CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO CHOICE OF THE MODEL FOR BUILDING NATIONAL RESILIENCE
The peculiarities of the formation of models of ensuring national resilience are studied on the example of the USA, Great Britain, Israel, Japan and Estonia. The influence of historical, geographical, security, political, cultural, socio-economic and other differences in the building and development of states on the processes of choice of this model is determined.
The article argues а fundamentally important role of understanding the concept of resilience and the peculiarities of its implementation in various spheres of national security for developing national resilience mechanisms. The differences in the implementation of the concept of resilience in the economic and political spheres are determined. On the basis of a combination of theoretical research and practical experience of a number of states, the author elaborated the algorithm of actions required to choose best-performing national resilience model for the country. It is determined that the choice of the model for ensuring national resilience and related mechanisms depends on the key threats to national security. It is advisable to analyze the threats in the context of criteria specified by the author. Also it is important to establish the target benchmarks. Further mechanisms for ensuring national resilience should be oriented to achieve these target benchmarks. Detection of the weaknesses of the national security system in the context of counteracting the key threats facilitates a clearer understanding of the nature of the mechanisms for ensuring national resilience, which the country requires. The article argues that the model of ensuring national resilience, which was formed appropriately, should not be static. Taking into consideration that the threats to national security in the modern world are complex and dynamic, the process of ensuring national resilience should also be clarified periodically, and the corresponding model should be developed with new mechanisms.
A high priority for Ukraine is the issue of building national resilience as a response to hybrid threats, which have a long, complex and destructive nature for many spheres. Taking into account this, the article emphasizes that it is highly advisable to intensify the development of the relevant field of knowledge in order to formulate scientifically substantiated recommendations for the leadership of the country how to build national resilience.
Derzhava i pravo. Politychni nauky – State and Law. Political sciences, 81, 135–146 [in Ukrainian].
2. Reznikova, O. O. (2018). Zabezpechennia natsionalnoi bezpeky i natsionalnoi stiikosti: spilni rysy i vidminnosti [Providing national security and national resilience: common features and differences]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu – Bulletin of Lviv University, 19, 170–175 [in Ukrainian].
3. Cavelty, M. D., Kaufmann, M., & Kristensen, K. S. (2015). Resilience and (in)security: Practices, subjects, temporalities. Security Dialogue, vol. 46 (1), 3–14 [in English].
4. Zebrowski, C. (2013). The nature of resilience. Resilience, 1:3, 159–173 [in English].
5. Bourbeau, P. (2013). Resiliencism: premises and promises in securitisation research. Resilience, 1:1, 3–17 [in English].
6. Fj der, C. (2014).The nation-state, national security and resilience in the age of globalization. Resilience, 2:2, 114– 129 [in English].
7. Evans, B. (2015). Exhausted by resilience: response to the commentaries (Brad Evans, Julian Reid). Resilience, 3:2, 154–159 [in English].
8. Joseph, J. (2013). Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: a governmentality approach. Resilience, 1:1, 38–52 [in English].
9. Rensel, D. J. (2015). Resilience – A Concept. Defense ARJ, 22:3, 294–324 [in English].
10. Chandler, D. (2014). Beyond neoliberalism: resilience, the new art of governing complexity. Resilience, 2:1, 47–63 [in English].
11. Francart, L. What does resilience really mean? (n. d.). www.diploweb.com. Retrieved from https://www.diploweb. com/What-does-resilience-really-mean.html (viewed 09.01.2019) [in English].
12. Canetti, D. Waismel-Manor, I., Cohen, N., & Rapaport, C. (2013, March 26). What Does National Resilience Mean in a Democracy? Evidence from the United States and Israel. Armed Forces & Society. afs.sagepub.com. Retrieved from http://afs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/11/0095327X12466828 (viewed 14.01.2019) [in English].
13. Klein, R. J. T., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?
Enviromental Hazards, 3, 35–45 [in English].
14. Reznikova, O. O. (2018). Osoblyvosti formuvannia derzhavnoi polityky za pryntsypamy natsionalnoi stiikosti [Features of the state policy development based on the principles of national resilience]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu – Bulletin of Lviv University, 18, 349–353 [in Ukrainian].
15. Boiko, A. V. (2014). Stiikist natsionalnoi ekonomiky: teoriia, metodolohiia, praktyka [Resilience of national economy: theory, methodology and practice]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
16. Building National Resilience. Creating a Strong and Flexible Country. National Resilience Promotion Office, Cabinet Secretariat, Japan. (n. d.). www.cas.go.jp Retrieved from https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/kokudo_kyoujinka/en/ e01_panf.pdf (viewed 10.01.2019 [in English].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.