The economic and security significance of maritime and political interests around the world has altered with the changing international security environment, as has the importance of secure sea routes to meet global demand. Oman increasingly relies on the sea for maritime trade and exploitation of marine resources, but without a common maritime policy and strategy to align its commercial and maritime interests, its offshore resources will remain under-developed. Oman’s primary interest is to ensure national maritime security by maintaining an effective navy and other agencies to guard its sea areas, and protect its maritime trade. However, it still lacks a formal maritime doctrine to underpin its policies This study argues that a maritime doctrine will assist Oman to utilise its maritime power and protect its national interests. In the absence of archive material, this study has drawn upon personal interviews with maritime experts and practitioners, and reviewed and analyzed a wide range of official publications and secondary sources on maritime policy and doctrine. It highlights the relationship between economic growth and maritime trade in Oman, examines the role of Oman’s shipping industry and related activities, and compares the experiences and expertise of several nations that have established maritime doctrine. Oman’s need for a maritime doctrine in order to protect its national interests and sovereignty is pressing. It should connect and coordinate its maritime power, military strategy, policies, and standing operating procedures through a single maritime doctrine that will provide the basis for mutual understanding between units of the Sultan’s Armed Forces, related government agencies, and national policy-makers, ensuring operational familiarity and efficiency. In proposing a discrete administrative body to oversee the codification of principles and procedures, the study fills a significant gap in Oman’s national maritime policy and strategy, since the expression of maritime doctrine will help protect the integrity and interests of the state and its people.

<p>Rysslands doktrinella hierarki fungerar utan arenaspecifika doktriner. Det finns ett övergripande säkerhetsstrategiskt dokument, direkt underställt detta dokument finns den militära doktrinen. Ändå utformades 2001 en maritim doktrin som skall behandla det maritima läget och rysslands ekonomiska intressen på haven fram till år 2020. Varför denna doktrin utformades kan ha sitt svar i Rysslands ökade maritima intresse i och kring ryskt havsterritorium, men det kan även vara ett sätt att visa sina officiella ställningstaganden, intressen och intentioner öppet för världssamfundet. 2010 publicerades ett nytt säkerhetsstrategiskt dokument och samma år offentliggjordes även den nya militäradoktrinen. Det utformades i samma veva även en strategisk Arktisk doktrin som tillkännagav Rysslands intentioner och intressen i denna nya och oexploaterade region som tack vare jordens förhöjda medeltemperatur de senare åren har öppnat upp nya områden. Många nationer har blivit intresserade av detta nya område, bland annat USA, Kanada, Danmark och Norge. Detta har i sin tur skapat en grogrund, för tvister om gränsdragningar och om vem som har rätten till resursextraheringen i området. Det som detta arbete kommer att avhandla är, vad den äldre ryska maritima doktrinen har haft för inverkan påde senare utvecklade doktrinerna. Vad finns det för skillnader, likheter och vilka punkter har höjts till en merbeslutad nivå? Utifrån dessa kriterier kommer sedermera en estimering, om vad dessa variabler kan ha förinverkan, på ryska marinstridskrafters uppträdande i Arktis regionen i ett framtidsperspektiv.</p> / <p>Russian doctrine on set hierarchy works without specific arena doctrines. There is a comprehensive security strategy document, and as a direct subordinate to this document is the military doctrine. Yet in the year of 2001 a maritime doctrine was developed to deal with the maritime situation and Russia's economic interests in the seas until 2020. Why this doctrine was designed might have its answer in Russia's increased interest in maritime and Russian waters around the territory, but it can also be a way to show their official positions, interests and intentions open to the world community. In 2010 Russia published a new security strategy document, and the same year the new military doctrine was presented to the public. A strategic doctrine was also produced that announced Russia’s Arctic intentions and interests in this new and undeveloped region. That thanks to the earth's average temperature incensement in recent years has opened up new areas. Many nations are now interested in this new area, including the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway. This has created a dispute about the boundaries and who have the right to excavate the resources in the area. What this paper will discuss, is how the older Russian maritime doctrine has influenced the later developed doctrines. What are the differences, similarities, and what points have been raised to amore decision-making level? The based off these criteria will subsequently result, in an estimation of what impact these variables could have, on the Russian naval forces behaviour in the Arctic region ina future perspective.</p>

Rysslands doktrinella hierarki fungerar utan arenaspecifika doktriner. Det finns ett övergripande säkerhetsstrategiskt dokument, direkt underställt detta dokument finns den militära doktrinen. Ändå utformades 2001 en maritim doktrin som skall behandla det maritima läget och rysslands ekonomiska intressen på haven fram till år 2020. Varför denna doktrin utformades kan ha sitt svar i Rysslands ökade maritima intresse i och kring ryskt havsterritorium, men det kan även vara ett sätt att visa sina officiella ställningstaganden, intressen och intentioner öppet för världssamfundet. 2010 publicerades ett nytt säkerhetsstrategiskt dokument och samma år offentliggjordes även den nya militäradoktrinen. Det utformades i samma veva även en strategisk Arktisk doktrin som tillkännagav Rysslands intentioner och intressen i denna nya och oexploaterade region som tack vare jordens förhöjda medeltemperatur de senare åren har öppnat upp nya områden. Många nationer har blivit intresserade av detta nya område, bland annat USA, Kanada, Danmark och Norge. Detta har i sin tur skapat en grogrund, för tvister om gränsdragningar och om vem som har rätten till resursextraheringen i området. Det som detta arbete kommer att avhandla är, vad den äldre ryska maritima doktrinen har haft för inverkan påde senare utvecklade doktrinerna. Vad finns det för skillnader, likheter och vilka punkter har höjts till en merbeslutad nivå? Utifrån dessa kriterier kommer sedermera en estimering, om vad dessa variabler kan ha förinverkan, på ryska marinstridskrafters uppträdande i Arktis regionen i ett framtidsperspektiv. / Russian doctrine on set hierarchy works without specific arena doctrines. There is a comprehensive security strategy document, and as a direct subordinate to this document is the military doctrine. Yet in the year of 2001 a maritime doctrine was developed to deal with the maritime situation and Russia's economic interests in the seas until 2020. Why this doctrine was designed might have its answer in Russia's increased interest in maritime and Russian waters around the territory, but it can also be a way to show their official positions, interests and intentions open to the world community. In 2010 Russia published a new security strategy document, and the same year the new military doctrine was presented to the public. A strategic doctrine was also produced that announced Russia’s Arctic intentions and interests in this new and undeveloped region. That thanks to the earth's average temperature incensement in recent years has opened up new areas. Many nations are now interested in this new area, including the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway. This has created a dispute about the boundaries and who have the right to excavate the resources in the area. What this paper will discuss, is how the older Russian maritime doctrine has influenced the later developed doctrines. What are the differences, similarities, and what points have been raised to amore decision-making level? The based off these criteria will subsequently result, in an estimation of what impact these variables could have, on the Russian naval forces behaviour in the Arctic region ina future perspective.

The aim of this thesis is to examine the relationship between the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) regarding the operation of aircraft from ships of the RAN and from RAAF shore bases. The effects of the separate intellectual development of maritime doctrine in the RAAF and RAN, and the efforts of the two Australian services to transfer theory into practice will be considered in the pre- (and post) World War II period, with due consideration of the experience of the services in both wars. The thesis will also discuss the problems that were faced by the RAAF and RAN to develop mutually acceptable operational procedures to enable the efficient use of aircraft in a maritime setting. The influence and effect on RAAF and RAN doctrine and equipment procurement, as a result of the special relationships that developed between the Air Force and Navy of Australia and Britain will be critically examined. A similar approach to the post war US/Australian relationship, and its effect on the Australian services, will also be critically examined. The thesis being propounded is that the development of a unique Australian maritime policy was retarded due to a combination of the relationship with Britain and the United States, lack of suitable equipment, lack of clear operational concepts in both the RAAF and RAN and the parochial attitude of the most senior commanders of both Services. The study has been based on Department of Navy, Department of Air and Department of Defence documents held in the National Archives of Australia in Canberra and Melbourne. In addition, relevant documents from the Admiralty and Air Ministry related to the development of naval aviation on RAN vessels during World War I, the attitude of the RAF toward the deployment of RAAF units to Singapore, and the negotiations that resulted in the procurement of HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne, have been perused. Wartime operational records of the RAAF have been examined to obtain data to enable a critical study to be made of the RAAF anti-submarine campaign, torpedo bomber operations and the maritime campaign undertaken from bases in North Western Area during World War II. The influence of the commander of the United States 5th Air Force has also been incorporated in the discussion. The research uncovered procedural and operational variations between the two Services, the diversion of key elements from Australian command and the priority given to the American line of advance that resulted in Australian operations being given a secondary, supportive, status. A conclusion reached as a result of this research has been that the development of a unique Australian maritime aerial capability was restricted by the requirement of Britain to deploy flying units to Singapore in 1940. Similarly, the pressure exerted on the RAN by the Admiralty to purchase the Light Fleet Carriers in the late 1940s was more in the interests of the RN and British foreign policy than that of the RAN. Overall, the relationship with the Britain and the United States masked the real weakness in Australia???s maritime operations and retarded its development.

The aim of this thesis is to examine the relationship between the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) regarding the operation of aircraft from ships of the RAN and from RAAF shore bases. The effects of the separate intellectual development of maritime doctrine in the RAAF and RAN, and the efforts of the two Australian services to transfer theory into practice will be considered in the pre- (and post) World War II period, with due consideration of the experience of the services in both wars. The thesis will also discuss the problems that were faced by the RAAF and RAN to develop mutually acceptable operational procedures to enable the efficient use of aircraft in a maritime setting. The influence and effect on RAAF and RAN doctrine and equipment procurement, as a result of the special relationships that developed between the Air Force and Navy of Australia and Britain will be critically examined. A similar approach to the post war US/Australian relationship, and its effect on the Australian services, will also be critically examined. The thesis being propounded is that the development of a unique Australian maritime policy was retarded due to a combination of the relationship with Britain and the United States, lack of suitable equipment, lack of clear operational concepts in both the RAAF and RAN and the parochial attitude of the most senior commanders of both Services. The study has been based on Department of Navy, Department of Air and Department of Defence documents held in the National Archives of Australia in Canberra and Melbourne. In addition, relevant documents from the Admiralty and Air Ministry related to the development of naval aviation on RAN vessels during World War I, the attitude of the RAF toward the deployment of RAAF units to Singapore, and the negotiations that resulted in the procurement of HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne, have been perused. Wartime operational records of the RAAF have been examined to obtain data to enable a critical study to be made of the RAAF anti-submarine campaign, torpedo bomber operations and the maritime campaign undertaken from bases in North Western Area during World War II. The influence of the commander of the United States 5th Air Force has also been incorporated in the discussion. The research uncovered procedural and operational variations between the two Services, the diversion of key elements from Australian command and the priority given to the American line of advance that resulted in Australian operations being given a secondary, supportive, status. A conclusion reached as a result of this research has been that the development of a unique Australian maritime aerial capability was restricted by the requirement of Britain to deploy flying units to Singapore in 1940. Similarly, the pressure exerted on the RAN by the Admiralty to purchase the Light Fleet Carriers in the late 1940s was more in the interests of the RN and British foreign policy than that of the RAN. Overall, the relationship with the Britain and the United States masked the real weakness in Australia???s maritime operations and retarded its development.