Vloga NATA in EU v odzivanju na civilne krize

• Published in: Teorija in praksa
• Main Author: Malešič, Marjan
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: Slovenian
• Published: Fakulteta za družbene vede 2022
• Subjects: krizno upravljanje in vodenje; odziv na krizo; Natovo civilno krizno načrtovanje; Mehanizem EU za civilno zaščito; pomoč; migrantska kriza; Covid-19; crisis; crisis management; crisis response; NATO’s Civil Emergency Planning; EU’s Mechanism for Civil Protection; help; migrant crisis; COVID-19 pandemic; info:eu-repo/classification/udc/[061.1NATO+061.1EU]:351.743.078.7; sami
• Online Access: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=138822; https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?id=159285&dn=; https://plus.cobiss.net/cobiss/si/sl/bib/118613763; https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12556/RUL-138822

Značilnosti sodobnih kriz so: heterogenost, endemičnost, neprekinjenost in kompleksnost. Te vplivajo na možnost delovanja nacionalnih in mednarodnih mehanizmov kriznega upravljanja in vodenja, ki so tudi sami v krizi in se morajo prilagajati novim okoliščinam. Analiza se osredini na primerjavo Natovega civilnega kriznega načrtovanja in Mehanizma EU za civilno zaščito. Motivacija za njuno oblikovanje ni bila zgolj funkcionalna, ampak tudi politična. Demotivacijski dejavnik združevanja držav na tem področju je njihov strah pred izgubo dela suverenosti. Sodelovanje držav prek obeh mehanizmov omogoča koordinirano, sinergijsko in uspešno uporabo razpoložljivih zmogljivosti v krizi. Obseg delovanja Nata in EU pri odzivanju na velike civilne krize po svetu je impresiven, analiza posameznih primerov pa pokaže določene pomanjkljivosti, kar še posebej velja za omejen Natov odziv na migrantsko krizo v Evropi in za obotavljiv odziv EU na začetku pandemije virusa SARS-Cov-2 Contemporary crises are characterised by heterogeneity, endemicity, continuity and complexity. They impact the possibility of national and international crisis management mechanisms functioning, which are themselves also in crisis and must be adapted to the new circumstances. The analysis presented in article is focused on a comparison of NATO’s Civil Emergency Planning and the EU’s Civil Protection Mechanism. The motivation for forming each was not only functional, but political as well. The factor de-motivating states’ integration into this field is their fear of losing part of their sovereignty. Countries’ cooperation through both mechanisms enables the coordinated, synergetic and successful use of available capabilities in a crisis. While the scope of NATO’s and the EU’s response to huge crises around the world is impressive, certain shortcomings are revealed when considering individual cases, especially NATO’s limited response to the migrant crisis in Europe and the EU’s hesitant response to the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic