which decisions are based. Decisions are agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. This means that policies decided upon by the North Atlantic Council (NAC) are supported by and are the expression of the collective will of all the sovereign states that are members of the Alliance and are accepted by all of them.Strictly speaking, the NAC is not the only body within NATO that carries such a high degree of authority. The Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) has comparable authority for matters within its specific area of competence. However, in practice, the NAC convenes far more frequently than the NPG and covers a broader scope of themes – as broad as the member countries decide it should be. Consequently, it is commonly referred to as NATO’s principal decision-making body.

Effective political authority and powers of decision. The NAC has effective political authority and powers of decision. It is the only body that was established by the North Atlantic Treaty, under Article 9:“The Parties hereby establish a council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The council shall be so organized as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defense committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.”

In addition to being the only body invested with the authority to set up “such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary”, it is also the ultimate authority at the head of a large, intricate network of committees and working groups. It is often referred to as “the Council”. The NAC is the principal political decision-making body and oversees the political and military process relating to security issues affecting the whole Alliance. Items discussed and decisions taken at meetings of the Council cover all aspects of the Organization's activities and are frequently based on reports and recommendations prepared by subordinate committees at the Council's request. Equally, subjects may be raised by the Secretary General or any one of the national representatives, in particular under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.” Representation at different levels; Representatives of all member countries of NATO have a seat at the NAC. It can meet at the level of “permanent representatives” (or “ambassadors”), at the level of foreign and defence ministers, and at the level of heads of state and government. Its decisions have the same status and validity at whatever level it meets.

The NAC is chaired by the Secretary General. In the absence of the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General chairs the meetings. The longest serving ambassador on the Council assumes the title of dean of the Council. Primarily a ceremonial function, the dean may be called upon to play a more specific presiding role, for example in convening meetings and chairing discussions at the time of the selection of a new Secretary General. At ministerial meetings of foreign ministers, one country's foreign minister assumes the role of honorary president. The position rotates annually among members in the order of the English alphabet. The ambassadors sit round the table in order of nationality, following the English alphabetical order. The same procedure is followed throughout the NATO committee structure.

Working procedures; The NAC meets at least every week and often more frequently, at the level of permanent representatives; it meets twice a year at the level of ministers of foreign affairs, three times a year at the level of ministers of defence, and occasionally at the summit level with the participation of prime ministers and heads of state and government. Permanent representatives act on instruction from their capitals, informing and explaining the views and the policy decisions of their governments to their colleagues around the table. Conversely they report back to their national authorities on the views expressed and positions taken by other governments, informing them of new developments and keeping them abreast of movement toward consensus on important issues or areas where national positions diverge. Each country represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.

Preparing the Council's work. The work of the Council is prepared by subordinate committees with responsibility for specific areas of policy. Much of this work involves the Deputies Committee, consisting of Deputy Permanent Representatives.The Council has an important public profile and issues declarations and communiqués explaining the Alliance's policies and decisions. These documents are normally published after ministerial or summit meetings. The Deputies Committee has particular responsibility for preparing such documents and meets in advance of ministerial meetings to draft the texts for Council approval. A similar role is played by the Nuclear Planning Staff Group on behalf of the Nuclear Planning Group. Other aspects of political work may be handled by the Political and Partnerships Committee. Depending on the topic under discussion, the respective senior committee with responsibility for the subject assumes the leading role in preparing Council meetings and following up Council decisions. When the Council meets at the level of defence ministers, or is dealing with defence matters and questions relating to defence strategy, senior committees such as the Defence Policy and Planning Committee may be involved as principal advisory bodies. If financial matters are on the Council's agenda, the Resource Policy and Planning Board will be responsible to the Council for preparing relevant aspects of its work.

Supporting the Council; Direct support to the Council is provided by the Secretary of the Council, who ensures that Council mandates are executed and its decisions recorded and circulated. A small Council Secretariat ensures the bureaucratic and logistical aspects of the NAC's work, while the relevant divisions of the International Staff support the work of committees reporting to the NAC. Generally speaking, the entire International Staff at NATO HQ supports the work of the Council, either directly or indirectly, and helps to ensure that Council decisions are implemented.

Results 1 to 20 of 206