The House of Commons Library published a comprehensive research briefing by Louisa Brooke-Holland on June 20, 2023, outlining the functions, structure, and progression of NATO since it was founded in 1949.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, or NATO, was established as a shield for collective security and to counter the threat from the Soviet Union.

Initially, it was “an alliance of ten European and two North American states – the UK, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United States”, as outlined in the briefing by Brooke-Holland.

Central to NATO’s essence is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which proclaims that “an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all.” Interestingly, the briefing by Brooke-Holland points out that “Article 5 does not necessarily commit an ally to a military response” but mandates they assist by taking “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” It’s noteworthy that Article 5 was summoned for the first time following the 9/11 attacks in the US.

Membership has swelled over the years and the briefing highlights that Finland joined as the 31st member on April 4, 2023. In June 2022, NATO invited Sweden and Finland to join. However, the completion of Sweden’s joining process remains up in the air, as “every NATO member except Turkey and Hungary has ratified Sweden’s accession protocol.”

Countries can become members through Article 10 of the Washington Treaty. The briefing by Brooke-Holland explains, “Any European state may be invited by unanimous agreement to ‘further the principles’ of the Treaty and to ‘contribute to the security of the North Atlantic Area.’ NATO often says it has an ‘open door policy’.”

Decision-making is by consensus and involves the North Atlantic Council (NAC), which is “the principal political decision-making body at NATO, and each member country has a seat on the council.” The NAC, chaired by the Secretary-General, meets at least weekly.

Funding for NATO comes from both direct and indirect contributions from member countries. Direct contributions are predicated on Gross National Income. The briefing mentions the principle of “common funding”, which bankrolls NATO’s core budgets.

Indirect funding arises when “allies commit capabilities or troops to a military operation”, and the member state bears the costs themselves.

Regarding defence expenditures, the briefing mentions the 2% target, established at the 2006 Riga Summit. This stipulates that “2% of a member’s gross domestic product (GDP) should go towards defence expenditure”, but it’s a target, not an obligation.

NATO doesn’t possess its own military forces; rather, “each member contributes forces and equipment to specific operations or exercises.” NATO does, however, own some specific capabilities, such as AWACS early warning radar aircraft.

In 2022, NATO adopted a new Strategic Concept to “define the security challenges facing the Alliance and outline the political and military tasks NATO will carry out to address them.”

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which is separate from NATO, “provides a link between NATO and the legislative bodies of NATO members.” It produces reports and policy recommendations on security and policy challenges confronting Allied nations.

You can read more by clicking here.

Avatar photo
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jim
Jim (@guest_733050)
10 months ago

Now that the Orcs are gone it’s time for NATO to evolve, need to get rid of the week links of Hungry and Turkey and add in the big global democracies like Australia and Japan.

NATO has never been so strong and so week at the same time.

Frost002
Frost002 (@guest_733075)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

That would turn Nato into a global military power, forcing Western influence on nations that do not want to be westernised. Capitilism and Amercian influence are temporary and not sustainable, they need slave nations manufacturing cheap goods, and foreign oil. We are seeing cracks getting deeper and deeper, as the populations in the east strive to higher living standards. The West uses NATO to flex its muscles, but has shown weakness in Ukraine, as China watches on.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_733083)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

And China watching on realises that Russia is utterly useless, and can’t invade jack shit. Rubbish equipment, Rubbish training, and terrible tactics. And China realises how far ahead the West still is with military technology. Bet they wish they hadn’t bought those crappy Russian jet engines to put in the back of its fighters.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_733091)
10 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Well said mate.

Frost002
Frost002 (@guest_733113)
10 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

With respect, you miss the point totally. No matter how poor the Russian military are, Nato will not risk direct military involvement due to a nuclear war. China, seeing this, can guess that, they can invade Taiwan, without any major direct western involvement. The West will not risk nuclear war with China, so why would the US fight a conventional war with China? What should of happened, with hindsight, was as soon as Russia built up it forces on the border, Nato should of enforced a no fly zone and hosted military exercises in Ukraine. This would of prevented the… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by Frost002
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_733195)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

I have to agree and disagree. Maybe if NATO had acted sooner, war could have been prevented. But at what cost? Maybe NATO stepping in sooner might have made things even worse, and escalated the conflict even quicker. We will never know the answer to that question. I think the Wests actions will definitely have made China think twice about Taiwan. Taiwan is a well equipped nation prepared for conflict. They have been dealing with this constant threat for decades. It would not be easy for China. And they lack any conflict experience. The global economic effects would be disastrous… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie (@guest_733329)
10 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Hi Robert. For me, the lesson is that NATO should have onboarded The Ukraine as a member an immediate consequence of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. On balance, it is highly unlikely Putin would have dared to invade the Ukraine.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_733432)
10 months ago
Reply to  Klonkie

I agree. The Wests biggest mistakes happened 10+ years ago.

Klonkie
Klonkie (@guest_733568)
10 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Cheers Robert, enjoy the weekend!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_733656)
10 months ago
Reply to  Klonkie

You too mate 👍🍻

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_733826)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

I think the lesson of ukraine is that you have to deploy & threaten the use of force in support of friends & allies to deter major dicatorships from swallowing up neighbours. That means Taiwans’ friends should pledge support in the event of any attempt by the PRC to invade. Nukes mean we do NOT buckle & stand off when a nuclear power invades friends, rather it means we can simply say nuke us & we’ll nukle you, which cancels the feared threat. Biggest mistake we made was when Biden & Boris both said “Please don’t invade Ukraine, but if… Read more »

Graham
Graham (@guest_733253)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

We just need to educate or pressure Hungary and Turkey to agree to Sweden joining.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_733824)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

And Taiwan.

Frost002
Frost002 (@guest_733073)
10 months ago

A brief guide to NATO: As it expands, it will lead to resentment from non members, as per the Treaty of Versailles, leading to World War 3.

Last edited 10 months ago by Frost002
BobA
BobA (@guest_733082)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

The Treaty of Versailles emasculated Germany, even though it wasn’t defeated totally on the battlefield. That led to resentment, upon which the NAZI party capitalised along with the financial collapse of the late 20s. With the great depression, the League of Nations failed to hold Germany to its treaty obligations.

NATO is a collective, defensive alliance – the two are in such stark contrast of situation and intent that your comparison makes no sense. Versailles specifically targeted Germany – which non-NATO members are specifically emasculated by NATO?

Frost002
Frost002 (@guest_733099)
10 months ago
Reply to  BobA

Russia. The Cold War ended, and Nato kept on expanding around it. The proposed missile defence shield in Romania the last straw. Russia had to protect it’s interests, and it sees Ukraine in nato as a major threat. I AM NOT defending Russian actions in Ukraine, but I can understand why it feels isolated. When the Cold War ended nato should of disbanded, and a much stronger push towards nuclear disarmament should of been made. I am merely trying to understand Putin’s reasoning, what is the aggressor thinking?

Last edited 10 months ago by Frost002
Simon
Simon (@guest_733170)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

You have different views and we will not agree which is allowed in the West, after years of being a neutral, Finland wanted to join nato simply because of Russian aggressiveness.

Jon
Jon (@guest_733193)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

The Eastern expansion of NATO post-Cold War did not occur “around Russia”. It occurred to the West of Russia in 1999 and 2004 (also implicitly as part of German reunification). Between 2004 and this year, NATO countries have abutted 750 miles out of the 14,000 miles of Russia borders. Hardly hemming Russia in! In the 1990s Russia had created the CIS grouping with eleven countries they hoped would be sympatico (two never ratified, one later dropped out). They could have left well alone at that stage, but first Yeltsin then Putin decided that Russia’s interests required enforcing control over the… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie (@guest_733330)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

Simple answer. He thinks and behave like most historical dictators did in the previous century. Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler …take your pick.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_733362)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

No you’re not, a bit like johnskie, you are peddling weak propaganda under the guise of impartiality, when in fact you’re not allowed to type derogatory or negative posts in regard to Putin! Grow up, your efforts are weak but sadly amusing. The main amusement comes from the various trolls that turn up, seem to think they cannot be seen as trolls! And Putin is a nonce nobber, don’t you think?

Klonkie
Klonkie (@guest_733333)
10 months ago
Reply to  BobA

Well said Bob A.👌

Klonkie
Klonkie (@guest_733332)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frost002

disagree – it is likely to attract more membership applications. Not at all this a comparison to The treaty of Versailles, which was a punitive remedial policy applied to Germany.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_733150)
10 months ago

It’s looking more positive for NATO countries who seem to be acquiring additional military hardware, I wonder if we could place an order for some of these too.

Paris Air Show 2023: Airbus looks to close out follow-on Eurofighter orders for Germany, Spain20 JUNE 2023

Last edited 10 months ago by Nigel Collins
Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_733155)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Would make a lot of sense to order 36 tranche 4 Eurofighters. More Wedgetails and say 6-7 more Poseidon MPA. If we do those key 3 aircraft type the RAF will be in a reasonable position.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_733268)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Agreed, Germany and other NATO members are currently making funds available, we should be doing the same. “The luWES ‘system of systems’ is designed to deliver co-ordinated and synchronised SEAD effects across a broad frequency spectrum. As part of this construct, the Luftwaffe is planning to acquire 15 Eurofighter EK aircraft to replace its current Tornado ECR aircraft from around 2030. The Spice 250 ER is a network-enabled, turbojet-powered stand-off weapon originally developed for long-range precision strike missions at ranges out to 150 km. Rafael and Diehl in June 2022 signed an agreement providing for Diehl to undertake production of… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_733270)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK Can he work it out? GAO Report on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Cost Growth, Engine ModernizationJune 2, 2023 11:17 AM The F-35 program’s total procurement costs have increased by $13.4 billion since the last cost estimate in 2019. This is, in part, due to DOD spreading out aircraft purchases and adding years to its delivery schedule. Contractors also continue to have challenges with delivering aircraft and engines on time, but they are working to address these issues. Further, DOD is 5 years into a development effort to modernize the F-35’s capabilities. This effort, known as… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by Nigel Collins
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_733159)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

With the current budget pressure’s, we know it’s not going to happen. Especially when we are spending 2.35Bn upgrading the Typhoons we currently possess.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_733364)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And now what about UK? As per Mr Bell below, like too see an upgrade to the Typhoon T1to T4+ or get new ones.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_733374)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Agreed, new would be good! The Defence Select Committee has asked defence manufacturer BAE Systems to come back with answers on whether Typhoon fighter jets could be upgraded out of retirement after 2025, in case of a “national emergency”. Up to this point, the firm has never been asked to produce any design studies on bringing out-of-action Typhoons back to life in a crisis, claims the BAE’s air branch Chief Operating Officer Ian Muldowney, but the committee claims timelines drawn up pre-Ukraine war must be revisited. The UK’s current plans to phase out 30 Tranche 1 (the most basic batch… Read more »

George Amery
George Amery (@guest_733177)
10 months ago

Hi folks hope all is well. Very interesting article. Apparently the UK is at risk of loosing it’s status in NATO if the army gets any smaller. The Telegraph article: This according to Gen Sir Tim Radford said Britain risked losing its ‘fortunate’ position in the alliance if it did not invest for the future. We know the army is not one of the largest, however, it certainly has the professionalism, experience, best equipped and one of the best trained in the world. The last time I checked, it’s the UK army that is the first to support the Ukrainian… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_733234)
10 months ago
Reply to  George Amery

“Article 5 does not necessarily commit an ally to a military response”…..

Don’t tell Germany that, the Germans will fully commit to a strongly worded letter….

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_733365)
10 months ago
Reply to  George Amery

If the MOD and Army bods in high places all know this why isn’t something being done about it? Is the British Army being remoulded too far into being more a highly mobile, landing expeditionary force while the European land armies upgrade their own forces some quite substantiallly?Getting faster, more agile and smarter, but are we actually getting stronger? Like Poland is and even Ukraine, the later now ordering 1000 CV90s and getting Leopard tanks. Both understandable and strength to them too. Hope the British Army gets a good quantity of tanks and a good mix of wheeled and tracked… Read more »