National security implications （The White House, 2015; CNA, 2014） of global climate change currently radiate throughout the U.S. government. These implications are critically acute for three federal departments most...National security implications （The White House, 2015; CNA, 2014） of global climate change currently radiate throughout the U.S. government. These implications are critically acute for three federal departments most responsible for U.S. national security： the Department of Defense （DoD）, the Department of State （DOS）, and the Department of Homeland Security （DHS）. However, the effect on these federal departments is understudied and poorly specified. This research intends to rectify the dearth of academic studies. Comparative analysis （Collier, 1993） of the institutional cultures and leadership of the DoD, DoS, and DHS was conducted determining how these agencies are responding to multiple vulnerabilities created by climate change （The White House, 2013a）. Research revealed significant differences in how the DoD, DoS, and DHS are responding. The analysis discovered the DoD has institutionalized, or ＂mainstreamed＂ （Leggett, 2015, p. 16） planning for climate change and planning is driven mainly through hierarchical cultural organizations. The DoD bureaucratic leadership is multi-faceted with some transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership elements. The DoS has also mainstreamed adaptation planning to a lesser extent and planning is driven primarily by an ad-hoc culture with a top-down/bottom-up, charismatic/transformational leadership emphasis. In contrast, the DHS has been unable to mainstream planning into their organizational culture due to the presence of several internal clans. The DHS bureaucratic leadership is somewhat chaotic with little top-down, transformational, or entrepreneurial direction. Overall, the knowledge gained from this comparative analysis provides valuable insights into how governmental institutions adapt to a multi-faceted national security threat.展开更多
"The Belt and Road Initiative"is major decision proposed by the CPC Central Committee with comrade Xi Jinping as the core co-ordinating the domestic and international overall situations,and concerns peaceful..."The Belt and Road Initiative"is major decision proposed by the CPC Central Committee with comrade Xi Jinping as the core co-ordinating the domestic and international overall situations,and concerns peaceful rise of China and extension of the strategic opportunity period of modernization construction.It needs multi-faceted safeguards to successfully impel"the Belt and Road Initiative",in which disaster risk identification and its effective prevention and control are indispensable links.By integrating geogeographic and atmospheric environmental factors,countries along"the Belt and Road Initiative"belong to frequent occurrence region of major natural disasters.It restricts not only the economic and social development of relevant countries but also implementation effect of"the Belt and Road Initiative"construction,and is also related to the success or failure of Chinese enterprises going out to a certain extent.It should enhance disaster prevention and mitigation and ensure safety of major infrastructure construction related to interconnection of"the Belt and Road Initiative"by disaster identification and prevention,which is the key of successfully impelling strategy implementation and major need for guaranteeing the people s livelihood of the countries along the line.The work of disaster prevention and mitigation in the countries along the line is generally weak,and it is urgent to raise the level of disaster prevention as a whole by promoting the disaster prevention and mitigation cooperation in the"the Belt and Road Initiative"area;improve the coverage and level of disaster risk insurance;enhance construction in monitoring and early warning capability of natural disaster;strengthen structural adjustment of economy,industry and land use responding to climate change risks;establish a comprehensive disaster reduction forum of"the Belt and Road Initiative",and contain relevant content in"the Belt and Road Initiative"series of high-end forum topics.展开更多
During past decades, frameworks relating to emergency and disaster management have been based on a risk management approach to prevention/mitigation and preparedness coupled with a strong emphasis on response by polic...During past decades, frameworks relating to emergency and disaster management have been based on a risk management approach to prevention/mitigation and preparedness coupled with a strong emphasis on response by police and emergency service organisations. Numerous reviews and inquiries of significant events however have identified significant issues relating to the preparation for such events and the management thereof;in particular, critical shortcomings in the capability of emergency response agencies, their leaders and senior decision-makers. In 2008, the Australian Government, through The First National Security Statement to the Australian Parliament by Prime Minister Rudd, has incorporated non-traditional threats and hazards, such as those posed by the impact of climate change, on the national security agenda. In doing so, the Government has announced a paradigm shift in policy for the nation’s approach to emergency and disaster management, namely a move from “response” to “resilience”. In support of this policy shift, the Australian Government, through the Council of Australian Governments, has endorsed the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy. These documents make resilience the responsibility of all levels of government, private industry, emergency response agencies, and the community. A review of the reports published following Australian reviews and inquiries into significant events has identified that existing frameworks do not provide the necessary mechanisms for baselining and assessing community resilience, that is, their ability to respond to and recover from significant events. Internationally, indices have been developed for assessing community resilience, however, inherent limitations have also been identified in their scope and application. This paper will review Australian and international events which have led to inquiries that have resulted in criticisms of the emergency and disaster response, as well as introducing the organisational capability and resilience of organisations particularly in the context of climate change.展开更多
文摘National security implications （The White House, 2015; CNA, 2014） of global climate change currently radiate throughout the U.S. government. These implications are critically acute for three federal departments most responsible for U.S. national security： the Department of Defense （DoD）, the Department of State （DOS）, and the Department of Homeland Security （DHS）. However, the effect on these federal departments is understudied and poorly specified. This research intends to rectify the dearth of academic studies. Comparative analysis （Collier, 1993） of the institutional cultures and leadership of the DoD, DoS, and DHS was conducted determining how these agencies are responding to multiple vulnerabilities created by climate change （The White House, 2013a）. Research revealed significant differences in how the DoD, DoS, and DHS are responding. The analysis discovered the DoD has institutionalized, or ＂mainstreamed＂ （Leggett, 2015, p. 16） planning for climate change and planning is driven mainly through hierarchical cultural organizations. The DoD bureaucratic leadership is multi-faceted with some transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership elements. The DoS has also mainstreamed adaptation planning to a lesser extent and planning is driven primarily by an ad-hoc culture with a top-down/bottom-up, charismatic/transformational leadership emphasis. In contrast, the DHS has been unable to mainstream planning into their organizational culture due to the presence of several internal clans. The DHS bureaucratic leadership is somewhat chaotic with little top-down, transformational, or entrepreneurial direction. Overall, the knowledge gained from this comparative analysis provides valuable insights into how governmental institutions adapt to a multi-faceted national security threat.
基金Supported by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation(2019T120114,2019M650756)the National Natural Science Fund(41801064)the Central Asian Atmospheric Science Research Fund(CAAS201804)
文摘"The Belt and Road Initiative"is major decision proposed by the CPC Central Committee with comrade Xi Jinping as the core co-ordinating the domestic and international overall situations,and concerns peaceful rise of China and extension of the strategic opportunity period of modernization construction.It needs multi-faceted safeguards to successfully impel"the Belt and Road Initiative",in which disaster risk identification and its effective prevention and control are indispensable links.By integrating geogeographic and atmospheric environmental factors,countries along"the Belt and Road Initiative"belong to frequent occurrence region of major natural disasters.It restricts not only the economic and social development of relevant countries but also implementation effect of"the Belt and Road Initiative"construction,and is also related to the success or failure of Chinese enterprises going out to a certain extent.It should enhance disaster prevention and mitigation and ensure safety of major infrastructure construction related to interconnection of"the Belt and Road Initiative"by disaster identification and prevention,which is the key of successfully impelling strategy implementation and major need for guaranteeing the people s livelihood of the countries along the line.The work of disaster prevention and mitigation in the countries along the line is generally weak,and it is urgent to raise the level of disaster prevention as a whole by promoting the disaster prevention and mitigation cooperation in the"the Belt and Road Initiative"area;improve the coverage and level of disaster risk insurance;enhance construction in monitoring and early warning capability of natural disaster;strengthen structural adjustment of economy,industry and land use responding to climate change risks;establish a comprehensive disaster reduction forum of"the Belt and Road Initiative",and contain relevant content in"the Belt and Road Initiative"series of high-end forum topics.
文摘During past decades, frameworks relating to emergency and disaster management have been based on a risk management approach to prevention/mitigation and preparedness coupled with a strong emphasis on response by police and emergency service organisations. Numerous reviews and inquiries of significant events however have identified significant issues relating to the preparation for such events and the management thereof;in particular, critical shortcomings in the capability of emergency response agencies, their leaders and senior decision-makers. In 2008, the Australian Government, through The First National Security Statement to the Australian Parliament by Prime Minister Rudd, has incorporated non-traditional threats and hazards, such as those posed by the impact of climate change, on the national security agenda. In doing so, the Government has announced a paradigm shift in policy for the nation’s approach to emergency and disaster management, namely a move from “response” to “resilience”. In support of this policy shift, the Australian Government, through the Council of Australian Governments, has endorsed the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy. These documents make resilience the responsibility of all levels of government, private industry, emergency response agencies, and the community. A review of the reports published following Australian reviews and inquiries into significant events has identified that existing frameworks do not provide the necessary mechanisms for baselining and assessing community resilience, that is, their ability to respond to and recover from significant events. Internationally, indices have been developed for assessing community resilience, however, inherent limitations have also been identified in their scope and application. This paper will review Australian and international events which have led to inquiries that have resulted in criticisms of the emergency and disaster response, as well as introducing the organisational capability and resilience of organisations particularly in the context of climate change.
