F1IS 4640 - Tyrrhenia NATO Exercise

The course is a role-playing exercise where the students replicate three NATO committees which are essential to Alliance decision making in the context of crisis management, and a Joint Targeting Board at Joint Force Command level.
The exercise is run in three cycles of decision making at NATO HQ and one Joint Targeting Board at Joint Force Command level. In the NATO HQ sessions, students play high level officials of the International Staff or representatives from national delegations. Since they will change roles or nation per cycle, they will be exposed to most possible roles.
In the Joint Targeting Board, they play members of the Board, from Commander to specific members of the staff.

Learning Outcomes
1. Develop an understanding of crisis management and political-military decision making at NATO HQ and of an operational decision at Joint Force Command level.
The students will become familiar with the Alliance's organization and functioning in crisis management situations:

• Through using the NATO Crisis Response Process (NCRP).
• Through practicing the associated roles of the various NATO bodies involved in crisis management.
• Through dealing with the factors related to cooperation in crisis management with other international organizations, such as the UN and the EU.

The program of work covers:

• The NATO Crisis Management Process (1 presentation by the Professor).
• The work of three high-level Working Groups within NATO HQ: Political Committee, Operations Policy Committee, NAC Working Group.
• The work of the Joint Targeting Board at Joint Force Command level.
• The work of the Conseil restreint de défense (France), as an illustration of national decision making.

2. Develop expertise on the framework of operations.

• Political-military decision making, political control over military operations, ethical and legal considerations.
• NATO operations. Other frameworks: UN-, EU-led operations. Coalition Operations.
• Operational planning process at NATO.

3. Develop an understanding of the national dialogue contributing to the NATO collective decision making.

• Familiarising with national instructions and negotiating tactics.
• Reporting to the capital and developing negotiating proposals.
• Contributing the national perspective to collective decision making of the Alliance.
• Advising national authorities in view of a Silence Procedure.

Professional Skills
Develop competencies in the conduct of multilateral negotiations in critical circumstances.
• By practicing techniques for negotiation, mediation and decision-making by consensus.
• By practicing how to defend a specific point of view, which might not necessarily coincide with one's own ideas.
• By identifying possible causes of success or failure.
• By experiencing the influence of the human factor on negotiations.
• By encountering group dynamics in a negotiation process.
• By developing a common course of action in a given crisis scenario.
• The exercise will include two « Silence Procedures ».

Michel YAKOVLEFF

Séminaire

English

Beyond the readings, the students will be expected to:
- produce successive versions of the target deliverable if they are members of the Trio,
- entertain traffic (reporting and recommendations) with Capital if they are National Representatives, and also engage “off the record” with other members of the Committee in furtherance of their national aims.
Based on a similar experience in 2021, students should allocate one to three hours in between sessions, which only replicate the Committee work in session and not the attendant preparation and exploitation.

Students must be aware that, though the workload may be moderate, it is extremely time dependent. After each session, a short report (by mail) is expected, within 24 hours, then 2-3 days later, working on the document being developed in committee, each student will have to produce a short analysis and recommendations on specific items, to include suggesting text. This dialogue is integral to the value added of the class, it is not an accessory and it is the basis for course evaluation.

Workload:

• In Class Presence: 2 hours a week / 24 hours a semester
• Online learning activities: none
• Reading and Preparation for Class: Max 1 hour per week
• Research and Preparation for Group Work: 1 to 3 hours per week
• Research and Writing for Individual Assessments: 1 hour per week

It is absolutely essential that students acquire beforehand a degree of knowledge and understanding of NATO. Required readings are indicated under the relevant section, but of themselves, they are not enough to enter the exercise.
Also, the scenario documents need to be read thoroughly before the exercise. Participants should not consider they will educate themselves to the basics of the fictional scenario as the exercise unfolds - they need to come to the exercise with a degree of understanding of the context and what is at stake.

Spring 2024-2025

The course assessment is based on the quality of participation in session and of “national” traffic.
Per cycle, there will be a collective deliverable, the document achieved through the meetings, formulating the NATO consensus at a specific point in the decision-making process.
Members of the Trio will be accountable for the delivery of initial and successive draft documents, as well as the “technical” traffic (i.e., agenda of meetings, etc) and the actual running of the meetings.
National Representatives will be responsible for reporting to the Capital after each meeting, providing an assessment and recommendations per step in the decision-making process, and contributing productively to Committee work. It should be noted that performance is not necessarily based on meeting the objectives of individual nations.

Individual feedback will be provided per cycle, as a measure of the overall contribution of the student to the collective work. The feedback will be characterised as:
- Outstanding: the student was absolutely decisive in the dynamics of the working group and exceeded expectations based on the generic role assigned.
- Excellent: the student met all expectations based on the generic role assigned.
- Good: the student met most expectations based on the generic role assigned.
- Pass: the student generally met expectations based on the generic role assigned but required significant coaching to achieve the aims.
- Substandard: the student failed to meet minimal expectations based on the generic role assigned, despite support from the Professor.

General feedback and grading will be an overall assessment taking into account the various roles played by each student.