<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> In traditional International Relations theory (IR), states have been approached from empiricist perspective by using methods and terminologies that consider states as homogeneous ‘speaking billiard balls’, which compete for power, prestige and so forth with each other. This article does not argue that traditional paradigms of IR (such as Classical Realism or Neorealism) would not count any more, vice versa, but what this article argues is that for being able to understand more deeply such topical social phenomena as terrorism, strategic communities, spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear policies, world order, NATO-enlargement, EU-integration, threat scenarios, enemy images an so forth, one has to adopt a more holistic, Constructivist social theoretical, approach than traditional IR offers. In this context Constructivism necessitates at least three things. Firstly, one has to explicitly clear out his/her ontological and epistemological points of departure for being able to operate with Constructivist social theory. In some occasions it may e.g. be necessary to deal with God’s and religions’ ontological and epistemological statuses as signifiers of interests, or as ‘root causes’ of behaviour of many social groups, communities and nations. Secondly, the state should be considered as a ‘decentred subject’ consisting of individuals, many sub-groups, organizational structure, institutions and especially identity structure, which has been purposefully constructed throughout the history (the endogenous perspective), and which is under constant reconstruction through domestic and international discursive interactions (the interactionist perspective). Thirdly, one should take into account that human communities and societies tend to habituate themselves into certain beliefs, values and modes of action that change very slowly over the course of history (the cultural perspective), despite increasing interactions.</abstract>

“Verum Est Ipsum Factum” – True is What Has Been Made as Such

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The objective of this paper is to discuss current challenges of specific collaboration mechanisms between the defence establishment and national defence industry and to present a holistic, conceptual co-operation model of systems approach, based on discussion to enhance that cooperation. This survey focuses mainly on problems that are related to defence technology and industrial strategies. A special emphasis is placed on collaboration activities and mechanisms between the above mentioned partners; technology programmes, industrial participation, defence centres of excellence and immaterial property rights to reveal collaboration dilemmas from various aspects. The conceptual model of systems approach pursues to manage cooperation activities and mechanisms comprehensively and so fulfil expectations placed for the collaboration both by the defence establishment and the industry. Applicability and value of the model is verified by risk analysis. The paper has a Finnish focus and it delineates the challenges identified with Finnish examples. However, the model that it represents is of universal application, especially for countries that do not have a comprehensive defence industry but import the major part of their materiel from abroad. </abstract>

Enhancement of National Collaboration Between Defence Establishment and Industry by Systems Approach

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The paper presents a new concept, Usability Monitoring, and applies it for situational awareness applications in military Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems (C4ISR). Usability Monitoring means taking measurements of technical Quality of Service (QoS) parameters in end systems and comparing them to target values of reference cases. The concept differs from QoS monitoring in the goal and in the placement of measurement points: In QoS monitoring the goal is to verify that the network provides the promised service quality in the user system - network interface. QoS monitoring does not capture the actual end user experience, which is influenced also by the end system, and therefore it does not directly correspond to the service quality that a user sees. Usability Monitoring has exactly this goal. The Observe-Orient-Decide-Act-Loop (OODA) is a decision making concept that is widely used in the network-centric approach and it emphasizes fast decision making. The presented model for Usability Monitoring is based on the OODA-loop. It includes QoS measurements not only in the Act-phase, i.e., can the user perform the actions s/he wants or are there delays and losses that make the system less usable, but also in the Observe-phase, i.e., does the user get the information s/he subscribes to, and in the Orient-phase, i.e., does the user get confusing information and cannot orient, and also the Decide-phase, i.e. is the user able to make right decisions based on the previous steps. The measured technical QoS parameters are connected to user experience by Mean of Score (MOS) functions that are obtained by usability tests. A case study for partially evaluating the Usability Monitoring concept is from MNE5 MSA (Multinational Experimentation 5, Maritime Situational Awareness) Experimentation Event 3 that was conducted in partnership with the Navy Command Finland, Naval Warfare Centre of Sweden and NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT) and the Singaporean Armed Forces (SAF) Future Systems Directorate. In the MNE5 MSA experimentation we were able to monitor end user experience, how the user sees the services and is able to work with the current tools and capabilities. In this article we describe how Usability Monitoring was addressed in the MNE5 MSA case study: meters for Usability Monitoring were selected and we investigated what aspects of usability affect the phases of the OODA-loop. </abstract>

Usability Monitoring – Extending Quality of Service Monitoring for Decision Making

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> This paper draws upon critical discourse analysis to analyse an empirical study of strategy practices in a military organization. The recent practice-turn in strategy research emphasizes the meaning of discourses, routines and activities in a strategy formation process. Strategy is not understood only as an attribute of an organization, but also as activity; it is something people do and say or leave undone and unspoken. Research concerning strategy practices has, however, ignored military organizations and concentrated mainly on private enterprises and public administration. In this paper we argue that there is a need for a practice-turn in the military context as well. Just as practice theory has proven its usefulness in examining corporate strategies, it can also contribute to our understanding of the actual strategy process in military organizations and help us understand the practices behind formulated strategy. We focus on the high-level strategic planners in the Finnish Defence Forces and analyse their conceptions of the strategy process. Based on the data of 14 in-depth interviews, the paper's goal is to analyse the discursive elements of strategy talk in a military organization. This paper will concentrate on three central issues. (1) What is the relationship between civil and military strategists while formulating strategy in a military organization? (2) Who are defined as strategists? (3) Are the high-level strategy planners aware of a variety of hidden agendas and power relations that shape the strategy formulation process? Although the discourses and practices we have found are, of course, context-specific, we claim that similar kind of strategic discourses and practices can be found in other military organizations and possibly even in non-military organizations.Research on civil-military relations has traditionally concentrated on examining the interaction between civil and military organizations but neglected the interaction within these organizations. Our study shows that formulating strategy in military organizations is a complex process far from the Clausewitzian conception that delimits the concept of strategy only to conventional war. Direction-setting, monitoring and allocation of resources are all outcomes of a constant debate between political, military, technological, economical and cultural aspects. Getting to know this kind of process can be beneficial for strategy researchers and managers working in the corporate field as well. In addition, the Finnish Defence Forces constitute an interesting field for strategy research, as it is one of the three European armies that relies on compulsory military service. The fact that almost every male citizen has served guarantees a special position for this institution in society and particularly in strategy discourses. </abstract>

Strategy as Discursive Construction in the Finnish Defence Forces

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 1 (December 2023)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 1 (December 2022)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 1 (December 2021)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 1 (December 2020)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 2019 (December 2019)

Volume 7 (2016): Issue 1 (December 2016)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015)

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 1 (June 2015)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 1 (June 2014)

Volume 4 (2013): Issue 1 (December 2013)

Volume 3 (2012): Issue 1 (December 2012)

Volume 2 (2011): Issue 1 (December 2011)

Volume 1 (2010): Issue 1 (December 2010)

Journal of Military Studies

 The Journal of Military Studies (JMS) is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal publishing original research articles in selected areas of military studies. Distinguishing from most other peer-reviewed journals, JMS’s approach is more military oriented focusing on technology management and exploitation, technological choices and requirements, tactical considerations etc. giving support to Battle Field Analysts as well as Academic Officer Education.  The journal publishes articles from the following areas of military studies:   operational art and tactics,  military technology and operational analysis,  weaponization of new technologies,  robotics, hypersonics, cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum,  capabilities e.g. defence inventory and acquisition,  military strategy and international politics,  military pedagogy,  military social sciences, like human factors,  military leadership and organisation,  military history,  arctic warfare,  any other area of warfare if well justified.   The journal publishes peer-reviewed academic-level articles, which are first published electronic form, and are printed in a series of volumes according to separate schedule. In addition extended versions of conference papers may be considered for publication. The journal does not publish surveys, tutorials or other articles without new scientific contribution.  The articles are subjected to a double-blind review and any suggestions or criticism is strictly constructive so as to benefit the author and assist them in improving their work.  The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges.  Rejection Rate:   50%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 