Forging an Arctic Alliance Canadian-U.S. JIATF-Arctic
In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward purchased Alaska securing America’s place with Russia, Norway, Denmark, and neighboring Canada as an Arctic nation.[1] Though criticized as “Seward’s Ice Box,” in short time, Alaska became a strategic asset, holding great natural resources and a vital defensive position on the North American continent. For over one hundred forty years, U.S. and Canadian national security interests in the Arctic have evolved into a more mature cooperative relationship through the Klondike gold rush, World War II, and The Cold War. Throughout each security challenge, the ice and extreme Arctic conditions always served as a natural defense denying direct maritime access to the continent’s northern approach.[2] In August 2007, this assumption was no longer valid when the Northwest Passage opened ice-free, validating various Arctic ice recession models.[3] The effects of climate change creating an Arctic maritime domain have significant new political, military, economic, environmental, and scientific ramifications that require a whole-ofgovernment response. Due to the unique nature of the Arctic region, shared interests, and historical bi-national defense relationship, the Arctic represents a theater for the next phase of greater Canadian and U.S. (CANUS) defense cooperation. A combined Joint Interagency Task Force Arctic (CJIATF-A) under alternating leadership, will best enable a COCOM to address the complexities of the changing Arctic region to promote responsible growth, regional stability, and continental security.
Coalition Command and Control : Key Considerations
Abstract : The future security environment will be more complex as more regional powers emerge, each with its own expectation of independent decisionmaking. U.S. strategy, as presented in the National Military Strategy (1992) and other statements, addresses a continuing requirement to be ready for unilateral action. It also outlines the expectation that the United States will continue to lead in efforts supporting global peace and security using forward presence, crisis response, and multinational operations. After the Gulf War, some political-military analysts and national leaders saw ad hoc coalitions as the wave of the future. Others, seeing the difficulties of planning for an ad hoc operation, disagreed and instead supported a decrease in U.S. security involvement with other nations. World events subsequently showed the necessity of being prepared to work with allies not part of established regional security arrangements. Although not a first choice, the possibility of ad hoc coalition operations is now recognized as an option. Specific and focused coalition planning can more clearly define the role of the military and the options the military provides to the President for foreign policy in a multi polar world. Such planning also would make the military more effective and responsive in a coalition operation. While some see a more unipolar world, and the U.S. may be the biggest, toughest guy on the block, plenty of other nations are in positions two, three, and four. This paper examines the many factors that influence command and control of coalition operations. Here "command and control" refers to the overall process and is not just the short form for 'command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence' (C4I).
The administration of the courts
Section 28 of Article VI of the State Constitution provides that the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is the Chief Judge of the State and its chief judicial officer. The Chief Judge appoints a Chief Administrator of the Courts (or Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts if the appointee is a judge) with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts. The Administrative Board consists of the Chief Judge as chair and the Presiding Justices of the four Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court. The Chief Judge establishes statewide administrative standards and policies after consultation with the Administrative Board and approval by the Court of Appeals.