Mankind is facing serious problems of global reach, arising from the contradictions of world development. A number of factors have a destabilizing effect on international security, including rivalry between independent states and centers of power, backwardness problems, the contrasts of Eastern European reality with the rest of Europe, and unpredictable processes in individual countries and regions. This allows new crisis situations and clashes to arise on historical and geopolitical grounds.

New ambitions for domination and influence emerge in the form of nationalism and chauvinism, fundamentalist ideologies and religious fanaticism. In the complex interdependent system of relations, the role of the internal problems of the individual country has grown, which is playing an increasing role both for its own security and for international security in general.

The main security problems in the 21st century will be regional instability and unsustainable development, the emergence and escalation of conflicts of ethnic and religious origin and related forms of terrorism, and the globalization of organized crime.

This leads to crises of varying intensity, which can have significant negative consequences for the overall infrastructure of an individual country or region and even for world peace and stability.

In support of this is the statement of one of the former US Secretary of Defense McNamara - "No more military strategy, only crisis management", which means that the decision to manage the crisis is one of the three top political decisions. The first is to win elections, the second is to run to achieve goals, and the third is to run in a crisis.

 

1. Characteristics, dynamics and escalation of crises.

1.1. Escalation of the crisis

In order to create the most favorable conditions for crisis management during the four main periods of its structure, it is necessary to mentally determine the phases of origin, development and termination of the crisis and military conflict. For this purpose it is necessary to create a structure with four phases.

There are several phases in the evolution of the crisis.

The first is military danger. This is the state of the military-political situation, when there is a relatively equal degree of potential for the outbreak of a military conflict between the parties, as well as the possibility of preventing it.

The potential danger comes from troops deployed in peacetime with high enough combat potential to pursue aggressive political goals in existing territorial disputes, ethnic, religious, economic, economic and other conflicts by triggering the military factor.

The second phase of the crisis is the military threat. It is a state of the military-political situation, which significantly reduces the possibility of maintaining peace and increases the likelihood of conflict. At the same time, there is a clearly defined aggressive side.

The third phase of the crisis is a threatening period. It manifests itself in the escalation of the military-political situation with a sharp increase in the likelihood of unarmed conflict.

The fourth phase is the immediate military threat. There is an escalation of the confrontation, as the role of the armed forces in the pursuit of aggressive political goals is dominant. The likelihood of unarmed conflict escalating into a military one using force as a form of resolving interstate conflicts has increased dramatically. At this level, in addition to external sources of danger and threat, there are also internal ones, whose role has been growing in recent years.

The crisis can also be seen as one of the possible and gradually developing stages of a conflict. As a subjective concept, it depends on the point of view, which is why it may exist for one country and not exist for another. In some cases, it may escalate into a stage of conflict development or be overcome, while the conflict as a whole is able to persist and take on a hidden form.

The criteria for assessing the escalation of the crisis are mainly two:

• escalation of behavior;

• escalation of relationships.

Considering these two criteria for assessing the escalation by phases of crisis development, the following degrees of escalation can be determined: hidden origin, aggravation of contradictions, confrontation and crisis.

The first phase includes the period of hidden origin of the crisis. It is characterized by conduct in accordance with national interests, international law and relations, without disturbing the balance of interests. The earliest signs of the crisis may not yet be seen, but they do exist. In order to detect them, it is necessary to build and operate an early warning system, which significantly increases the chance of its prevention.

The second phase includes a period of stress escalation. It is characterized by a behavior of hostility, as a result of which a dispute arises. There is no direct threat to high-ranking values, but mild unarmed violence is possible. The main activity at this stage is to monitor the situation and intensify the collection of intelligence.

The third phase is characterized by the emergence of opposition, leading to confrontation, which means that there is a threat to values ​​of a higher rank. The parties are suspicious, and there are ambiguities that provoke increased attention, taking a position to intimidate and stopping the opponent. As a result of the escalation of the contradictions, the relationship becomes more complicated. The main activities at this stage are related to the intensification of the policy for overcoming the crisis and the development of response plans. The collection of information for clarification of the situation from a factual point of view continues, determining the reasons, goals and strategy for action.

In the next fourth phase of the crisis, there are actions leading to increased violence, which can lead to unarmed conflict in its two forms - confrontation and support. Its development leads to increased tensions, exercises and other activities that may become increasingly aggressive. There may be a process of both preparation for deployment and deployment of armed forces, and ultimatums may be issued.

During this period, the main policy efforts are aimed at restraining the countries. From the point of view of preparation for military action and the use of armed forces, the level of readiness is increasing. The emerging military-political crisis can go through three states:

• Stagnation;

• If, despite the measures taken, the crisis is not overcome, it Stabilizes;

• Completion.

The first situation - stagnation may include an agreement to withdraw the armed forces, which is an indication that the threat of high rank has decreased. However, this does not mean that the crisis is over or resolved.

The second situation is characterized by overcoming the sharpest contradictions and creating guarantees that the most critical moments of the crisis have passed. Opponents are working for a stable post-crisis settlement. Diplomatic and political events are held in parallel with the redeployment of the armed forces.

In the final period, the contradictions are reduced to those of low intensity, sometimes lower than those before the crisis. This does not mean that all differences between countries have been overcome or disappeared. It is possible to remove the danger or freeze the threat that caused the crisis. takes the form of military conflict. Its main feature is actions leading to armed violence. With such a development of the situation, it is possible to escalate from a military conflict of low intensity to medium intensity (limited war), and to reach a high intensity (national war), if in the meantime the hostilities are not stopped.

The last phase in the escalation of the crisis includes the stage of restoring peace. The intensity of the conflicts is declining, which does not mean that they have been overcome or disappeared, but it is possible that the threat posed by the military conflict will subside or be frozen.

The phase development of the crisis thus adopted makes it possible to assess the military-political and strategic situation.

1.2. The development and escalation of a crisis in natural disasters.

 There are some peculiarities arising from the nature of the natural disaster, accident and catastrophe.

The curve has an initial stage, a maximum of the disaster and a final stage.

The initial stage is characterized by nucleation and escalation. This stage is characterized by actions at the municipal and district level.

The maximum of the disaster is characterized by further escalation, reaching its apogee and beginning de-escalation. At this stage, actions at the state level are typical.

The final stage is characterized by the continuation of the de-escalation until the restoration of stable functioning of the system. Here the actions at the municipal and district level are the most important.

The phases of development also take on a different character.

The first phase is nucleation and development, during which the first reaction occurs.

The second phase is an assessment of the situation in which the strengthening begins.

The third phase is the implementation of an action option, during which strengthening continues and recovery begins.

The fourth phase is the implementation, during which the recovery is completed.

Normally, a crisis begins with accidents. An incident is an unpredictable or difficult to predict, limited in time and space action with high intensity, endangering the life, health, material and cultural values ​​of people or the living environment. Depending on the nature of the source, they can be socio-political, foreign policy and natural.

As a result of the threat or life activity, it is necessary to take extraordinary measures to overcome them, which is called an emergency situation. This requires the introduction of a state of emergency, which is a special legal regime that is introduced for a certain period of time by the bodies designated by law in individual regions, districts or throughout the country as a result of incidents. With the introduction of a state of emergency, conditions are created for the successful implementation of emergency measures to overcome the incidents or their consequences.

In the event of natural disasters, accidents or catastrophes with lasting consequences affecting part of the territory of municipalities, districts or the whole country, requiring the application of emergency measures for a certain period of time, a state of emergency may be introduced. This requires emergency measures, which include a set of activities taken to increase the preparedness of the management system, the forces and means to prevent a possible or occurred incident.

There are often cases when crisis situations arise, the escalation of which leads to crises of different nature. The crisis situation arises as a result of a threat or manifestation of an incident, in which the activity and conditions for existence in the endangered environment are violated and can be restored only through the application of emergency measures. As a result of the escalation of the crisis, the emergence of new incidents that cover large areas, cause significant losses and destruction and pose a threat to several territorial units or the whole country. When the nature, intensity and scope of the crisis situation is great and it is necessary to mobilize significant forces and resources to resolve it, a crisis situation is introduced. Crisis situation is a special legal regime, which is introduced by the bodies designated by law in individual areas or throughout the country, before, during and after the threat in order to use emergency measures to manage and resolve the crisis, as well as to overcome the consequences of it.

 

2. Crisis management procedures.

Crisis management must take into account not only the conditions under which they arose, but also their nature, scope, objectives and consequences. The behavior of the parties must be assessed and the next steps taken into account the elements of this assessment. Depending on the phases of the crisis, its management can be preventive, perspective or forceful, and the main goal remains to limit the consequences of resolving it.

The crisis management process begins with pre-emergence procedures with the emergence of disagreements over the escalation, and continues until the parties decide to start negotiations.

Crisis management procedures are:

• harmonization of the legal framework, concepts and procedures;

• pre-crisis;

• crisis management;

• post-crisis;

• drawing lessons from the crisis

2.1. Harmonization of the regulatory framework and pre-crisis procedures.

Harmonization of the legal framework and concepts is a fundamental procedure. It aims to create unanimity, synergy, high efficiency, multiplier effect, multinationalism and crisis response automation (to reduce risk time).

To achieve this goal it is necessary to achieve the following results: trust, reliability and consent.

Trust is faith in the system and its ability to cope with crisis situations.

Reliability lies in clearly proven achievements.

The object of harmonization is the national legislation, international requirements and functional procedures plus the necessary infrastructure. At the national level in our country a law on crisis management with a package of normative documents is to be adopted. They must fully meet modern international requirements, which will allow our country to fit into the pan-European crisis management system.

The development of this special law is dictated by the lack of a unified legal framework for public relations related to crisis management.

The future law has the following goals:

- settling public relations in the event of the emergence, development, management and management of crises, as well as overcoming their consequences;

-determination of the functions, tasks, organization, ways of interaction of the state authorities and local self-government, enterprises, companies, commercial companies, non-governmental organizations and citizens in crisis situations and crises of different nature.

The emphasis in the law should be on prevention and planning. In addition, the law on crisis management must be very well coordinated with the law on defense and the armed forces and the law on the Ministry of Interior.

The law must answer two main questions. The first is related to the legal aspects of resolving crises and crises of different nature. The second is related to the interstate legal aspects, with the participation of our forces and means for resolving crises outside the country.

The bill regulates a number of basic concepts. Defines the structure and functions of state bodies related to crises. The structure of the crisis management bodies envisaged in the draft law is subject to the principle of unanimity. This creates conditions for subordination and immediate response to threats, incidents and crises.

The draft law provides for the possibility in the event of a threat, incident or crisis situation to resort to the use of units of the Bulgarian Army and structures of the Ministry of Interior, along with the other six types of different response forces. These formations are designed to carry out rescue and emergency work to manage the crisis and overcome its consequences. The recovery of the consequences of natural disasters, accidents and catastrophes will be the subject of public procurement, insurance contracts and efforts of the victims.

The activity for managing and overcoming incidents, crisis situations and crises, the State Agency for Civil Protection will carry out in cooperation with units of the Bulgarian Army and the Ministry of Interior in accordance with the crisis management plans.

Military doctrine and the Law on Armed Forces regulate the participation of the Armed Forces in humanitarian and rescue operations outside the territory of a foreign country, as well as in peacekeeping operations.

The participation of the Republic of Bulgaria in peacekeeping operations is conditioned by the observance of the following principles:

• compliance of participation depending on national interests;

• participation must be in accordance with the UN Charter and the norms of international law;

• the decision is taken on a case-by-case basis upon invitation;

• participation implies the existence of a specific agreement between the relevant international organization and the Republic of Bulgaria on the conditions for the provision of the Bulgarian military contingent;

• The existence of a clear mandate for the operation, as well as clear criteria for termination of participation.

Following the logic of these principles, participation in such missions presupposes the existence of two types of legal acts: international law and domestic law.

The principles of international law require the conclusion of agreements on the deployment of multinational forces and the lead organization.

The previous Bulgarian participation in such missions required the inclusion of Bulgarian formations within another national contingent.

In connection with the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria in KFOR, an agreement was concluded between the Republic of Bulgaria and NATO.

The Constitution, the Law on Military Personnel, the Regulations on Personnel Military Service (PCVS) and the Military Doctrine can be mentioned among the internal legal acts.

The Council of Ministers is the body that allows the sending of Bulgarian military units and non-military formations outside the country. The status of these formations is determined for each specific mission in accordance with the principles and norms of international law and international treaties.

Recently, a new concept of international mission has been adopted in international legal doctrine, namely crisis response operations.

The need for the Republic of Bulgaria to harmonize the legal system with the new political realities gives the issue of crisis management special relevance.

The implementation of the Crisis Management Act will create the necessary legal framework for preventive activities in the field of crisis management, as well as for a working mechanism for adequate and timely response to crisis situations and crises of various kinds.

By regulating the necessary structures involved in crisis management and the respective models of action in crisis situations and crises, guarantees for a quick and adequate response are created. The presented mechanism for coordination and subordination between the competent authorities is a guarantee for the protection of the state, society and the individual.

To this end, it is necessary to create a system of Crisis Management Centers (CECs) to employ people who speak the same language.

In order to find the formula for harmonization of the normative base, concepts and procedures, it is necessary to develop a strategy, which should include the establishment of a working group to study the parameters for harmonization. With the help of NATO, the forces to be deployed for crisis management should be identified. In addition, the issues related to the adoption and provision of forces for action in times of crisis must be regulated.

International interoperability standards must be the basis for joint action.

Harmonization standards are set by NATO. In this regard, it is imperative to create a database on the composition of the Rapid Reaction Force in various crises.

These issues should also be addressed at the meetings of the Ministers of Defense of the countries of Southeast Europe.

Pre-crisis procedures aim to detail the framework, scale, nature and forms of interaction in crisis management, increase unanimity on the nature of joint activities.

The role of the country concerned in all aspects of crisis management is essential.

In the political field, measures are a large enough tool for resolving a crisis situation. In the political sphere, on the basis of the common understanding, the respective political and public support is formed. The need and importance of the implementation of this support is expressed in the preparation (expert, legal and technical) of the necessary proposals for decisions of the government and parliament.

When the crisis becomes international, it is necessary to coordinate the positions and strategy between the partner countries.

In the diplomatic field, coordination of preventive diplomacy is essential for military-political crises. It is a system of activities aimed at avoiding conflicts between the parties, preventing conflicts based on pre-existing differences, and limiting conflicts.

The most successful and efficient is the activity of diplomacy to reduce tensions before an acute conflict has arisen, as well as when it arises, to locate it and resolve the differences that caused it. This type of diplomacy requires the implementation of confidence-building measures, may include the preventive deployment of troops, and in some cases the creation of demilitarized zones. This helps to reduce tension, reduce conflict and find the best course of action.

 

In the politico-military field, military cooperation is an important factor in preventing military-political crises by maintaining equal mutually beneficial relations.

Military cooperation is conducted on a global and regional scale. It is organized and conducted in order to prevent conflicts between states.

In recent years, it has been enriched with new forms:

• adopting additional measures to strengthen trust and security;

• creation of mechanisms for preventive diplomacy;

• arms control and disarmament measures.

 

The main factors favoring the peaceful resolution of crises between countries are: dialogue and negotiations to resolve problems. They are preceded by active foreign policy in which military diplomacy plays a significant role.

It is essential in the military-political field to create mechanisms for the activation of the armed forces and the preventive deployment of troops.

In the military-technical field, it is necessary to provide for the connection to special transmission means in the regional or field commands of NATO and the ISA.

It is imperative that the necessary organization be established for the transfer of forces and infrastructure in NATO's interest in crisis management.

An important issue in the military-technical field is military-technical cooperation. It can be expressed in the provision of special equipment for crisis management. These can be communications, automation and navigation tools and more.

The other important issue is to prepare Civil Protection and Red Cross structures for participation in crisis situations.

2.2.Crisis management

During the crisis itself, the goal is to bring it under control. Management focuses on early political warning between partners. It means revealing the earliest signs of the crisis, which significantly increases the chances of preventing it. Early political warning helps to avoid surprise between partners.

In order for preventive diplomacy to be more effective, the analysis of the situation must be complete and detailed. This requires multi-directional drilling, as well as sending missions to discover and objectively analyze the facts. The information exchange system must be designed to ensure the exchange of information:

• for the situation;

• for the decisions taken;

• for the actions taken.

To provide the necessary information, it is appropriate to coordinate intelligence activities. For this it is necessary to coordinate the efforts in terms of purpose, place, time, direction, objects and tasks. In addition, joint positions and actions between the countries in the region are needed to exchange intelligence. The other component is Ad Hawk joint positions in the course of crisis management.

Coordination mechanisms depend on the type of crisis. In non-security crises, the emphasis is on response and practice, and in security crises, the emphasis is on decision-making and action.

Operational interaction is also essential. It is a set of measures to ensure the operation. When conducting an air operation, it is necessary to provide air corridors, publicity and air defense measures against retaliation.

Coordination is also needed as the forces grow and the character of the mission changes.

2.3. Post-crisis procedures and lessons learned from the crisis.

 

Post-crisis procedures are aimed at preventing re-escalation, rapid normalization of the situation and lasting resolution of the crisis.

The most important point in post-crisis regulation is to prevent the crisis from breaking down into small problems that will spill over into the region. To this end, it is necessary to coordinate the positions on the political regulation of the crisis on the establishment of joint working groups of multinational forces for the restoration of infrastructure and peacekeeping.

Reconciliation is a system of measures taken by the United Nations, international organizations or interim coalitions and states to reach an agreement between warring parties through the use of political or military means.

The policy measures provided for in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations provide a sufficiently rich "toolkit" to resolve a crisis. The UN has extensive experience in the implementation of these peaceful means due to lack of funds or their inappropriateness, and mainly due to lack of political will.

Another reason for their ineffectiveness may be the indifference of the international community to the problem and the need to limit it.

Among the means provided for in this chapter of the UN Charter are the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the reduction of tensions between stakeholders through the provision of various types of assistance (including humanitarian), and the imposition of embargoes and various economic sanctions.

 In cases where the means provided for in Chapter VI prove insufficient or ineffective, Chapter VII of the Statute, the use of military force and the deployment of peacekeeping forces are permitted (Articles 42 and 43 of that Chapter).

In such a situation, the UN Security Council is required to vote on an appropriate mandate for these forces (Iraq's aggression against Kuwait and the international community's action to resolve the crisis in the former Yugoslavia).

Peacekeeping is the presence of representatives of the UN, regional organizations or interim coalitions in a crisis area (with the consent of the parties concerned). These are usually military observers, peacekeepers and police forces, as well as representatives of non-governmental humanitarian organizations.

This type of operation under the auspices of the UN crisis management has contributed to the stabilization of many crisis hotspots on the planet.

After the crisis, peace-building is a set of measures to identify and support those structures that influence the stabilization of peace in the crisis area in order to prevent its escalation into armed conflict.

In order to achieve the full success of peacekeeping and peacekeeping operations, comprehensive efforts are needed to establish a sense of security and prosperity in the countries concerned.

Following the conclusion of the relevant agreements, activities may include disarmament of the participating countries and restoration of order and trust between them, collection of heavy weapons, their limitation and eventual destruction, repatriation of refugees, expert assistance and training of law enforcement forces, monitoring the legality of general and local elections, promoting efforts to protect human rights, etc.

While preventive diplomacy aims to resolve differences before violence erupts, and peacekeeping and peacekeeping operations are conducted to end conflicts and preserve peace, post-crisis peacebuilding aims to prevent a resumption of violence between warring parties.

Lessons learned from the crisis aim to standardize, improve crisis management procedures and learn lessons.

In order for the lessons learned from the crisis to be effective, it is necessary to create a model for describing, analyzing and learning lessons in crisis management. This model should be able to take into account the strengths and weaknesses in the crisis management process.

Strengths will need to be taken into account in consolidating the results achieved. Weaknesses will have to be used to improve the overall management system and working methods of the individual units. It is of particular importance to analyze and draw lessons from the work of the early warning system, as its timely functioning will determine the timely detection of the onset of the crisis. The analysis of the flow of information and the work of the situation centers is essential. The analysis model must take into account the mechanisms for information exchange and processing and the decisions taken. An important place is occupied by learning lessons from interaction, as one of the key moments in crisis management. In order to eliminate the admitted weaknesses in the interaction, it is necessary to expand the possibilities for imitation of the situation.

The forces and means involved in the crisis should be analyzed, with the main effort being to assess their capabilities. To determine the need to use high-tech tools.

Another important element for analysis and evaluation are the forms and methods of action applied during the various phases of the escalation of the crisis.

Ultimately, lessons learned from the crisis should lead to a corresponding reassessment in crisis management regulations.

As a result of the lessons from the crisis, the directions for training the personnel for action in crises of different nature must be determined.

When military operations are conducted during the crisis, lessons need to be learned in the following areas:

• deployment and mobility of forces and resources;

• intelligence and targeting;

• gaining air superiority;

• survivability of infrastructures and forces;

• command and control of communications and control;

• effective use of forces and means;

• logistics provision.

The lessons should also cover the work of the institutions and their bodies involved in crisis management.

It is appropriate to group the general conclusions as follows:

• political aspects;

• military aspects;

• economic aspects;

• humanitarian aspects;

• legal aspects;

• regional aspects.

In addition, a mechanism for the exchange of conclusions and decisions between partner countries needs to be established.

Ultimately, all this must lead to a higher level of harmonization of crisis management procedures. The verification of the correctness of the proposed changes in the procedures should be done by expanding the possibilities for simulations in the management of the procedures and for the training of the personnel.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it can be emphasized that crisis management procedures begin in the pre-crisis and end in the post-crisis period. It is necessary to respond in a timely manner by conducting a wide range of different procedures tailored to the dynamic nature of crises. At the beginning of the 21st century, the possibilities of information technology must be used in crisis modeling.