DOC PREVIEW
2010_Steinhausleretal

This preview shows page 1-2-3 out of 9 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 9 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 9 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 9 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 9 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

ERICE_ PMP Terrorism_ 2010Global One Science Contributionsto Mitigation of TerrorismFriedrich STEINHÄUSLER, Annette SOBEL, Diego BURIOT1. INTRODUCTION2. EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS3. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS4. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SCIENTIFIC EFFORTSERICE_ PMP Terrorism_ 2010Global One Science Contributions to Mitigation of TerrorismFriedrich STEINHÄUSLER1, Annette SOBEL2, Diego BURIOT31. INTRODUCTIONThe objective of this paper is to underscore the interrelatedness and similarity oftransnational activities in this domain and provide a basis for scientific collaboration. Werecognize that threat assessment and countermeasure development / employment require acomprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to be optimal.2. EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS In view of the growing threats to international terrorism the scientific community in Europeancountries has reacted to the issue of terrorism and mitigation both, at the individual nationallevel and the multinational level of the European Union (EU). 2.1. National Scientific Research ProgrammesThe initial reaction in Europe after the terror attacks in the US on September 11, 2001 wasdominated by taking stock of available scientific capabilities at the national level:- National scientific associations and Think Tanks assessed to what extent they couldcontribute to threat- and risk assessment, as well as providing scientific support toGovernment organisations in mitigating the consequences of terror attacks (e.g., inradiation protection or engineering);- National Governmental institutions assembled expert groups, tasking them withassessing the security situation in the country (e.g., working groups supportingNational Security Councils and the national Armed Forces).Subsequently individual countries initiated their own national security research programmes.The first such programme in Europe was started by Austria in 2005, named KIRAS.4 1 University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria2 University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri USA3 Independant Consultant, formerly Special Advisor World Health Organization4 Its name originates from ancient Greek and reflects a combination of the words "kirkos" (circle) and "asphaleia" (security). The circle is representing the holistic concept behind as in KIRAS all disciplines and dimensions are to be included.1A special aspect of KIRAS is the integration of the humanities, social sciences and culturalstudies (HSC) that scrutinize the possible effects on society and the basic rights of thecitizens already in the planning phase of every project. Since KIRAS is obliged to securitypolicy, not only the needs of the security-politically relevant institutions are specified, but thepublic consumers are involved into every R&D project. Thus not only the security-politicalspecifications are taken into account, but it is also ensured that research is done according tothe market's needs. 2.2 Coordinated European ApproachThe national activities in several European countries lacked any significant coordinationbetween the scientific actors or agencies involved. This was inter alia the main reason for theEU Commission to start security related research with a Think Tank-approach equivalent in2003, i.e., the establishment of a Group of Personalities (GoP) comprised of EU officials andEurope's largest weapons- and IT companies.5 The GoP, a 25-member advisory body,published a report on Research for a Secure Europe in 2004. The group had evaluated thescientific and technological infrastructure available in the EU at the time in comparison to theneeds based on estimated security threats. Major research deficits in security were revealedin general, and in responding to a terror attack in a coordinated manner in particular. Thisprovided the basis for issuing comprehensive recommendations on how to fill the multiplegaps in EU scientific capabilities dealing with terrorism and mitigating its effects. The report also emphasized the potential synergies between defence technologies and thoserequired for non-military security purposes. A comparison of the European security researchspending with that of the US Department of Homeland Security, shows that an EU-fundedEuropean security research programme (ESRP) should be started already in 2007; minimumfunding should be € 1 billion per year, additional to existing funding). Also, the GoPrecommended that a European security-industrial complex should be developed to competewith that emerging in the USA.From the GoP-membership the European Security Research Advisory Board (ESRAB) wasformed. ESRAB advised the Commission on the strategic goals and priorities for securityresearch, the exchange of classified information and intellectual property rights, and the useof these publicly owned research/evaluation infrastructures. EU industry has a strongrepresentation on ESRAB. 6 Subsequently a key report was prepared by the European Security Research and InnovationForum for the Commission on the European Security Research and Innovation Agenda(ESRIF). 7 ESRIF analyzed the medium and long-term challenges that Europe faces. Aftertwo years of study it identified a large number of topic areas which needed to be addressedin EU security, terror threats and mitigation of such acts, focusing on ethical, societal andeconomic issues:- Relationship between security and private life and data protection- Need to reinforce the "ethical scrutiny" of projects reviewed under the FP7 Securityand make the results of on-going R&D projects in the area of security as widely- Identify the possibility to bring the most innovative security sectors into the LeadMarket Initiative;- How to speed up pre-commercial procurement in the security domain, certification,validation, and, as appropriate, standardisation work ("EuropeanSecurity Label") - How it can best respond to foreseeable new security missions and priorities, 5 BAe Systems, Diehl, EADS, Ericsson Finmeccanica, Indra, Siemens and Thales6 14 of the 50 seats; seven of the eight major European defence corporations on the GoP are represented on ESRAB. The EU Commission is only represented by the European Defence Agency (EDA) and Europol. 7 ESRIF Group of Experts and its 64 members from 31 countries were assisted by more than 600


2010_Steinhausleretal

Download 2010_Steinhausleretal
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view 2010_Steinhausleretal and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view 2010_Steinhausleretal 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?