INTRODUCTION
An effort to improve the capabilities of military units to strengthen their operational effectiveness, interoperability, and multi-purpose, is a necessary prerequisite leading to victory. The application of joint standards and military art embodied in military doctrines undoubtedly contributes to increasing the combat potential of the armed forces as such.
Basic principles enshrined in the doctrines guide the activities of the armed forces. The implementation of new knowledge and lessons learned into the conditions of the armed forces is a long-term process that needs to be emphasized from the perspective of the changing security environment and must be perceived in the context of a modern military.
The successful participation of the Czech Armed Forces (CAF) in joint combined operations led not only by NATO but also within the European Union and the United Nations is based primarily on NATO standards implemented in its military doctrines. The doctrinal system must support the development of thinking using the latest knowledge of military practice. Its aim must undoubtedly be to facilitate the performance of the CAF. Newly introduced doctrines must reflect current trends in the military and also take into account new knowledge applicable to operations.
It is necessary to emphasize that the doctrines are an integral part of the planning in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of the Czech Republic, where interconnected functional areas are used and evaluated according to the NATO DOTMLPFI[1] methodology to provide a comprehensive structured description of required changes in the existing state. Doctrines as one of the functional areas can significantly influence or initiate changes in other areas.
The article aims to evaluate the current situation in the field of the CAF joint doctrine development and to identify the possibilities of an optimization of the existing system.
1 BACKGROUND
Generally speaking, a doctrine can be understood as a fixed teaching, usually based on some authority. It is also sometimes used to refer to a set of immutable principles - dogmas. In contemporary usage, it is usually used to refer to a set of principles that govern the foreign and security policy of a state[2]. The term doctrine came into English from French meaning to teach, to give advice. Shortly thereafter, the word took on other meanings - theories, principles, and the aforementioned term dogma[3].
Despite its importance, the term military doctrine is often poorly defined. In a very superficial way, most military practitioners are familiar with the term doctrine as a collection of numerous manuals and other publications specifying some kind of guidance on a particular matter. A precise and semantically correct definition of the term doctrine allows a general understanding of its functions. The answer to this question may be complicated by the fact that there are many different approaches relating to the understanding of the functions of doctrine[4].
One of the possible approaches identifies ideal types where…” doctrine serves as a tool of command in terms of what to do, a tool of change in terms of what a military is to be, and a tool of education in terms of what a military does, why they do what they do, and who they are as an organization”[5]. Another approach identifies doctrine across technical, tactical, operational, and military strategic levels/areas. Technical and tactical doctrines exist to provide instruction on the proper uses of equipment and procedures. At the operational level, where doctrine focuses on military actions, the preferences represent a direct transmission of the most appropriate manner to conduct the operational level of war. Military strategic doctrine functions to connect operations to the broader political and strategic landscape, by providing some degree of explanation regarding the role of military institutions in the national strategy[6].
Allied Joint Doctrine defines doctrine as “fundamental principles by which military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application”. Doctrine offers a substance of expertise but it does not and should never replace the skills, experience, creativity, and commanders´ judgment[7].
Sometimes the term of military doctrine might be replaced by the military publication which can cause some confusion. Nevertheless, the meaning of those two terms is mutually interchangeable in terms of the definition. In contrast, the term military regulations must be understood differently. These represent normative acts of the Czech MoD, which are binding for the military servicemen and all categories of employees executing the tasks of the CAF.
1.1 Czech Doctrinal Framework
Doctrines, like the armed forces, are constantly evolving. Until 1999, the CAF capabilities had been developed to ensure the individual defence of the Czech Republic. The change came with the Czech Republic's accession to NATO when it was necessary to start developing capabilities in accordance with the needs of collective defence and interoperability requirements. The first hierarchy of the CAF doctrines was adopted, which started building the doctrinal system, currently the doctrinal framework. Subsequently, through the standardization process, alliance doctrines began to be introduced into the CAF conditions through the NATO standardization process.
Standardization in the field of joint military operations within NATO is handled by the Military Committee Joint Standardization Board (MCJSB). At the same time, other areas of operations, or standardization boards, are maritime, land, air, medical, and logistics. NATO standardization can be understood as …..” the development and implementation of concepts, doctrines, procedures, and designs in order to achieve and maintain the compatibility, interchangeability or commonality which are necessary to attain the required level of interoperability, or to optimize the use of resources, in the fields of operations, materiel and administration”[8].
The doctrinal framework of the CAF consists of a system of military publications divided into military doctrines and expert publications as highlighted in Picture 1.
Picture 1: Doctrinal Framework of the Czech Armed Forces
Doctrinal framework as such needs to be seen from the higher perspective of the normative framework, which also includes military regulations, publications, Czech Defence Standards, standardization agreements, etc.
The development of military publications, respectively doctrines within the CAF is assigned to different branches within the MoD according to the level of command and control, which are:
- at the strategic level, the responsibility belongs to the Capabilities Planning Division of the MoD (the CAF doctrine);
- at the operational level, which is the responsibility of individual divisions and separate departments of the MoD and the General Staff (doctrines for the operational level, military regulations, and publications in the field of capability development and operational art);
- at the tactical level the responsibility lies with the Training Command-Military Academy (tactical doctrines, publications, and training aids).
The primary responsibility for the development of any military publication rests with the gestor of the military publication, which is the head of the relevant organizational unit under the authority of the Chief of General Staff of the CAF, who is fully or predominantly responsible for the issues covered by the military publication.
1.2 Allied Joint Doctrine Architecture
The development of the NATO joint doctrines is the responsibility of the MCJSB, which ensures NATO interoperability through the development, revision, and harmonization of Allied Joint Publications (AJP) for the planning and conducting of joint operations. The executive body for the AJP development is the Allied Joint Operations Doctrine Working Group (AJOD WG), whose members are NATO Member States, Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries and other partners, the International Military Staff (IMS), NATO Strategic and Subordinate Commands, NATO Agencies and Centers of Excellence (CoE).
The AJOD WG permanent structure is comprised of the Doctrine Support Panel responsible for managing the doctrine development responsibilities and the Terminology Panel, which ensures compliance with the NATO Terminology Programme guidance.
The management of the production and revision of individual AJPs is provided by custodians recruited from Alliance countries, NATO Strategic Commands, CoEs, NATO education and training facilities, or other NATO military authorities. They are mainly responsible for:
- establish a writing team composed of the appropriate type of personnel to complete AJP development;
- regularly liaise with the IMS doctrine sponsor;
- support the Allied Command for Transformation in data fusion;
- meet deadlines and milestones set for the development of the doctrine;
- produce reports on the management of the AJP process.
The development of each AJP is established in the Allied Joint Doctrine Campaign Plan (Production plan). Each publication is assigned a sponsor from the IMS who provides custodial access to relevant knowledge available through NATO headquarters and NATO Command Structure.
To ensure maximum effectiveness and validity of the AJP, NATO member countries should participate in developing or revising the doctrine from the outset, allowing them to provide input from their lessons learned, principles and rules, or other areas. Input from Allies at the very beginning of the process can eliminate potential risks associated with doctrine revision and allow for data fusion taking into account any national inputs or constraints[9].
Publications are structured and numbered in a system called the Allied Joint Doctrine Architecture (AJDA), used to identify levels and functional links. A simplified schematic representation of this system is provided in Picture 2.
Picture 2: Allied Joint Doctrine Architecture
In the context of the issue under study, this article will continue to refer to the AJDA wherever the alliance doctrine system is discussed.
2 METHODOLOGY
The research aims to evaluate the current situation in the field of joint doctrine development and to identify possible optimization of an existing system. The following research questions were formulated to meet the research objective:
- How are the joint Alliance doctrines implemented into the CAF?
- How is the development of the CAF military publications coordinated?
- To what extent is the Czech doctrinal framework currently fulfilled?
Those identified questions should address the issues and problems, which, through analysis and interpretation of data, are to be answered in the paper's conclusion.
Within the framework of the established methodology, an evaluation of national normative acts and publications regulating the development of military regulations and doctrines was carried out. There was also executed an analysis of the CAF doctrinal framework and its comparison with the AJDA. To evaluate the military doctrine development system, there was applied a structured interview using the Pencil and Paper Interview method. Respondents were asked the same predetermined questions in the same order and recorded to the questionnaire. The research sample of respondents was selected by the method of random selection using the quota selection technique[10]. The interviewed group includes 14 members of the CAF holding managerial, command, and leadership positions at various levels of command and control.
3 ANALYSIS
The analysis was focused on examining the system of joint doctrine development at the strategic and operational levels, especially from a content and process perspective. When evaluating the doctrinal framework in terms of its structure and completeness, the AJDA was taken as a point of reference, both in terms of standardization and the division of doctrines according to individual levels of command and control.
3.1 Content Analysis
The main goal of the content analysis was to specify the system settings in terms of normative (legal) and procedural perspectives. The evaluated documents, including a brief description of their content and characteristics, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Document analysis
Name of the document |
Type of the document |
Content of the document |
Vševojsk-20-1 Preparation and approval of military publications, 2021 |
Regulation |
Definition of military doctrines and professional publications in the system of military publications of the CAF (doctrinal framework), the basic role of senior staff and other persons involved in the process of development of military publications, their marking, publication, and accessibility. |
Professional methodical guidelines for the development, publication, and revision of military publications in the Czech Armed Forces, 2021 |
Methodical instruction |
Establishment of basic principles, rules, and procedures, determination of the production, revision and live cycle of the military publications, specification of guidelines, and establishment of formalities in the production process (follow-up to Vševojsk 20-1). |
Directive of the Chief of the General Staff of the CAF on the establishment of the Committee for the Coordination of the Development of military regulations and military publications, 2019 |
Directive |
Establishment of the Committee for the coordination of the development of military regulations and military publications, establishing the functions constituting the Coordinating Committee. |
Status and Rules of Procedure of the Committee for the Coordination of the Development of military regulations and military publications, 2019 |
Directive |
Determination of obligations for the members of the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary, setting up the Committee's activities - rules of procedure. |
The key terms in the content analysis were identified as the Coordinating Committee, the military publications production plan, the military publications system (doctrinal framework), and the doctrinal life cycle. These key phrases will be further explored in terms of their connotation, implications, roles, and interrelationships in the process of military publication development.
3.2 Structured Interview
Data collection using the structured interview was conducted to retrieve answers and opinions on the current state of the art in the field of joint doctrine development in the CAF, based on the respondents' expertise and experience.
Respondents were asked the following questions:
- Is the system of military publications (doctrinal framework) currently filled with necessary doctrines at the strategic and operational levels? Alternatively, what doctrines at these levels should be added to the framework?
- Do you think that the system of the implementation of the AJPs into the CAF (either by rewriting them into the Czech version of the doctrine or by introducing them in the full English version as the STANAG through regulation) is sufficient for the needs of the CAF members?
- The Coordinating Committee represents the main body for the development of the doctrinal framework. Do you believe that the Committee has sufficient authority to effectively coordinate, communicate, and interact based on established principles, rules, and procedures during the process of developing, issuing, and implementing revisions of the military doctrines at the strategic and operational levels?
- Do you support the statement that doctrines at the operational level (joint, force components, functional areas) specify the principles set out in the CAF Doctrine and related NATO documents, and therefore should be hierarchically and substantively developed following the doctrinal system used in NATO?
- Updating of military publications should be carried out in the framework of their preparation and publication. Do you agree with the statement that the relevance of individual doctrines at the strategic and operational level is in line with the needs of the CAF and at the same time in line with the life cycle of a military publication?
- Can it be stated that the current military publications/doctrines methodically specify the basic provisions of the applicable military regulations?
For a graphical representation of the result of the interviews, the results of the answers to the questions were transcribed into the form of statements with which the interviewees agreed or disagreed to a certain extent. The answers were evaluated on a three‑point rating scale (Agree, Partially agree, and Disagree). The questionnaire survey results are shown in Picture 3.
Picture 3: Questionnaire survey results
3.3 Key Problem Formulation/Problem Modeling
Based on the outputs from the analysis, a key problem was identified using causal analysis. The method of the so-called Problem Tree illustrated in Picture 4 was chosen for its definition[11]. The identified roots of causes were divided into those affecting the end state (Ends), those affecting the solution (Ways), and those affecting material and financial security including human resources (Means).
Based on the output of the problem modeling, the key problem is defined as follows:
“Current system of the CAF doctrinal framework development does not create an optimal environment for its expansion.”
Picture 4: Problem tree
3.4 Analysis Summary
Generally, it can be concluded that the system of military publications development is set up according to valid regulations, directives, and instructions. The CAF doctrinal framework architecture is not identical to the AJDA. Czech military doctrines are divided into individual levels, while the structure and content of the doctrines are not set systematically.
Due to the necessity to capture national specifics in the Czech military publications, different approaches are applied when implementing NATO doctrines into CAF. There is used a system of introducing AJPs into the CAF either by rewriting them into the Czech version of the doctrine or by introducing them in the full English version as the STANAG through regulation. Notwithstanding, for military publications, the issue of legally binding force is not clearly set. All of this then affects the application of the required updates to these doctrines.
Coordinating Committee was established as a supervising body for the military publications and regulations revision process within the CAF. However, committee members do not have the authority to streamline the actual process of producing military publications. Those officials responsible for military publications in each life cycle are in particular the approving authority (assigner), the gestor, the guarantor (custodian), and, last but not least the head of the processing group. Yet, the information flow between these official bodies is not sufficiently set up, which harms the production process of military publications.
The current CAF strategic doctrine, which was issued in 2019, is based on Czech strategic documents and at the same time implements the outdated alliance doctrine AJP-01. In addition, the current version of the Czech strategic doctrine differs in both structure and scope of information when compared between editions.
The division of doctrines within the Czech doctrinal framework at the operational level is divided into functional areas, force components, and joint doctrines. The operational level doctrine breakdown in the CAF is not the same as in the AJDA.
In common cases, the use of inconsistent military terminology in doctrines and regulations has a negative impact on the use of those documents in practice. Moreover, the use of NATO terminology (English language) within the current system of implementation of the Alliance doctrines is aggravated by the different language skills level of the CAF members.
4 DISCUSSION
The discussion will touch on some of the findings, which will be compared with similar results related to the issue under study. Those will be later taken on board to some extent when defining recommendations.
The issue of the necessity of unification of the doctrine´s content and structure can also be found in other research. Štěpánková and Richter[12] found that the structure of the strategic and conceptual documents as such is always based on the assignment. They revealed that vague assignments can increase the intuitive approach to deciding on the document structure, causing high variability in the structure of individual documents. Therefore, the beginning of the process of document development should be always initiated by an assignment and setting up a general goal. Budík[13] noticed, that during the CAF Strategic Doctrine development, there were inconsistencies in its content due to the different structure and depth of information used in the individual editions and chapters of the doctrine. According to the author, the key decision is to accept the assumption that the AJP-01 will be the model for Czech strategic doctrine and fundamentally influence its content and structure. Yet, it shall include the necessity to incorporate the modifications resulting from national specifics. In parallel, similar conclusions regarding the necessity to take into account the national particulars were also made by Simmer[14].
Another addressed area relates to the personnel involved in military publication development. It was found out, that the motivation system for the officers involved in the military publications development is not set in motion. One of the recommendations given by respondents refers to the possibility of strengthening the process of doctrine development via the element with competent experts who would address the different levels of doctrine within their job description. Štěpánková and Richter[15] proved that among highly accentuated difficulties were random (unsystematic) choices of the members of the process team often based on incorrect criteria or their low motivation to take responsibility for document development. The authors recommended including the need for a definition of the relevant criteria for the nomination of the processing team members such as qualification, experience, knowledge or time capacity, and motivation to participate in the process. A similar finding regarding the necessity to involve in such a process competent personnel was identified by Petráš[16] while looking for a statistically significant number of experts being potentially eligible for the research conducted in the area of capability development. He found that the lack of respective subject matter experts is due to the extensive fluctuation of military personnel within the chain of command.
Last, but not least there emerged a matter of the option to introduce AJPs into the CAF in the form of the full text (NATO STANAG). For instance, this very similar way is applied by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, whose Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre produces strategic and operational level doctrines. In some cases, United Kingdom doctrines adopt a NATO publication as a direct replacement for the United Kingdom national equivalent or add its national elements to NATO publications to highlight national differences in approach[17]. This might be referred to the necessity of the national specifics incorporation as mentioned by Budík[18] and Simmer[19].
5 PROPOSALS
Based on the research results, the need to optimize the processing environment emerged, especially by creating conditions that will support the continuous development of the doctrinal framework. The Mind map, shown in Picture 5, provides a graphical model of initial ideas and research findings.
Picture 5: Mind map
The map divides the entire cycle of military doctrine development into mutually independent areas. Such a dichotomy aims to increase the efficiency of the whole process and avoid overlapping tasks between the different members. For this reason, there is a group responsible for producing the Development (Production) Plan and a processing group carrying out tasks resulting from the approved Plan.
Individual responsibilities and interrelationships must be set up both horizontally and vertically, which is key to ensuring the efficient work of the processing group. Emphasis must also be placed on staffing the processing group with members with sufficient expertise whose main job would be to develop doctrine. Depicted areas called Means and Ways include processes and describe settings that support the development of the military doctrines concerning resources. The amount of personnel, financial, and material capabilities required must reflect the tasks arising from the Plan.
The thinking map provides a representation of the ideal state that should be achieved in the CAF doctrinal environment and demonstrates the initial model that will allow defining proposals leading to the optimization of the current state of the Czech doctrinal environment
Proposals leading to the optimization of military publications, respectively doctrinal framework development, are based on the thinking map. These suggestions include possible impacts, both positive and negative.
5.1 Proposal Affecting the Final State “ENDS”
Proposal No. 1 - Alignment of the Czech doctrinal framework with the NATO AJDA, taking into account national specifics.
Table 2: Proposal No. 1 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Simplification of the process of the implementation of NATO doctrines into the CAF environment. |
Necessary adjustment of already established CAF doctrines during the transition to the new doctrinal framework. |
2. |
Coherence of national and NATO doctrines facilitating regular revisions and updates. |
|
3. |
Elimination of duplication based on the needs of "dual" doctrines. |
A comprehensive approach and an increased level of participation of all stakeholders involved in the new doctrinal framework structure. |
4. |
Usability of national doctrines for the tasks carried out by CAF on the territory of the Czech Republic as well as in NATO-led operations abroad. |
|
Possible impact rate: High |
Proposal No. 2 - Preservation of the current status of military doctrines with adjustment of the interrelations between the sub-elements of the normative framework (regulations, military publications) and NATO doctrines.
Table 3: Proposal No. 2 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Continuation of the current system. |
A compromise solution with a short-term effect. |
2. |
Optimization of partial problems negatively affecting the system of military publications development. |
|
Necessary adjustment of competencies between the different parts of the system. |
||
Possible impact rate: Low |
Proposal No. 3 - Adoption of AJPs in the form of the full text (NATO STANAG) with a specification of national specifics.
Table 4: Proposal No. 3 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
The easiest way to fulfill the national doctrinal framework. |
Necessary adjustment of already established CAF doctrines. |
2. |
The opportunity to streamline the entire system of the development and review processes in all areas affecting the doctrinal environment. |
|
The need for complex reconstruction of a current system of implementation and development of military publications. |
||
3. |
Consistent use of military terminology. |
|
Possible impact rate: High |
Proposal No. 4 - Defining the doctrinal content scheme according to the level of command and control.
Table 5: Proposal No. 4 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Adjustment of a systems approach facilitates the introduction of new knowledge in a unified form with a content focus on the appropriate level of the doctrine. |
No findings. |
2. |
The possibility of evaluating the relevance of doctrines by the content of single chapters. |
|
3. |
Optimization of activities related to the life cycle of military publications. |
|
Possible impact rate: Medium |
Proposal No. 5 – Definition of indicators to assess the level of relevance of doctrines.
Table 6: Proposal No. 5 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Key input for the development of the military publications production plan. |
No findings. |
2. |
Unification of stakeholders' views on the relevance (usability) of a given publication. |
|
3. |
Elimination of non-conceptual steps. |
|
Possible impact rate: Medium |
5.2 Proposal affecting the final state “WAYS”
Proposal No. 1 - Application of the system approach used for the development of conceptual documents of the Ministry of Defence
Table 7: Proposal No. 1 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Use of already established rules in a similar system. |
The necessity of theoretical verification of the chosen approach for the needs of the CAF. |
2. |
Increased funding for time, material, and human resources involved in the application of the new approach. |
|
Possible impact rate: Medium |
Proposal No. 2 - Definition of the legally binding force of national military doctrines and NATO doctrines introduced by military regulation.
Table 8: Proposal No. 2 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Elimination of duplication between national and NATO doctrines. |
No findings. |
2. |
Reduction of administrative burden resulting from the adoption of regulation for each NATO doctrine introduced. |
|
Possible impact rate: High |
Proposal No. 3 – Redistribution of competencies within the processing group.
Table 9: Proposal No. 3 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Establishing an environment enables the achievement of the set goal. |
Increase in the number of people involved in the processing group. |
2. |
The possibility to directly influence the effectiveness of stakeholders. |
|
Possible impact rate: High |
5.3 Proposal Affecting the Final State “MEANS”
Proposal 1 – Defining the targeted requirements for each resource affecting the doctrinal framework development.
Table 10: Proposal No. 1 affecting the final state
No. |
Pros |
Cons |
1. |
Establishing a comprehensive view (of resources) to enable the achievement of the set goal. |
No findings. |
2. |
Setting priorities to fill the required resource capacities. |
|
Possible impact rate: High |
The above proposals primarily address the identified roots of causes according to the Problem Tree. The individual optimization recommendations are divided into the Ends - Ways - Means areas to maintain coherence with the mind map in particular. Nevertheless, those can also be seen independently. The advantage of structuring the proposals in this way is the possible versatility of the use of the sub-proposals.
CONCLUSION
When asked to what extent is the Czech doctrinal framework currently fulfilled, it was found that is partially accomplished. At the same time, the doctrinal framework cannot be perceived only in terms of the number of documents contained, but especially in terms of the contribution it provides to all CAF service members under the current trends of a modern military.
The method of implementation of the NATO doctrines is executed through the Office for Defence Standardization, Codification, and Government Quality Assurance Authority and it can be stated that the AJPs’ implementation into the CAF in the form of a military regulation is not optimal. Some suggestions regarding the method of the AJP implementation into CAF, specifically the proposal regarding the adoption of AJPs in the form of the full text (NATO STANAG) might be also challenged by legislative rules, that do not allow the publication of doctrine or regulation in a language other than Czech. Nevertheless, positively should be seen that this approach could eliminate the problem of coherence of military terminology in national and Alliance documents.
A recent method of coordination of the production of military publications is ensured by the Coordination Committee as an advisory body of the Chief of the General Staff of the CAF. Unfortunately, its lack of ability to streamline the process of military publications development seems to be one of the most pressing issues as was agreed by the majority of respondents. Negatively can be judged the absence of any motivation system for those involved in the military publications development as was already proven by other research.
REMARKS AND CITATIONS
[1] Doctrine, Organisation, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facility, Interoperability.
[2] ŽALOUDEK, Karel, 2004. Encyklopedie politiky. 3., přeprac. a aktualiz. vyd. Praha: Libri. ISBN 80-727-7209-0.
[3] BARNHART, Clarence Lewis, Sol STEINMETZ a Robert K. BARNHART. Dictionary of new English, 1963-1972. London: Longman, 1973. ISBN 0582555043.
[4] FRAZIER, Derrick V. a J. Wesley HUTTO, 2017. The socialization of military power: security cooperation and doctrine development through multinational military exercises. Defence Studies [online]. 17(4), 379-397 [cit. 2023-01-05]. ISSN 14702436. Available at: https://muni.cz/go/ca26ff
[5] Høiback, H., 2016. The anatomy of doctrine and ways to keep it fit. Journal of strategic studies, 39 (2), 185–197. Available at: https://muni.cz/go/6fa055
[6] Jackson, A.P., 2013. The roots of military doctrine: change and continuity in understanding the practice of warfare. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press. Available at: https://muni.cz/go/07151e
[7] AJP – 01, Allied Joint Doctrine, Edition F, NATO Standardization Office, 2022, Brussels
[8] AAP-06, NATO Glossary of Terms and definitions. NATO Standardization Office, 2021, Brussels
[9] AAP-47, Allied Joint Doctrine Development, Edition C, NATO Standardization Office, 2019, Brussels
[10] Quota selection is an unlikely selection in which we do not select at random, but try to meet predetermined quotas (eg age, gender, completed education, or place of residence). A prerequisite for quota selection is knowledge of the distribution of these traits in the population, resp. in the CAF.
[11] VESELÝ, A., NEKOLA, M. (ed.). Analýza a tvorba veřejných politik: přístupy, metody a praxe. Praha: SLON, 2007
[12] ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, Eva, Jiří RICHTER, 2022. Creation of Strategic and Conceptual Documents in the Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic. Obrana a strategie (Defence and Strategy). 22(1), 089-112. ISSN 12146463. Doi:10.3849/1802-7199.22.2022.01.089-112. Available at: https://muni.cz/go/3ee115
[13] BUDÍK, Tibor. Doktrína Armády české republiky a proces jejího zpracování. 2017. Brno: Univerzita obrany, Centrum bezpečnostních a vojenskostrategických studií, 2017. ISSN Ev.č. 2176/17.
[14] SIMMER, Jiří. Implementace doktrinálních dokumentů NATO do procesu přípravy v rezortu MO ČR. 2019. Brno: Univerzita obrany, Centrum bezpečnostních a vojenskostrategických studií, 2019. ISSN Ev. č. 2817/19.
[15] Ref. 10
[16] Petráš, Zdeněk. Kritická analýza stavu vzájemného propojení plánování pomocí cílů a plánování schopností. Vojenské rozhledy. 2014, roč. 23 (55), č. 4, s. 3-24, ISSN 1210-3292 (tištěná verze), ISSN 2336-2995 (on line). s. 13–14. Available at: https://muni.cz/go/993e97
[17] Allied Joint Doctrine Development, (UK joint doctrine), Allied Administrative Publication-47, DCDC, Ministry of Defence, 2020, Shrivenham. Available at: www.gov.uk/mod/dcdc
[18] Ref. 11
[19] Ref. 12