CIDS policy papers
CIDS aims at stimulating discussions on Building Integrity (BI) that go beyond the more technical issues of reforms and tools for reducing the risk of corruption and unethical behavior. There is a need for discussing the role of BI within a broader policy framework, both in the Alliance and nationally. Without a more broadly formulated policy on BI as a base, mainstreaming BI in the Alliance will be difficult if not impossible. The CIDS policy papers are meant as ‘food-for-thought’ and do not represent the official policy or views of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. CIDS would be pleased to receive responses, counter-arguments, and proposals for how to pursue the issue raised or to further develop a policy paper’s perspective. Send us an e-mail or contact us on Facebook or LinkedIn.
Our notion is that BI needs an open exchange of ideas.
Corruption: No one Is Perfect
CIDS policy paper no. 3 (2016)
There is no country in the world without corruption. Norway is ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, meaning that we have strong institutions in place and effective control mechanisms to manage the risk of corruption. However, as Transparency International states in its Global Corruption Perception Index, not one single country, anywhere in the world, is corruption-free.
Towards Cardiff and beyond: NATO as a community of values
CIDS policy paper no. 2 (2014)
Integrity defined as a low risk of corruption and other unethical behaviour is only one important aspect of NATO’s BI Programme. Seen as part of the larger picture, integrity has a significant impact on how the Alliance functions – in short, on its system of governance. Some key concepts in that respect are common values, interdependence, credibility and mutual trust.
A closer link between NATO’s Defence Planning System and the NATO Building Integrity Programme
CIDS policy paper no. 1 (2014)
The legitimacy of NATO as a mutually binding Alliance will, in the longer term, depend on whether the population of the member states continue to see NATO as both relevant and needed in order to face the security challenges that people generally think are decisive for their own country. The mutual solidarity also depends on how trustworthy the other Allies are considered to be, and on the level of political affinity among the member states. In this context, the common values of the Allies are crucial. Unless NATO is seen as a community of values, public support and mutual solidarity may easily become undermined.