Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AAP-47
NATO's own tasking authorities, working groups and AJP custodians, and the Allied and partner nations that ratify Allied joint publications, not commercial suppliers
AAP-47 is NATO's internal directive setting out how Allied joint doctrine (AJPs) is proposed, developed, ratified, promulgated and reviewed. It creates no direct obligation for a supplier.
AAP-47 is NATO's own directive for how Allied joint doctrine gets made. Allied joint doctrine is published as Allied Joint Publications (AJPs), and AAP-47 describes how NATO develops, staffs, harmonizes, ratifies, revises and cancels them. It is not a technical requirement a company implements; it is the process description behind every AJP in the Allied Joint Doctrine Architecture (AJDA), from AJP-01, the capstone publication linking joint doctrine to Alliance strategy, down through the functional publications such as Allied Joint Doctrine for Land Operations. This is Edition C, Version 1, promulgated 19 February 2019, superseding Edition B, Version 1.
The publication names its own audience plainly: NATO member states, Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT), the International Military Staff, NATO military bodies, Military Committee standardization boards and their subordinate working groups, NATO accredited centres of excellence and education and training facilities, the NATO Standardization Office (NSO), partner nations, and AJP custodians. A supplier or contractor is never named, because none of this reaches one directly.
AAP-47 is explicit that it is "applicable to those involved in developing and contributing to Allied joint doctrine development", and every entity on its list sits inside NATO's own standardization and doctrine-writing structure, or is a member or partner nation acting through it. There is no supplier role, no acquirer role and no contract mechanism defined anywhere in the document. That is a real difference from most of the standards in this catalogue: an AQAP or a STANAG eventually reaches a company through a contract clause, but AAP-47 governs the machinery that writes NATO's own doctrine, one level removed from any commercial relationship. The doctrine that machinery produces then governs how commanders and staffs plan, execute, assess and sustain operations, not what a contractor delivers.
Allied joint doctrine moves through three phases. The review phase begins when Allied Command Transformation issues a request for feedback in line with the Allied Joint Doctrine Campaign Plan (AJDCP), and runs for roughly 210 days. ACT gathers relevant information through data fusion, convenes a data fusion workshop where needed, and drafts a doctrine task that assigns custodianship, sets the framework and timeline, standardizes the title, and fixes the AJP's number and position on the doctrine architecture. Once the Military Committee Joint Standardization Board (MCJSB) approves that doctrine task, the review phase ends and the development phase begins.
A custodian, drawn from a nation, a strategic command, a NATO accredited centre of excellence or another NATO military body, forms a writing team and has up to 180 days to produce a first study draft. Comments on each draft are logged on a standard NATO comment matrix and categorized critical, substantive or editorial, then adjudicated as accepted, accepted with amendment, withdrawn, not accepted, noted, or overtaken by events. The number of study drafts is normally restricted to two, after which a harmonization draft circulates for up to 30 days, limited strictly to harmonization comments. Once the AJOD Working Group and the MCJSB confirm the doctrine task has been met, the harmonization draft becomes the ratification draft and moves forward with its covering NATO standardization agreement (STANAG). Nations then have 180 days to respond for a new AJP, or 120 days for a revised edition, and capstone and keystone AJPs need positive ratification from every NATO member state except Iceland.
The management phase starts once the promulgation letter is issued and runs through implementation, training, exercises and validation, normally about a year after promulgation, until the next request for feedback restarts the cycle.
There are three levels of Allied doctrine. Level-1 comprises the capstone publication, AJP-01, and the keystone publications that establish the doctrinal foundation for the series beneath them. Level-2 publications, such as Allied Joint Doctrine for Land Operations (AJP-3.2), address specific functional areas at the operational level and carry an AJP designation. Level-3 publications hold tactics, techniques and procedures; they do not appear on the doctrine architecture, and AAP-47 says they are "not strictly within the remit of this publication", though custodians can use it as guidance. This page, like the document itself, is really about levels 1 and 2.
A doctrine void, rather than a scheduled review, can also start the process. Any NATO or national entity can submit a doctrine proposal setting out the rationale, the outline content, and the scope and purpose, and ACT assesses it against whether the subject meets the definition of joint doctrine, whether a genuine void exists, and whether it duplicates existing doctrine. Outside that main cycle, custodians can make minor corrections through a change proposal, producing a new version rather than a new edition; an AJP can be cancelled as a data fusion outcome; a Military-Committee-authorized fast-track procedure can compress the timeline for an urgent gap; and a strategic command can issue a joint operational guideline to bridge an immediate operational need until formal doctrine catches up.
Two requirements apply whichever route an AJP takes. Custodians must check drafts against NATOTerm and submit new or changed terminology to the NATO Terminology Office once a draft is mature enough, and every study and harmonization draft must carry a two-part lexicon (acronyms and abbreviations, then terms and definitions) with each entry annotated by source and authority; getting that wrong stops the AJP entering ratification. Classification defaults the other way: AJPs are meant to be unclassified with no classification markings unless a specific justification says otherwise. A preface is also mandatory, and must as a minimum cover scope, purpose, application and linkages, or the doctrine will not enter ratification.
AAP-47 is published by the NATO Standardization Office and, like every NATO standardization document, it carries no charge. The Standardization Document Database is the authoritative source. We credit NATO for the catalogue and neither sell nor host a copy ourselves.
AAP-47 is a policy and process document, not a requirement set a supplier's contract or a customer's quality clause ever invokes directly, in the same way there is nothing to implement directly against a NATO policy statement. Its value to a reader outside NATO's own doctrine community is entirely explanatory: understanding why a particular AJP carries the edition, promulgation date and ratification status it does, and why capstone and keystone AJPs need near-universal NATO ratification while other AJPs need only meet the promulgation criteria the MCJSB set for them.
Where ComplyTrain actually helps is with whichever specific AJP, AQAP, STANAG or other document a contract, tender or customer's quality clause names once operations, training or a quality programme has to follow it: holding the procedures, training records, exercise records and evidence trail that document's own requirements call for, kept current and ready to produce.
What we do not do: we have no role in NATO's own doctrine-writing process, no part in a data fusion workshop, comment adjudication, ratification vote or validation exercise, and we cannot tell you which AJP your organisation's operations, training or contract should follow. That is set by the customer's contract and quality clause, never by us. The standards explorer shows what else sits in the catalogue alongside AAP-47, and we are glad to talk through where a specific document's status leaves your obligations.
Tell us how you need to work with AAP-47 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
No, not directly. AAP-47 governs how NATO itself develops, ratifies and reviews Allied joint doctrine; it names tasking authorities, working groups, custodians and Allied nations as its audience, never a supplier or contractor. A company's obligations come from a specific AJP, AQAP, STANAG or other document that a contract or customer quality clause invokes, not from this directive.
An AJP is a piece of Allied joint doctrine covering operational-level intelligence, operations, logistics, planning, communications or a related functional area. AAP-01 is the capstone AJP linking doctrine to Alliance strategy, keystone AJPs establish the doctrinal foundation for series beneath them, and functional AJPs such as AJP-3.2 (Land Operations) address specific areas. AAP-47 is the process directive that governs how all of them are written, not an AJP itself.
AAP-03 is NATO's general directive for producing, maintaining and managing NATO standardization documents of every kind. AAP-47 applies that same general process specifically to Allied joint doctrine, with extra assessment steps run by Allied Command Transformation that AAP-03's general process does not include. AAP-47 explains itself as following AAP-03's processes for ratification and promulgation.
The document does not identify a covering STANAG or STANREC for AAP-47 itself; its Letter of Promulgation records that it was approved directly by the NATO member states in the Military Committee Joint Standardization Board. The STANAGs the document discusses are the covering agreements attached to individual AJPs once they reach ratification, not to AAP-47.
This page describes Edition C, Version 1, promulgated 19 February 2019, which superseded Edition B, Version 1. The document does not record what changed between the two editions beyond the supersession itself.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.