Está en la página 1de 10

Titlul proiectului: Reea transnaional de management integrat al cercetrii doctorale

i postdoctorale inteligente n domeniile tiine militare, Securitate i informaii i Ordine


public i siguran naional Program de formare continu a cercettorilor de elit
SmartSPODAS
Axa prioritar 1: Educaia i formarea profesional n sprijinul creterii economice i dezvoltrii
societii bazate pe cunoatere
Domeniul major de intervenie 1.5: Programe doctorale i postdoctorale n sprijinul cercetrii
ID proiect: POSDRU/159/1.5/S/138822

CONTEMPORARY MILITARY AFFAIRS


IN THE MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE

Autor:
ISTRATESCU Anelis-Vanina

Sursa :
Proceedings. The 11th International Conference STRATEGIES XXI. "Strategic
Changes in Security and International Relations". Volume 2. April 2-3, 2015

www.spodas.ro

Proiect cofinanat din Fondul Social European prin Programul Operaional Sectorial pentru Dezvoltarea
Resurselor Umane 2007-2013 Investete n OAMENI
1

CONTEMPORARY MILITARY AFFAIRS


IN THE MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE
Anelis-Vanina ISTRTESCU,
University Assistant, PhD. Spiru Haret University,
Lecturer, National Institute for Training and Education of Lawyers Bucharest,
Lawyer, Bucharest Bar Association,
istratescu_anelis@yahoo.com
Abstract: Good governance represents the base of the global security, as the political decisions taken both at
national and international level are reflected in the ongoing military actions, through decisional bodies
empowered to maintain peace and stability in a world affected by continuous insecurity. Multi-level governance
should be approached also from the perspective of involving the armed forces in the decision-making process of
political structures in matters regarding the national sovereignty, the States independence and unity, the
territorial integrity and constitutional democracy, as well as those relative to the collective defence,
maintenance and restoration of peace. All these actions should be conducted in full compliance with the
principles of the international and humanitarian law and respect of the supremacy of human rights and
freedoms. Therefore, rule of law becomes the motto of any military action.
Keywords: good governance, multi-level governance, security, human rights, rule of law.

Good governance and its implications on security


The governance, regarded as a series of actions and strategies of the political decision
makers, represents the key-element for the good operation of any society, precisely because
the management of the community issues is directly influenced by the policies ad measures
adopted by the States leaders during the performance of their duties. The governors mission
is not an easy thing to achieve, as governing the society involves not only idealistic programs
elaborated around the social values always protected by humanity, but also involves their
application and particularly their implementation into practice in all areas of interest for the
governed people; therefore, we are talking about a dialectic synergy of the acts and deeds of
the governmental officials who will assume even the liability resulting from the failure of
their own actions or inactions, this being the only way the regress and placing the society into
an irreversible state of social and especially legal insecurity could be avoided.
Considering that the political decisions are also reflected in the field of military affairs
that are shaped and adapted according to the governing programs, we proposed to approach
herein the symbiosis between the political and the military field, as well as the particularities
of the military affairs in the current multi-level governing systems, in order to understand the
extent to which the policy of the countries affects their own security and the international
security, in terms of management and coordination modality of the national and multinational
armed forces.
Although at first glance the collocation "good governance" seems to have more the
resonance of a political slogan, its meaning becomes more topical today than ever in the
States based on the rule of law systems, where it is not sufficient to govern, but it is necessary
to govern in an efficient way that meets the requirements of democracy and the imperative
needs of the led people.
A good governance involves the establishment of mechanisms, processes and
institutions that enable the citizens and the social groups to defend their interests, to settle
212

their disputes, to exercise their rights and to fulfil their social duties, all these aspects being
interrelated, since the human dimension relies on the principle according to which the big
problems that the society must face are interlinked1. Therefore, good governance does not
represent a contemporary political utopia, but a pattern of conduct that the State is bound to
impose to its agents in order to ensure the security of those being under its jurisdiction, during
the exercise of the primary attribute of protecting human beings, assumed under the contract
between the governmental officials and the governed people.
Therefore, when acting military, the State leaders have not only the duty to explain the
reasons for the application of a particular policy, but also to justify how they have acted, as
between the use of armed force and security it has to exist a proportionate relation founded on
the rule of law principle and strict observance of the individual fundamental rights and
freedoms. Civilization and order arise from putting force at the service of the legitimate
authority.2
It is obvious that during all this process, the politicians and the members of the armed
forces have to cooperate and to communicate to each other any information, opinions and
ideas, the concept of good governance not being applicable in the security field without the
prior consultation of the armed forces through which is actually fulfilled the political will.
In the practice of the international relations it was not found a definition universally
accepted by the States or by the international bodies and organizations and there was never a
general agreement on the particularities of the good governance concept derived from the
ideal of the good organization of the society, which was not unitary explained.
The absence of a universally accepted definition, as well as the different perspectives
from which it is seen the purpose of the good governance, make this concept an inexhaustible
source of scientific approach, correlative to the field under study, for which currently there is
no unity of opinions on its scope of application.
Thus, if in the UNOs vision3 the essential attributes of the good governance are the
transparency, the responsibility, the liability, the participation and the response to the
population's needs, for OSCE the same concept involves the establishment of the economic,
legal and institutional framework for the business and investments development, the equal
participation of women and men in all the political and economic institutions and processes,
the adoption and the applying of laws and of other measures to fight against the bribery, the
efficient management of public resources, the application of transparency in various economic
sectors4. Instead, EU approaches in a more nuanced way the issue of good governance,
correlating it with the right to a good administration containing the guarantees granted to the
European citizens5 and stating that the poor governance (encompassing the corruption, the
abuse of power, the weak institutions and the lack of responsibility) and the civil conflict
represent the causes of the States failure that undermines the global governance and

I. Dragoman, Legal Protection of Human Rights, Publishing House of Romnia de Mine Foundation,
Bucharest, 2008, p. 65.
2
R. Cooper, Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. The Breaking of Nations. Geopolitics of the World in
the Twenty-First Century, Publishing House Univers Enciclopedic, Bucharest, 2007, p. 116.
3
See Resolution 2000/64 adopted by the former Commission on Human Rights within UNO.
4
Dublin Declaration of 7 December 2012 of the Ministerial Council within OSCE on the Strengthening of the
Good Governance and Fighting Against Corruption, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, p. 2-3.
http://www.osce.org/cio/97968.
5
In this respect, Title V, art. II-41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union included in the
Lisbon Treaty enshrines the right of the European citizen to be treated impartially and fairly and to have his
problems settled within a reasonable time, the right to compensation for the damages caused by the EU
institutions, bodies or agencies, the right to apply to the Union institutions in one of the languages of the
Constitution and the right to receive an answer in the same language.
1

213

contributes to the regional instability6. For EU the good governance is the way through which
there are used the powers granted by its citizens in their benefit and is based on the principles
of openness, participation, liability, efficiency and coherence7.
As far as we are concerned, we believe that the good governance requires first of all,
the improving of the legal system, as the law is the essential tool to discipline people's
behaviour, including the Government officials behaviour, thus protecting the society from
abuses and slippages incompatible with the legitimate governing requirements in the
democratic society.
Consequently, an effective law will make the Government officials more responsible
and will determine them to adopt those military strategies complying with the national and
international law, between which it has to exist a harmonization capable of ensuring the
stability and security of mankind. On the other hand, the law will also establish the limitations
under which the Government officials can act so that the acts and deeds committed in the
military affairs field shall have legitimacy and shall not produce effects disproportionate to
the aim pursued by their commitment, this preventing military actions from violating human
rights in their very substance.
This is the reason why, in our opinion, the relation between the governance and the
security will be always based on respect for the rule of law, because the law shall remain
forever the art of good and equity, as enshrined since the Roman Empire period, precisely
because the purpose of proclaiming certain legal rules is to settle the relations between
individuals, between the individuals and States and the relations between States, thus
maintaining the climate of peace and social order indispensable to preserve the security of
mankind.
Secondly, we believe that the good governance also involves the improvement of the
institutional system for the application of specific sanctions in case of violation of laws in the
field of military affairs, fact that requires the permanent reorganization of the judicial bodies
having jurisdiction to settle cases related to armed conflicts, as well as of those involved in the
fight against corruption, terrorism, piracy, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
creation of new bodies capable of meeting the challenges and threats in the current security
environment subject to a perpetual change and reshaping.
In other words, the simple elaboration of law is not sufficient by itself to supply the
security source, if there is no functional mechanism to implement it and to monitor its
observance, because the coercive element depends on the application of law in the field of
social relations and maintains awake the consciousness in the State apparatus within the so
complex process for the protection of the social values.
In essence, we can unequivocally say that the security could be ensured by the
Government officials only by a concomitant action in the legislative and institutional
framework in which one has to combine in a synergistic manner the political purpose with the
military purpose, in the light of the principle of the rule of law in a democratic society. So we
could explain the correlation between the good governance and the security of mankind in the
context of new challenges.
It is no less true that the relation between the good governance and the security must
be approached, both in terms of domestic policy of each country in order to protect the
governed people and to defence the national sovereignty and in terms of foreign policy
undertaken to ensure the survival of the humanity in the chaos created by the increase of
conflicts.
See Chapter I, Security Environment: Global Challenges and Main Threats in the European Security Strategy
adopted in 2003.
7
Principles stated under Title II of the White Paper on European Governance of 2001.
6

214

If in case of the domestic policy the national security depends on the legal, social,
economic or cultural reality specific to each nation, the foreign policy on the global security
will involve a collective work of the peoples of the world reunited in order to cut off the war
in its many facets and also the scourges that erode the stability of the humanity, endangering it
in its very depth.
The foreign policy and the security policy enhance and reinforce each other, meaning
that an effective foreign policy contributes to the increase of the security guarantees and an
effective security policy influences to a large extent the value of foreign decisions and actions
of the community, the two components differing by the means of action, namely the
diplomatic action, as a foreground way of achieving the foreign policy, and respectively the
army and the use of armed violence means within the security policy.8
In conducting their foreign policy, the Government officials will give priority to the
diplomatic modalities to settle the crises and the disputes and will perform joint actions in the
spirit of international cooperation which is essential for the protection of the common values
and interests, facing with the new risks and threats, as the progress of the society is possible
only in a safe world, free of any dangers and conflicts.
The democracy, the good governance and the observance of laws, as new principles of
global security, require that the relations between the countries have to take into account the
existence of certain divergent interests without using the force as a mean to settle the
conflicts9.
This is the reason why, when applying the good governance principles that are the
basis of the international legal order, the States leaders must understand the importance of the
peaceful settlement of the disputes and also the huge size of the responsibility placed on their
shoulders, as a faulty security policy can affect the humanity, altering its ability to survive to
the threats it faces with. In other words, a State official has to act according to certain
evaluations that cannot be proved upon their elaboration; he will be judged by the history
depending on how wisely he controlled the inevitable change and above all, on how well he
maintained the peace10.
We may conclude, without being wrong, saying that the good governance, with all its
inherent values, represents the pillar underpinning the global security, taking into account the
fact that the military actions of current days are nothing but a materialization of the political
actions undertaken either internally or internationally, by decision-makers to whom the
Government officials have entrusted the mandate to maintain the peace and the stability in a
world dominated by insecurity.
Correlation between the multi-level governance and the military affairs
in the contemporary world
It is a truism the fact that between the political field and the military field there is a
symbiotic process in which the politics sets the marks and the coordinates of the military
actions strategy as an expression of the decision-making power it has within the society and
also as a prerogative of exercising the States authority in the sectors in charge with the
maintenance of peace and security, as it is the sector of the armed forces.
The synergy between the political decisions and the military affairs arises as a natural
consequence of the role that the governance plays in the field of security, at local, regional
For more detailed comments on this subject, I. Dragoman, C. Militaru, C. Panduru, Current International
Relations, Publishing House Intergraf, Reita 2004, pp. 138-140.
9
L. Murean, A. Pop, F. Bonciu, Study no. 4. European Security and Defense Policy - Element Influencing the
Actions of Romania in the Field of Security and Defense Policy. European Institute of Romania, Bucharest,
2004, p. 11, http://beta.ier.ro/documente/studiideimpactPaisII_ro/Pais2_studiu_4_ro.pdf.
10
H. Kissinger, Diplomacy, Publishing House All, Bucharest, 2007, p. 24.
8

215

and national level, as well as at international level, taking into account the fact that the
members of the armed forces are, in their turn, State agents, charged with the noble mission of
protecting the territorial integrity, the human safety, the order and social peace, obligations
that are equally incumbent on the Government officials in the exercise of their own duties.
From this perspective, we note that both political leaders and the military leaders have
common goals and interests, for the achievement of which it is urgently needed the mutual
cooperation and consultation, even if in the end the military strategies are the results of the
political decisions or in other words, the end products of the governing programs.
The political decision becomes an integral part of the military action by a very
complex mechanism, especially since the reality of recent years shows the development of the
multi-level governance, in which the cooperation and the administrative hierarchy underlie the
relations established between the central authorities and the other participants in the
implementation of the policies developed by the countries.
The emergence and the evolution of the multi-level governance in EU have formed
and continue to form a research subject both in the political science doctrine and in the
military science doctrine, in an attempt to decode the reasons that led to the genesis of the
concept, but especially to understand the effects and the practical relevance of this
phenomenon for the foreign and security policy of the member states of the European Union.
Although the collocation multi-level governance was approached as a freestanding concept
in 1993 by Gary Marks,11 to facilitate the understanding of the decision-making process in the
European Union, the concept development as well as the analysis of its implications on the
citizens under the jurisdiction of the European Union, have occurred much later, especially in
recent years, fact that is perfectly understandable in relation to the structural and institutional
reforming produced at the level of the said Union.
The specialized literature considers this type of governance as a common concept, a
phenomenon that occurs at three different levels (of the political mobilization, of the
agreements relating to the policy elaboration, of the State structures and of different
Government levels), defining it as a set of coordination and negotiation systems between
entities formally independent, but functionally interdependent, which have complex mutual
relationships redefined through coordination and negotiation.12 From other point of view, the
multi-level governance expresses the totality of the relationships between the actors being at
different territorial levels in the public and private sectors and has three key-features: the nonhierarchical institutional architecture, the non-hierarchical nature of the decision-making
process and the dynamic dispersion of the authority.13
Furthermore, it has been concluded that the multi-level governance passes through
many gates, making the connection between centre and periphery, between State and
society, between national and international and is made at a territorial level (supranational,
national and subnational), meaning that the actors involved have a certain level of authority
on the governed territory and on its inhabitants and at a jurisdictional level, meaning the
performing of a certain function, in a certain field of competence14.
On the other hand, also emerged the opinion that there are two types of multi-level
governance; the first characterized by the existence of a limited number of authorities able to
perform several functions, the exclusive exercise of authority on the respective territory, a
This Concept was approached in the Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC.
S. Piattoni, Multi-Level Governance in the E.U. Does it work?, communication presented at the conference
Globalization and Politics: a Conference in Honor of Suzanne Berger, MIT, 8-9 May 2009, p. 5 and p. 12,
www.princeton.edu.
13
A. Ivan, European Union Governance. Learning aid, Babe Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Lifelong
Education and Distance Education Centre, Faculty of History and Philosophy, Cluj-Napoca, 2012, p.45-48,
www.ubbcluj.ro.
14
S. Piattoni, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
11
12

216

limited number of administrative levels over which occurs the dispersion of authority; the
second is distinguished by the existence of multiple and independent specialized authorities
overlapping one over the other at territorial level, the large number of authorities and of
administrative levels, the flexibility of the system; lastly, the same author believes that the
multi-level governance involves a transfer of powers from national to supranational level, also
called positive integration, as well as a transfer of powers to the subnational level.15
As far as we are concerned, we believe that multilevel governance has produced a
radical change in the governance process within the EU, causing, as a result of the transfer of
powers, not only a sharing of authority, but also a sharing of liability of the decision making
factors that are members of the structures located at different hierarchical levels, as it would
be unthinkable that the entity assuming the prerogative of governance at a subnational,
national and supranational level not to take over also the corresponding responsibility,
proportionally with the degree of its involvement in committing the acts and deeds that
generate responsibility. The responsibility sharing becomes an imperative condition,
considering on one hand, the circumstance according to which the State decision does not fall
anymore exclusively within the jurisdiction of the central level governors, but also within the
one of the subnational actors, and on the other hand, that that national interest should subsume
to the interest of the Union and harmonize with it. While the fact that the authority dispersion
and decentralization went beyond the EU territory, being also demonstrated in Asia, Latin
America and North America denotes the extension of such concept and its acquisition at a
planetary scale by other countries that have understood its objectives and multiple benefits.
The analysis of the concept development enables us to observe that the multilevel
governance has gained a new dimension, starting with the date of entering into force of the
Treaty of Lisbon whose provisions have consolidated the powers and influence of the local
and regional authorities in the decision making processes carried out in the interior of
communities and increased the role of national and regional Parliaments in this respect.
On the same line of thinking, the aforementioned international convention also
strengthened the powers of the Committee of the Regions, a tangible evidence being the very
set up by such committee of a system for monitoring the observance of the subsidiarity
principle16 throughout the process of elaboration of laws and policies. As a matter of fact, in
an equal manner the Committee of the Regions enacted on 16th June 2009, the White Paper on
Multi-Level Governance, followed by the subsequent document titled Building a European
Culture of Multi-Level Governance, which aimed at establishing stimulation mechanisms and
instruments of the decision making process within EU, in all its phases and stages. Though,
perhaps the most important contribution of the Committee of the Regions in the field of
development and implementation of such type of governance is the enactment of the Charter
for Multi-Level Governance in Europe dated 3 April 2014, by which the public authorities at
all the levels were requested to apply the multi-level governance principles17 in their own
activity and to get involved in promoting the concept through all levers, that is to say by coopting the citizens in the politics, by cooperating with other public authorities, by encouraging
the state of European spirit, by strengthening the institutional capacities, by creating networks
A. Ivan, op. cit., pp. 48-49 and 55.
This principle in regulated by Art. 5 of the European Union Treaty and the Protocol no. 2 on the Application
of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality and has the meaning that the EU might intervene in the
settlement of a national issue which is not under its exclusive authority, only if the national authorities of the
State concerned cannot solve the problem in question in an appropriate manner at central, regional or local level.
17
The principles stated in the Charter may be found in the Title 1 and refer to ensuring a transparent, open and
inclusive decision-making process, to participation and establishment of partnerships with relevant public and
private actors, to the efficiency and coherence of policies, to the budget synergy at all governance levels, to the
observance of the subsidiarity and proportionality in the decision-making process, to the maximum protection of
the fundamental rights at all governance levels.
15
16

217

between the European political bodies and local administrative bodies, facilitating the
transnational cooperation.
As we have observed, the multi-level governance remains a dynamic concept, which is
in constant development, whose implementation in the policy of the EU States will continue
to provoke controversies and conflicting views, but beyond the doctrinaire disputes, rises the
natural question: how will influence the multi-level governance the management of the
military affairs, from the perspective of maintaining security?
The equation at issue is not at all easy to solve, given the variety of the aspects
involved. Thus, starting from the Clausewitz's theory according to which the war is a
continuation of politics by other means, we may notice that the powers and responsibility
sharing at all governance levels will be also reflected on the military in which, although there
is a hierarchical subordination, will operate an authority dispersion among the members of
the armed forces. In our opinion, this will not result in undermining the commander's
authority, who maintains his capacity as leader and coordinator of military actions, but a more
effective cooperation with all the members of the military structures, from lower to higher
levels, and subsequently, the results of this consultation are to be systematized and correlated,
in such a way that military strategy will reflect the action unity of all those involved.
The existence of the regional military structures collecting the information and
proposals received at a local level and their involvement in the decision-making process
concerning the elaboration and adopting of general military strategies, by national and
respectively multinational coordination, will facilitate the application of the multi-level
governance principles and also at the level of armed forces, given the capacity of the Army as
public authority.
From other regard, the multi-level governance has to be understood also in the
meaning of the necessity of involving the armed forces in the politicians' decision-making
process in the issues concerning the national sovereignty, the independence and unity of the
State, the territorial integrity and constitutional democracy, as well as in those concerning the
collective defence, maintaining and restoring peace18, because the Government officials
cannot ignore the experience, the technological and informational materials provided by the
armed forces, which they have to co-opt and consult in any security matter, along with the
other bodies and structures having responsibilities in this field (SRI, SIE, SPP, STS, MAE,
MAI, MSI). In this respect, the normative acts enacted in the field of security have to be in
full compliance with the point of view and vision of the military decision-making officials,
but they are also to be applicable with regard to the human resources, financial and logistical
resources allocated to the military force, as otherwise, the programs created by politicians
would remain without any effect.
On this background, the strategic planning proves to be essential in correlating the
political and military objectives, and in Romania it was materialized by enacting documents
vital for the security field, such as the National Strategy for Defense, approved by Decision
no. 30 of 4 November 200819 issued by the Romanian Parliament or Romania's Cyber Security
Strategy, approved by Decision no. 271/2013 issued by the Romanian Government20.
Permanent dialogue between the political decision-making officials and military
decision-making officials will allow, not only to improve the arsenal used for the annihilation
of threats and dangers hanging on security, but will equally contribute to the consolidation of
democracy and to the implementation of the multi-level governance principles, in consonance
with the principles stated by the European Union.
Attributions assigned to the armed forces by art. 118 of the Romanian Constitution.
Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 799/28.11.2008.
20
Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 296/23.05.2013.
18
19

218

Soldiers and officials of State should be educated in the spirit of the general theory of
war formulated by Clausewitz, in such a way as to understand how the war should serve
politics, as well as the ways through which the war nature may stand in the way of the
strategic intentions21.
History will show to what extent present programs of governance will demonstrate
their efficiency in future military strategies, in connection with the stringent humanity need of
security and stability.
Conclusions
Military affairs remain a challenge for humanity's leaders, concerned with identifying
and implementing the most appropriate solutions to eradicate threats, risks and vulnerabilities
to which the humanity is exposed, in the context of aggravation of conflicts that constantly
put in danger the global security.
In our opinion, the success of the contemporary military affairs carried out in the field
of the international relations and the efficiency of the strategies elaborated to maintain and
consolidate the world peace in the current security environment, so fragile and variable,
depend on the fulfilment of the following essential cumulative requirements:
- consolidation of the political and military alliances and their extension, by co-opting
new member States having the human resources, material and institutional resources
necessary for the prevention and eradication of the risk factors hanging on at local, regional or
global level;
- creation and development of new diplomatic methods and means, apt to lead in a
more efficient manner to the defusing of the existing conflicts and to the prevention of the
arising of international disputes, including by recruiting specialists in the field of human
rights, diplomatic law and humanitarian law, but also in the field of the psychology of
conflicts, in such a way as to enable the observance of the priority principle of peaceful
settlement of disputes;
- improvement of the legal and institutional framework, by enacting new laws and by
setting new mechanisms aimed at preventing new conflicts, by complementing or amending
the defective or inefficient legal provisions, by abrogating the normative provisions that are
obsolete or incompatible with the current geo-political and military reality;
- permanent training and familiarizing the members of national and multinational
armed forces with and legal field, in order to facilitate their knowledge about the international
law principles, democracy rules, fundamental freedoms and human rights, but also about the
international judicial practice crystallized in military affairs field;
- implementation and application of multi-level governance principles also in the field
of military affairs.
Concluding, we can say with conviction that military affairs have to be carried out and
coordinated with due observance of the legal provisions through which the human behaviour
shall be disciplined, as the security as a whole, is built and is maintained only by observing
the legal order on which lays any civilized society, in which peace, harmony and stability
represent the primordial objectives of its proper functioning.

C. S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations An introduction to Strategic History, Polirom Publishing
House, Iai, 2010, p. 33.
21

219

This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectorial Operational
Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the European
Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/138822 with the title
Transnational network of integrated management of intelligent doctoral and postdoctoral
research in the fields of Military Science, Security and Intelligence, Public order and
National Security Continuous formation programme for elite researchers SmartSPODAS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Cooper, Robert, Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. The Breaking of
Nations. Geopolitics of the World in the Twenty-First Century, Univers Enciclopedic
Publishing House, Bucharest, 2007;
2. Dragoman, Ion, Militaru, Claudia, Panduru, Cerasela, Current International
Relations, Intergraf Publishing House, Reita, 2004;
3. Dragoman, Ion, Legal Protection of Human Rights, Publishing House of the
"Romnia de Mine" Foundation, Bucharest, 2008;
4. Gray, Collin S., War, Peace and International Relations An Introduction to
Strategic History, "Polirom" Publishing House, Iai, 2010;
5. Ivan, Adrian, European Union Governance. Learning aid, Babe Bolyai University,
Cluj-Napoca, Centre of Lifelong Education and Distance Education, Faculty of History and
Philosophy, Cluj-Napoca, 2012;
6. Kissinger, Henry, Diplomacy, "All" Publishing House, Bucharest, 2007;
7. Murean, Liviu, Pop, Adrian, Bonciu, Florin, Study no. 4. European Policy of
Security and Defense Element of Influencing the Romania's Actions in the Field of Security
and Defence policy, Institutul European din Romnia, Bucharest, 2004;
8. Piattoni, Simona, Multi-Level Governance in the E.U. Does it work?,
communication presented at the Conference on Globalization and Politics: a Conference in
Honour of Suzanne Berger, MIT, 8-9 May 2009;
9. *** Treaty of Lisbon of 2007;
10. *** Treaty on European Union, consolidated version of 2012;
11. *** Protocol no. 2 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and
Proportionality to the Treaty on European Union, consolidated version of 2012;
12. *** Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union din 2000;
13. *** White Paper of the European Governance of 2001;
14. *** European Security Strategy of 2003;
15. *** National Strategy for Defence, approved by Decision no. 30/2008 issued by
the Romanian Parliament;
16. *** Romania's Cyber Security Strategy, approved by Decision no. 271/2013 issued
by the Romanian Government.

220