You are here

Home » Content

HANGİ ÖGELER ULUSAL GÜVENLİK STRATEJİ BELGELERİNİ OLUŞTURMALIDIR? BİR İÇERİK ANALİZİ

WHAT SHOULD THE NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS CONSIST OF? A CONTENT ANALYSIS

Journal Name:

  • Kara Harp Okulu Bilim Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2016

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Security is a phenomenon which can be ensured by countries, organizations, institutions, private sector and individuals of societies all together. Countries try to ensure their national security through establishing national security systems. National security systems are integrated with National Security Strategy Papers. In the literature a limited number of studies have been found on what the content of this strategically important document should be. In this context, this study investigates the elements which are used in the creation of Countries’ National Security Strategy Papers and whether these elements are similar to each other. In this study, firstly security levels were explored and the necessity of National Security Strategy Papers was focused on. Secondly, a literature review was conducted on the studies in this particular area. Thirdly, National Security Strategy Papers from 30 countries and 2 international organizations (NATO, EU) which were collected via internet are analyzed through content analysis. Within the content analysis, the number of sections, sentences, words and the most used words in the abovementioned documents are defined. In addition to this, components which were set forth in scope of our research were brought under analysis. Finally, the results of content analysis were interpreted. According to the findings, all elements were used over 50%. Also, as an additional item “Required Capabilities” were used in 34% of National Security Strategy Papers. Moreover, it was revealed that liberal approach was used in 94% of all National Security Strategy Papers in order to describe our current security environment. Furthermore, the other two approaches were used in nearly 50% of the National Security Strategy Papers. In light of these findings, recommendations were proposed for the improvement of National Security Strategy Papers.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Güvenlik; ülkeler, örgütler, kuruluşlar, özel sektör ve toplumun tüm bireyleri ile birlikte sağlanabilen bir olgudur. Ülkeler ulusal güvenliklerini ulusal güvenlik sistemi kurmak suretiyle sağlamaya çalışmaktadırlar. Ulusal güvenlik sistemleri ise Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri ile bütünleştirilmektedir. Literatürde, stratejik öneme sahip olan bu dokümanın içeriğinin nelerden oluşması gerektiğine yönelik sınırlı sayıda çalışma tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda bu araştırmada, Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri’nin hangi ögelerden oluştuğu ve bu ögelerin birbirine benzer olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Çalışmada, öncelikle güvenlik düzeyleri ve Ulusal Strateji Belgeleri’nin gerekliliği üzerinde durulmuştur. İkinci olarak bu özel alanda yapılan çalışmalara yönelik literatür taraması yapılmıştır. Üçüncü olarak internette yer alan 30 ülke ve 2 uluslararası örgüte (NATO, AB) ait Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. İçerik analizi kapsamında öncelikle söz konusu dokümanların bölüm, cümle, kelime sayıları ile en çok kullanılan kelimelerin neler olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, araştırma kapsamında ele alınan ögeler analiz edilmiştir. Son olarak, içerik analizi sonuçları yorumlanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre araştırma kapsamında ortaya konulan tüm ögelerin günümüz Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri’nin % 50’sinin üzerinde kullanıldığı ve ilave bir öge olarak "Gerekli Yetenekler" ögesinin Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri’nin % 34’ünde kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca söz konusu dokümanlarda günümüz güvenlik ortamının ifade edilmesinde kullanılan yaklaşımlardan liberal yaklaşımın % 94 oranında kullanıldığı ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Diğer iki yaklaşımın ise Ulusal Strateji Belgeleri’nin yaklaşık % 50'sinde kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Çalışmada, elde edilen bu bulgular ışığında değerlendirmeler yapılarak Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri’nin gelişimine yönelik yapılabilecek çalışmalar için öneriler sunulmuştur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-hangi-ogeler-ulusal-guvenlik-strateji-belgelerini-olusturmalidir-bir-icerik-analizi.pdf
  • 1
23
49
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Adkins, M., Burgoon, M., Nunamaker, J.F.Jr. (2002). Using group support systems for strategic planning with the United States Air Force. Decision Support Systems, 34, 315–337.
Australian Government (2013). Strong and secure: A strategy for Australia’s national security. 1-47.
Baldwin D.A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, British International Studies Association. 5-26.
Barca, M. (2009). Stratejik yönetim düşüncesinin evrimi: Bilimsel bir disiplin oluşum hikayesi. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5, 1, 7-38.
Binnendjik, H. (2002). ABD silahlı kuvvetlerinin dönüşümü. NDU Yayınları.
Brauch, H.G. (2008). Güvenliğin yeniden kavramsallaştırılması: Barış, güvenlik, kalkınma ve çevre kavramsal dörtlüsü. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5, 18, 1-47.
Brauch, H.G., Spring, O.Ü., Mesjasz, C., Grin, J., Kameri-Mbote, P., Chourou, B., Dunay, P. ve Birkmann, J. (2011). Coping with global environmental change, disasters and security threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks. LI, ISBN: 978-3-642-17775-0.
Brock, D.M. ve Barry, D. (2003). What if planning were really strategic? Exploring the strategy-planning relationship in multinationals. International Business Review, 12, 543–561.
Caudle, S.L. (2005). Homeland security capabilities-based planning: Lessons from the defense community. Homeland Security Affairs, 1, 2, 1-21.
Caudle, S.L. (2009). National security strategies: Security from what, for whom, and by what means. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 6, 1, 1-22.
Çomaklı, Ş.E., Ekici, K.M. ve Şahım, T.Z. (2007). Geleceği planlamada stratejik yönetim. A-C Yayınevi.
Council of the European Union. (2009). European security strategy. 1-43.
Davis, P.K. (2007), Rethinking defense planning. New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, 1-14.
Kara Harp Okulu Bilim Dergisi, Haziran 2016, 26 (1), 23-49. | 43
Defence Reform Unit. (2002). The government of Uganda’s security policy framework. 1-36.
Doğan, T. (2008). Strateji tipleri ve stratejik yönetim süreçlerinin firma performansına etkileri. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Drew, D.M. (1988). Making strategy: An introduction to national security processes and problems. Air University Press, 1-209.
Edwards, C. (2007). The case for a national security. Demos Report.
Federal Ministry of Defence. (2006). White paper 2006 on German security policy and the future of the Bundeswehr. 1-126.
Government of Belize. (2009). The national security strategy of Belize. 1-37.
Government of Britain. (2010). A strong Britain in an age of uncertainty: The national security strategy. 1-37.
Government of Bulgaria. (2010). White paper on defence and the armed forces of the Republic of Bulgaria. 1-71.
Government of Canada. (2004). Securing an open society: Canada’s national security policy. 1-52.
Government of Czech Republic. (2015). Security strategy of the Czech Republic. 1-26.
Government of Georgia. (2012). National security concept of Georgia. 1-28.
Government of Jamaica. (2013). A new approach: National security policy for Jamaica. 1-131.
Government of Spain. (2013). The national security strategy. 1-58.
Güler, A. Halıcıoğlu, M.B. ve Taşğın, S. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri, Seçkin, 1. Baskı, 1-431.
Heads of State and Government at the NATO. (2010). Strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 1-36.
Kolins. M. (2008). Making the strategic plan work. The Physician Executive, 42-45.
44 | Ocak
Lucas, N.J. (2015). The 2015 national security strategy: Authorities, changes, issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 1-26.
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. (2008). White book 2007 defence policy of Ukraine. 1-119.
Ministry of Defence. (2013). National security strategy. 1-37.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2012). Hungary’s national security strategy. 1-23.
Mintzberg, H. ve Waters, J.A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257-272.
Munich Security Conference. (2015). Munich security report collapsing order, reluctant guardians?. 16 Nisan 2015 tarihinde http://www. securityconference.de. adresinden alınmıştır.
Naktiyok, A., (1999). Çevresel çalkantı ve örgüt kültürü bir uygulama. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
Mongolia. (2010). National security concept of Mongolia. 1-20.
National Security Council. (2007). National security strategy of the Republic of Armenia. 1-22.
Netherland. (2013). National safety and security strategy. 1-32.
Netherlands National Government (2009). Working with scenarios, risk assessment and capabilities in the national safety and security strategy of the Netherlands. 1-102.
New Zealand Government. (2010). Defence white paper 2010. 1-100.
Obeng, K. ve Ugboro, I. (2008). Effective strategic planning in public transit systems, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44, 3, 420–439.
Posen, B.R. ve Ross, A.L. (1996). Competing visions for US grand strategy. International Security, 21, 3, 5-53.
President of Romania. (2007). The national security strategy of Romania. 1-56.
President of The Republic of Azerbaijan. (2007). National security concept of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 1-23.
Kara Harp Okulu Bilim Dergisi, Haziran 2016, 26 (1), 23-49. | 45
Republic of France. (2013). French white paper on defence and national security. 1-135.
Republic of Korea. (2014). 2014 defense white paper. 1-325.
Republic of Lithuania. (2012). The military strategy. 1-10.
Republic of Poland. (2010). National security strategy of the Republic of Poland. 1-57.
Republic of Serbia. (2009). National security strategy of the Republic of Serbia. 1-38.
Republic of The Philippines Department of National Defense. (2012). A white paper on Philippine defense transformation. 1-42.
Republik Österreich. (2013). Austrian security strategy: Security in a new decade—shaping security. 1-22.
Riigikogu. (2010). National security concept of Estonia. 1-21.
Rostek, M., Gizewski P. ve Reslike R. (2011). Futuring and force development: An interim report on Canadian Army 2040 project. NATO Science and Technology Organization, Long Range Forecasting of the Security Environment, 1-2.
Stolberg, A.G. (2012). How nation states craft national security documents. US Army War College. Strategic Studies Institute, 1-153.
Tagarev T. (2009). Capabilities-basd planning for security sector transformation. Information & Security Journal, 24, 27-35.
The Croatian Parliament. (2002). Croatia's national security. 1-19.
The White House. (2015). National security strategy. 1-29.
Walker, S.K. (2005). Capabilities-based planning-how it is intended to work and challenges to its succesful implementation, US Army War College Strategy Research Project, 1-30.
Weeks, S.B. “Change and its reflection in national security strategy and force structure”, 04 Ekim 2015’te http://apcss.org/Publications/EditedVolumes/RegionalFinalchapters/Chapte.... adresiden alınmıştır.
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimsek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Güncelleştirilmiş Geliştirilmiş 5. Baskı. Ankara. Seçkin Yayıncılık. 1-366.
46 | Ocak
Yıldırım, H. (2009). Türkiye’de büyükşehir belediyelerinde stratejik planlama üzerine bir analiz. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Yozgat, U. ve Karataş N. (2011). Going green of mission and vision statements: Ethical, social, and environmental concerns across organizations. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1359–1366.
Zrnic, B. (2008). The new trends in defence planning and their impact on the defence planning systems in transitional countries. Seaford House Papers, 25-47.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com