European Energy Security Co-operation:
Between Amity and Enmity*jcms_2077 859..880
EMIL KIRCHNER
University of Essex
CAN BERK
Middle Eastern Technical University
Abstract
Through an application of Regional Security Complex Theory and empirical examination,
this article explores the pros and cons of regional and inter-regional energy
co-operation. In spite of present unilateral and bilateral manoeuvres on the part of EU
Member States to the contrary, a common energy security policy appears feasible
over the next five to ten years. However, EU–Russian co-operation in the energy
sector is not likely to improve considerably over this period, and EU attempts to
counterbalance the dominant and growing position that Russia has occupied in the
supply of gas to EU countries by seeking alternative energy supply from central Asia
are likely to be thwarted by countervailing Russian measures.
Introduction
Energy security and regional security have become important features in
international relations. While access to, and provision of, energy sources
represent rising security concerns for countries like China and Japan, it is
chiefly within Europe and Eurasia, however, that energy security interacts with
regional security considerations.1
The EU, while being an important regional
* The authors would like to thank Osvaldo Croci, Roberto Dominguez, Stefan Kirchner, Martin Smith and
two anonymous referees of JCMS for their immensely helpful comments on earlier versions of the article.
The usual disclaimer applies.
1
For a detailed account on the link between energy and security see Meier-Walser (2007).
JCMS 2010 Volume 48. Number 4. pp. 859–880
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA
actor, crucially lacks a common energy policy to include EU regulatory aspects
on competition, standards, and imports and exports of energy. This weakness,
in policy terms, is further exposed by the EU’s growing energy dependence on
Russian natural gas and exacerbated by the Russia–Ukraine gas stand-off
in 2006 and 2009, which arguably elevated energy security to a geopolitical
concern. In order to combat this challenging external situation, this article
contends that the EU has recognized the importance of an internal dimension
to EU energy policy (Feklyunina, 2008, p. 138; Haghighi, 2007, p. 7; Natorski
and Herranz-Surralles, 2008, p. 72), emphasizing that a truly internal energy
market is a prerequisite for a common external energy policy (Youngs, 2007, p.
4; Commission, 2006). Overall it will be argued that a common EU energy
policy is likely to occur in the foreseeable future.
In order to assess energy relations both within the EU (internal) and
between the EU and Russia (external), Regional Security Complex Theory
(RSCT), as put forward by Buzan and Waever (2003), and expanded by
Oskanian (2008), will be chosen as the vehicle for analysis in this article. RSCT
provides a framework for organizing empirical studies of regional security and
systematic guidance in the study of the relations between units in the region,
relations between regions and the interplay of regional dynamics with globally
acting powers. Through its security discourse, especially the concepts of amity
and enmity, RSCT helps to assess the extent to which EU states consider the
sensitivities and vulnerabilities associated with Russian gas supply as a threat
to their security, and the extent to which EU–Russian energy relations involve
either conflicting or co-operative patterns of behaviour.
In line with the RSCT application, four empirical themes, which can be
seen as future scenarios related to energy security in intra-regional (Europe)
and inter-regional contexts – especially Europe and Russia – will be
explored.2
These arguments or scenarios will be posed as two pairs of potentially
divergent developments. The initial scenario of the first pair will
suggest that diverse interests and dependencies by EU Member States on
imported energy supplies will prevent the emergence of a common EU
energy policy for the foreseeable future. The second part of this scenario
will demonstrate how different national import strategies and ties, especially
Russian gas, will exacerbate EU dependence on outside energy supplies and
therefore promote the establishment of a common EU energy policy in the
foreseeable future.
Moving on to the second pairing, it will be postulated that successful
diversification efforts by EU Member States in securing energy sources,
2
Although the focus in this article will be on EU–Russian energy co-operation, where relevant, such as on
issues of energy diversification, attention will be given to energy supplies from central Asia, the Caucasus,
and the Middle East and north Africa.
860 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
especially natural gas, will reduce asymmetric ties with Russia as an energy
supplier and will, in turn, promote energy co-operation between the EU and
Russia. Finally, for the purposes of this article, the opposite scenario will be
assumed, where diversification efforts by the EU states in securing energy
sources from countries in the Caucasus and central Asia or Iran will urge
Russia to increase its influence in these countries and thus hamper EU
efforts in the same territories, as well as impede EU co-operation with
Russia. The empirical investigation will be based on official documents
released by EU institutions, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) and British Petroleum (BP). Furthermore,
interviews were carried out with representatives from different
institutions.3
The next section will begin with an examination of the issue of energy
resources and contextualise the EU–Russia energy dynamic. We then proceed
with a comprehensive definition of energy security and use this as a platform
for evaluating RSCT as an appropriate vehicle for analysing this phenomenon.
Following this will be an examination of the four empirical themes. In
the final part of the article, the empirical evidence will be assessed in light of
the four arguments or scenarios within the RSCT framework.
I. Energy Supply and RSCT
Accessing energy sources has become increasingly competitive due, inter
alia, to the rising number of energy consumers worldwide. This has been
exacerbated by countries such as China and India who, having recently
industrialized, have dramatically increased their energy requirements. In
terms of the EU, the dependency on imported energy, particularly natural
gas, is ever growing and will increase in the foreseeable future (see
Figure 1). Introducing new technologies, such as nuclear, clean coal and
renewables, is still a slow process due to their costs, competitiveness and
the length of time it will take for their development to meet growing energy
demands. Due to the uneven endowment of natural resources, this article
argues that the EU will continue to rely on imported energy sources, such
as Russian gas.
The EU-27 Member States’ dependence on Russian natural gas imports
was 55 per cent in 2008 (see Figure 2). In terms of actual EU consumption
3
A number of interviews were carried out with representatives relevant to energy security. These involved
officials from the European Commission and the IEA; representatives of the Russian Delegation to the EU,
an official from the Energy Charter Secretariat, and an official from the Nabucco Pipeline Company. All
of the interviewees requested anonymity. In accordance with the preservation of confidentiality, no direct
quotes or references to specific individual interviewees will be made in the article.
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 861
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
of natural gas in 2008, Russia accounts for 26 per cent, indigenous production
55 per cent and others 19 per cent (see Figure 3). Although Russia’s
share has slightly decreased due to the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) trade
from the Middle East and north Africa (MENA) area, EU dependence on
Russian gas will probably continue due to depletion of EU Member States’
indigenous sources. The effects of diversification through the development
of LNG have been offset by the growing gas demand (due to the replacement
of coal combustion power plants by more environmentally friendly
gas combustion plants), the depletion of North Sea gas sources4
and the
addition of eastern European countries into the EU. New pipeline projects
(North Stream, South Stream and Blue Stream II) will further increase this
dependence as Russia aims to service the EU with gas and through transit
countries, such as Ukraine. This heavy reliance on a single supplier
undoubtedly augments asymmetric relationships (Hughes, 2006). As Nye
puts it, ‘manipulating the asymmetries of interdependence can be a source of
4
Except for Denmark and the Netherlands, the remaining Member States depend to varying degrees on
imported natural gas. For instance, the UK has recently become a net gas importer (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Natural Gas Import Dependencies of Member States in 2007
-150.00
-100.00
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
EU27
Belgium
Bulgaria
CzechRep
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
UnitedKingdom
Percentage(%100)
Source: Data are compiled from Eurostat’s webpages, available at «http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat».
Notes: Imports include Member State to Member State gas trade. Import dependency = net imports/gross
inland consumption.
Negative numbers indicate that the country is a net exporter. Values over 100 per cent are possible due to
changes in stocks.
862 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
power in international politics’ (Nye, 2005, p. 202). There have already been
instances, such as the halting of gas supply to the Ukraine in 2006 and
January 2009, where Russia has given the appearance of manipulating the
asymmetries of interdependence.5
The possibility of Russia enacting such
control is enhanced by the fact that Gazprom, the state-owned Russian gas
giant, owns over 90 per cent of the country’s reserves and exercises a virtual
monopoly over the ownership, production, processing and transportation of
the country’s gas.
Furthermore, the reliance of gas supply on fixed networks of transportation
(primarily pipeline networks) makes it more rigid vis-à-vis oil and
5
However, it must be said that the Ukraine plays an intermediary role in the apparent manipulations.
Figure 2: EU-27 Natural Gas Imports by Origin 2008
Algeria
22%
Other
23%
Libya
5%
Other Euroasia
4%
Trinidad&
Tobago
2%
Eygpt
3%
Qatar
3%
Nigeria
6%
Russian Fed.
55%
Source: Data are compiled from BP ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’, June 2009, p. 30.
Note: Imports from Norway are counted as an indigenous gas source.
Figure 3: Components of EU-27 Natural Gas Supply 2008
Other
19%
Nigeria
3%
Algeria
8%
Egypt
1%
Qatar
2%
Trinidad &
Tobago
1%
Other Euroasian
2%
Libya
2%
Russian Fed
26%
Indigenous
55%
Source: Data are compiled from BP ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’, June 2009, pp. 27–30.
Note: Imports from Norway are counted as an indigenous gas source.
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 863
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
coal which are unaffected by such transportation constraints (Cameron, 2007,
p. 21). Dependence on a single supplier thus turns the pipeline into an
umbilical cord, raising concerns about the disruption of energy supply flow
to consumers (taking into account its probable consequence for economic
prosperity and political security).
Having established how the EU meets its current energy demand – and the
associated perils in the single supplier relationship – it is now crucial to
examine the concept of energy security within the EU. Although subject to
growing concerns at national, regional and international level, energy security
is a complex term which includes a range of economic, legal, political,
military, technical and foreign policy determinants. For this reason it has been
challenging to define (Riley, 2007). Indeed as Natorski and Herranz-Surralles
suggest, ‘energy is a particularly elusive policy domain, since it can theoretically
be framed in almost all the sectors identified in securitization studies,
political, economic and environmental’ (Natorski and Herranz-Surralles,
2008, p. 71). Furthermore, Riley (2007, p. 4) sees EU energy security as a
referent object, and deems the virtual single supplier dependence on Russian
gas to be an essential threat to the EU. This perception indicates that the issue
of energy has become securitized and invokes the RSCT suggestion that,
when an economic issue becomes securitized, it is either at the expense of a
military threat, or actually interacts with and draws energy from it (Buzan and
Waever, 2003, p. 76). In terms of defining energy security, while Haghighi’s
(2007, p. 15) commonly accepted, practical and simple definition of this
concept is known to be the adequacy of energy supply at a reasonable price,6
this article stresses the various constituent parts of energy security and provides
a more comprehensive definition. Energy security is defined by the
authors as the availability of energy in various forms, in sufficient quantity
and at affordable prices, delivered in an environmentally friendly, sustainable
manner which is also free from serious risk of major disruption of service.
The above definition of energy security therefore outlines the EU’s perspective
of establishing ‘security of energy supply’, yet we must also recognize
that energy has implications for Russia as a producer of gas. From
Russia’s perspective, energy security denotes a quest for a market for their
energy exports which correlates to increased (government) revenues; in other
words, Russia seeks a ‘security of demand’ in energy relations. It is precisely
these divergent opinions of what constitutes energy security – from both the
EU and Russia – which has led to a decline in their relationship; the EU
engaging in Nabucco for ‘security of supply’ motivations and the Russians
devising North and South Stream for ‘security of demand’ aspirations. As
6
This definition, together with environmental concerns, is adopted by the EU (Commission, 2000).
864 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Feklyunina (2008, p. 139) suggests, for Russia, ‘EU diversification projects
are considered to be politically motivated, anti-Russian and not based on
purely economic matters’. At the heart of this, however, is a ‘Security
Dilemma’ between the EU and Russia, where ‘the actions of one [the EU], in
trying to increase its security, causes a reaction in the second [Russia], which
in the end, decreases the security of the first’ (Collins, 2007, p. 174). This
creates perceptions of threat and a ‘spiral of insecurities’ (Collins, 2007,
p. 175) which has potentially grave consequences for EU relations with the
Caucasus and central Asia, as Russia holds such strong economic and political
influence in the region.
We have now contextualized the EU–Russia relationship and established
the challenge of energy security for both parties. However, in order to explore
the prospect of an EU common energy policy, RSCT provides an appropriate
framework for analysis. In the following section the relevance of RSCT, and
its key concept of RSC, will be outlined.
Geographical proximity, according to Buzan and Waever (2003, p. 45),
engenders ‘more security interactions among neighbours than among states
located in different areas’. Thus emergent security interdependence cements
a set of units in a particular region and differentiates them from surrounding
security regions. As such, an RSC is defined by Buzan et al. (1998, p. 201) as
a set of units whose major processes of securitization, de-securitization, or
both, are so interlinked that their security problems cannot reasonably be
analysed or resolved separately. Moreover Buzan and Waever (2003, p. 45)
see an RSC as durable patterns of amity and enmity taking the form of
sub-global, geographically coherent patterns of security interdependence.
The RSC analysis of security dynamics is carried out on four levels:
domestic (the states of a region and their domestically generated vulnerabilities),
regional (state-to-state relations), inter-regional (the region’s interaction
with neighbouring regions) and global (the role of global powers in the
region) (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 51). Continuity and change in internal
structures and external boundaries of an RSC can be monitored by checking
the essential structure (boundary, anarchic structure, polarity and the
patterns of amity and enmity) of an RSC (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 53).
Outcomes of an assessment of any RSC are a limited set of possible
scenarios: (1) maintenance of the status quo; (2) internal transformation; and
(3) external transformation (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 53).
Although RSCT appears to have a realist outlook, due to its emphasis on
territoriality, it also accommodates constructivist perspectives. The constructivist
impact shows itself in the pivotal role of patterns of amity-enmity in the
formation and operation of an RSC (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 40). The
particular factors that determine security interdependence within an RSC
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 865
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
will also affect its location on the amity–enmity spectrum – internal character
varies from conflict formation (security interdependence between units is
engendered by fears, mutual perceptions of threat) through to security regime
(security interdependence is still shaped by fears but they are restrained by
reassurance arrangements) to security community (units no longer see each
other as a threat and there is no expectation of future armed conflict between
them) (Buzan and Waever, 2003, pp. 65, 491; Buzan, 2003, p. 142).
Expanding on this three-tiered characterization, Oskanian introduces two
subdivisions under each category in order to strengthen the relevance of the
concept of amity and enmity in state security interactions and to attempt a
more appropriate placement of a given RSC in the respective categories of
conflict formation, security regimes and security communities. He elaborates
on the objectivist and subjectivist perspectives of RSCT, with the former
exploring whether states display co-operative or competitive behaviour in
their security interactions, and the latter whether states perceive each other in
amicable or inimical terms. In a further innovation, Oskanian differentiates
between argumentative (subjectivist leaning) and instrumental (objectivist
link) security discourses.
In particular, separating what is ‘real’ (objectivist) and what is a matter of
‘feeling’ (subjectivist) is relevant in EU–Russian energy relations, where the
latter seems to play a prominent role. This became particularly apparent in the
January 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas supply dispute in which, as suggested by
Newman (2009), ‘apart from a few countries in eastern Europe having their
gas supply disrupted most of Europe remained unaffected’. Yet, feelings of a
threatening nature were expressed by both EU and Russian sources.7
Unlike
in 2006, reactions to the January 2009 gas supply disruptions were also
influenced by the fallout of the Georgia–Russia conflict (2008), and by the
severity of the impact on the newest EU states. Thus, helpful guidelines can
be drawn from Oskanian’s conceptualization of amity and enmity, and from
RSCT, in at least two ways. Firstly, it helps to assess the extent to which EU
Member States perceive energy supply – particularly the supply of Russian
gas – to be a security concern or threat, and therefore one where attempts
are made at a uniform response. Given that the EU is seen as a security
community (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 56), with amicable state interaction
patterns, does this description extend to the field of energy? Secondly, it is
beneficial for assessing EU–Russian relations by establishing whether energy
7
For example, the media portrayed the gas supply interruptions as Russia’s inclination to use the supply
of gas as ‘a political weapon [. . .] [and had] triggered fears of an energy cold war’ (Macalister and Gow,
2008), and Barroso stated that ‘Europeans were held hostage to this dispute’(Barroso, 2009). In turn, Putin
announced that Russia would reconsider gas earmarked for Europe from Shtokman gas field to be diverted
to US markets (Champion and Osborn, 2009).
866 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
co-operation is characteristic of conflict formation, manifesting inimical
inter-regional behavioural patterns, or whether it is approaching behavioural
patterns in line with security regimes.
Before turning to the empirical part of the article, a qualification of the unit
of analysis is in order, due to the adopted focus on European energy security.
We define the European RSC as the EU and the states with candidate status
(Croatia and Turkey in 2008), and western Balkan countries that are in a
trajectory for candidate status. Moreover, given both their respective geographical
locations and interlocked relations (joining the Schengen Treaty,
being part of the European Economic Area and, with the exception of
Switzerland, being members of Nato) and their interconnections (highways,
electricity transmission grids and so forth), non-EU members, Norway,
Switzerland and Iceland can be thought of as members of this RSC.
Having presented and explored the key features of RSCT and the empirical
context, we will now turn to the prospect for intra- (EU) and inter-regional
(especially EU–Russian) energy security co-operation.
II. A Common EU Energy Policy is Less Likely
As discussed earlier, an RSC can be in the form of conflict formations,
security regimes and a security community according to where they stand on
the amity–enmity spectrum (Buzan and Waever, 2003). Actors in a security
community, which the EU resembles, do not see each other as threats, i.e.,
they de-securitize each other. Therefore one should expect that the actors of
the EU would take a common stance against threats which target its peaceful
existence (Buzan et al., 1998). So, how does this apply to energy security?
Not only is the EU dependent on imported Russian natural gas, it is also
confronted by Russian efforts to affect the energy distribution channels in
Europe. Examples of the latter range from Gazprom’s agreement with the
Austrian gas company OMV to take a 50 per cent stake in a strategic gas
trading hub in Baumgarten, up to its acquisition of Serbia’s oil and gas
monopoly (MacDonald and Buckley, 2008).
But while these dependencies prevail, countermeasures, especially through
EU collective action, are hampered by existing obstacles. Three appear particularly
cumbersome. Firstly, the asymmetry in the Member States’ structural
energy sector parameters, i.e., national preferences over their energy mixes,
based on their differing use of energy sources, makes EU involvement in this
area of decision-making challenging. Some Member States (for example,
France, the UK and Finland) prefer nuclear energy but some (for example,
Austria, Greece and Denmark) do not. Secondly, some of the Member States,
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 867
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
especially in central and eastern Europe, support a common policy due to
feelings of ‘Russophobia’, while others, such as the Netherlands and the UK,
desire greater unity due to the imminent depletion of their own indigenous
resources and the problems relating to their energy companies (BP and Shell)
in Russia. However, some big Member States, such as France, Germany and
Italy, are not eager to pool sovereignty within the EU because they see their
market size as a shield against any threat posed by dependency.
They therefore favour their national gas and electricity enterprises to offset
the negotiation power of suppliers (Roller et al., 2007). In any case, national
energy companies have long-term agreements with Gazprom for the supply of
gas such as Gaz de France (2030), Ruhrgas (2035) and ENI (2035).8
Third,
although gas and electricity markets have recently been deregulated, there are
still problems in these markets due to the insufficient interconnection between
national markets, an issue acknowledged by the European Commission
(2007b), which delays the creation of single EU electricity and gas markets.
Interconnectedness is the key factor for the creation of interdependence
between a set of actors, as increasing interconnectedness turns energy issues
from national security concerns into collective security concerns. The
absence of interconnection isolates Member States, leading them to view
energy issues in terms of their own national security. This perspective can be
seen in cases such as Spain’s negative attitude towards the German EON bid
for its largest natural gas provider, Spanish Gas Natural. Similarly, France
displayed a negative attitude regarding the Italian ENEL’s bid for its leading
electricity company GDF Suez.
So, there are reasonably strong indications that a common EU energy
policy is unlikely to emerge in the foreseeable future and that collective
action, as expected by the RSCT, will not take place. Yet before reaching a
conclusive assessment on this, it is important to consider counter developments,
both within the EU (for example, competition and environmental
policies) and outside the EU (EU energy diversification efforts).
III. The Likely Establishment of a Common Energy Policy
According to Buzan et al. (1998, p. 199), the broadened security agenda of the
post-cold war era has made it possible for there to be greater security interdependence
at the regional level to deal with external ‘systematic pressure’. In
other words, an external threat, such as climate change or energy security, may
unite the units of a region to take collective action to confront these challenges,
thereby generating increased security interdependence between these units
8
See «www.gazprom.com/eng/articles/article20160.shtml».
868 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
(Buzan et al., 1998, p. 199). While energy security concerns have not yet been
translated into enhanced security interdependence among the Member States,
the EU has powers as well as policies that promote energy security interdependence
and the establishment of a common EU energy policy. Existing
powers enable the EU to affect the establishment of a common EU energy
policy directly, while policies such as EU competition policy or EU environmental
policy complement or indirectly help to shape a common EU energy
policy. The following section will briefly deal with these issues.
There are long-standing, though not necessarily cumulative or effective,
direct EU measures to expedite a common EU energy policy, with some
dating back to the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty and the
Euratom Treaty, which deals with nuclear energy (Barnes, 2008). One of the
Euratom provisions stipulates that Member States cannot buy more than 20
per cent of their uranium from a single non-EU supplier. The deep-seated
shock of the 1973 oil crisis had presented the EU with an opportunity to
create a common energy policy since there was an external threat of energy
security (Matlary, 1997). Yet Member States opted for individual solutions
to energy security; some (France, Belgium) chose nuclear energy, some
diversified suppliers from OPEC to non-OPEC, and some (for example, the
UK and the Netherlands) invested in the production of indigenous energy
resources (North Sea oil and gas). These fractious actions have seemingly
run their course, at least to a considerable extent, with the depletion of
indigenous oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, the increasing dependence
on Russian gas supply, and growing concerns about climate change and
limited alternatives (investment into renewable energy sources, energy
saving etc.). In addition, there is now greater competition to access energy
sources from the newly emergent industrial states (China and India). These
pressing concerns are reflected in the Lisbon Treaty which makes specific
reference to solidarity between Member States in times of difficulty in the
supply of energy. These newly found measures would effectively complement
existing EU measures in competition policy. As McGowan (2008)
points out, EU pursuits of market liberalization in EU energy have taken
place over the past 20 years. These liberalization efforts seek to encourage
competition and market access on the one hand and to limit the scope for
unfair discrimination or subsidies and the abuse of market power on the
other. Some Member States have urged the European Commission to take
the necessary measures for the full separation of network ownership from
service delivery (i.e., unbundling) because they fear that the existence of
‘free-riders’ in the energy market will distort competition. In turn, the European
Commission has warned the Member States to carry out mandates of
the liberalization directives.
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 869
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
As with EU competition policy, EU environmental policy plays a supportive
role in the forging of EU energy governance. EU commitment to the
Kyoto Protocol, its own environmental policies and its current actions to
combat climate change mirror the role of environmental concerns in the
creation of security interdependence between Europeans. Given the interwoven
relationship between environmental protection and energy consumption,
environment policy has had a strong influence on the energy sector. This
feature of environment policy provides the EU with a valuable opportunity to
challenge Member States’ traditional sovereignty in deciding their energy
arrangements. In this respect, the EU has attempted to galvanize Member
States to take collective action against the growing challenge of energy
dependence as it is linked to environmental policy. Issues concerning renewable
energy use are especially relevant in this regard as an increase in the
share of renewable energy results simultaneously in reducing identical
amounts of exogenous energy sources. To this end the European Council
fixed ‘a binding target of a 20 per cent share of renewable energies in the
overall EU energy consumption by 2020’ (European Council, 2007, p. 21).
The EU’s competence in the energy field is therefore expanding (albeit
indirectly).
Moreover, the EU has taken measures to increase the potential for gas
storage capacity and interconnectedness within Europe. A central factor
increasing the chances for interdependence is the decision (1364/2006/EC) of
the European Parliament and the Council of 6 September 2006 to support and
give priority to trans-European energy network projects within the region (for
example, the Power-Link between Germany, Poland and Lithuania; connections
– that is cables – to offshore wind power in northern Europe; electricity
interconnections between France and Spain; and the Nabucco pipeline, transporting
gas from the Caspian to central Europe). Thereafter, the Commission
(Commission 2007a, 2007b, 2008) has proposed key actions for the integration
of European power grids, such as appointing four European co-ordinators
to pursue the aforementioned four most important priority projects and
encouraging the European banks (EIB and EBRD) to give funding priority to
energy interconnections.
What, then, can be said with regard to the likelihood of a common EU
energy policy in the foreseeable future? Two factors enhance the possibility of
such a policy. One is the negative fallout associated with the Russia–Georgia
conflict which has exacerbated concerns over whether Russia is a reliable
energy supplier and has heightened anti-Russian feelings within the EU,
especially among countries such as Poland and the Baltic states. It has also
increased pressures for alternative energy sources for the diversification of
energy suppliers and for sharing energy supplies in terms of cuts by, for
870 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
example, Russia. The other factor is the measures taken by the EU to promote
the establishment of a common EU energy policy either directly (for example,
by treaties) or indirectly through competition and environmental policies. It is
interesting to note that a majority of Europeans support EU-level solutions to
energy related issues (Eurobarometer, 2006). Thus, there are indications that
the perceived dependencies on Russian gas and associated vulnerabilities
over Russian gas supply have propelled EU states, and especially EU institutions,
into more concerted action in energy and, in turn, have extended the
sense of security community within the EU to the field of energy policy. Part
of this concerted action will be to approximate provisions of the EU’s internal
market programme and to introduce EU regulatory aspects on competition,
standards, and imports and exports of energy. Consequently, a common EU
energy policy is now more likely in the foreseeable future than it has been
hitherto. However, the establishment of such a policy will also depend on
successful EU efforts to diversify its energy supply routes and to improve
co-operation with Russia on energy issues. It is these issues which will be
discussed now.
IV. The Likelihood of EU Diversification Efforts and Co-operation
between the EU and Russia
RSCT provides three possible scenarios for continuity and change in the
internal structures and external boundaries of the RSC. In the first scenario,
Maintenance of the status quo, there are no significant changes in its essential
structure. In the second scenario, Internal Transformation, there are changes in
the essential structure of an RSC without any change to its existing outer
boundary, because of changes in the anarchic structure (for example, regional
integration) or because of changes in polarity (for example, disintegration) or
due to changes in the dominant patterns of amity/enmity (for example, ideological
shifts, war-weariness, changes of leadership) (Buzan andWaever, 2003,
p. 53). In the last scenario, External Transformation, there are changes in the
outer boundary which either expands or contracts due to a merger between two
RSCs, or because of an RSC split into two or more, or because of changes in the
membership of the RSC (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 53).
Since an RSC is generated from the security interaction between a set
of units and their security indifference to surrounding units, security
interdependence between RSCs is, by definition, not as strong as it is in an
RSC itself. For this reason, interaction at the inter-regional level is weaker
than that found at the regional level (Waever and Buzan, 2000, p. 66). But this
does not mean there is no security interaction between regions. Instead,
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 871
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
security interactions between regions stem from new security sectors in the
economic (for example, energy security), environmental (for example,
climate change) and social (for example, immigration) spheres (Waever and
Buzan, 2000, p. 66). At the intra-regional level these new security sectors
strengthen an existing RSC by pipeline or water sharing issues. Consequently,
the outer boundary of an RSC changes (either expands or contracts) through
either conflict or co-operation (Buzan and Waever, 2003, note 1).
EU–Russia energy relations are asymmetric. This asymmetry is mirrored
in both supplier and consumer security concerns. While energy security is of
importance to the EU, Russia, as noted in its energy strategy, adopts ‘energy’
as a foreign policy tool to regulate its political relations with its surroundings
and control its periphery (Stern, 2006, p. 4). The EU therefore tries to create
a level playing field in order to depoliticize the free energy trade by an Energy
Charter Treaty (ECT); accordingly, it has urged Russia to engage in a
co-operative political dialogue over the last decade. Russia, for its part, has
demanded that the EU lifts restrictions under which EU Member States are
prevented from buying more than 20 per cent of uranium from a single
non-EU supplier; Russia has put this issue on the agenda due to the heavy
dependence of EU eastern Member States on Russian supply. However, given
the seeming inability of the EU to force the issues on the ETC or to successfully
trade off one issue against the other, the situation of EU dependence on
Russian natural gas continues, unless and until the EU finds alternative
suppliers. One such EU attempt is the Nabucco pipeline project, in which
Turkey will act as a hub to allow gas from the Caspian Sea (possibly Iran) to
be brought to Europe via a BTE pipeline. In a demonstration of political
support for the project, the Nabucco transit countries, Austria, Hungary,
Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey signed an intergovernmental agreement on 20
June 2009 in Ankara. Consequently, this project could have a dramatic effect
in reducing Europe’s dependence on Russia for its gas supplies. Currently,
Turkmenistan supplies Russia with a quarter of its gas. For this reason,
European attempts to diversify its supply, by importing energy sources from
central Asia via new pipeline routes, would automatically decrease the EU’s
reliance on Russia for its gas supplies. If this were to be successful it could
induce Russia to co-operate more with the EU. Clearly, this will not be an
easy undertaking, as Russia is determined to maintain, if not expand, its
current strategic position in the Caucasus and central Asia.
Another potential way of reducing dependence on Russia is via the LNG
trade. In this respect, LNG provides ample opportunity for diversification
from a number of suppliers. It is not a one-to-one trade as with the pipeline,
and allows for greater flexibility, by contributing, for example, to liberal gas
markets as it provides gas from a range of different suppliers. Given its
872 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
contribution to the establishment of the liberal gas markets, LNG has a
tangible impact on the prospect of a common energy policy in the EU.
However, the LNG trade has encountered some difficulties in that it is an
expensive investment. The liquefaction process is much more expensive than
re-gasification, and such a process requires the use of a tanker fleet too large
for Europe to compete effectively with trade from pipelines.9
Between 1996
and 2006, the LNG trade has taken roughly 2 per cent of Russia’s total
share of the EU gas supply (BP, 2007). Nevertheless, according to some
projections, Middle Eastern countries will increase their share to the EU (Birol,
2006). However, the expansion of their LNG production capacity may contribute
to the EU’s diversification efforts, thereby creating a more competitive
natural gas market. This development may result in three scenarios: (1) Russia
may want to ratify the ECT to take advantage of securing its energy supply,
thereby gaining precedence over their Middle Eastern and north African
(MENA) competitors; (2) Russia may invest in the LNG market and co-operate
with their Middle Eastern counterparts to form a gas cartel to take advantage of
the emergent gas market; or (3) Russia may strengthen its influence in north
Africa by co-operating with northAfrican counterparts. To this end, Russia has
made deals in 2008 with Algeria and Libya (Buckley, 2008). There is also
considerable interest by both Russia and the EU in securing access or control
of supply of Nigerian natural gas. Both Russia and the EU have offered
financial backing for a €15 billion trans-Saharan pipeline (4,300 kilometres in
length) to pump gas directly to Europe (Green and Wallis, 2008).
With regard to the possible formation of a gas cartel, a forum for the gas
exporting countries already exists informally to increase the level of
co-ordination, and strengthen collaboration between the world’s leading gas
producing countries, but it is far from being an organization like OPEC. On
the other hand, if the LNG trade becomes more widespread, it may pave
the way for a global gas market, which could drive major gas producers to
create gas cartels to take advantage of price fixing. Given current pipeline
investments and long-term contracts, a global gas market remains doubtful.
Consequently, diversification methods will work in gas markets as long as
geopolitics permits.
Thus there is some cautious optimism that successful diversification
efforts by the EU states in securing energy sources (natural gas) will reduce
asymmetric ties with Russia as an energy supplier in the foreseeable future.
However, the prospects for increasing co-operation between the EU and
Russia appear less likely, at least for the time being. Given the negative fallout
of the Russia–Georgia conflict, the opposite might be the case.
9
Interview with an Energy Charter Secretary Official.
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 873
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
V. The Likelihood of Unsuccessful EU Diversification Efforts and
Co-operation between the EU and Russia
As the LNG trade will take time to become a credible alternative energy
supplier to Russian natural gas, Russia will, in all likelihood, use the interim
period to reap maximum benefit from its natural gas trade with the EU and
stifle EU attempts to access natural gas from central Asia. The latter is in
line with Buzan and Waever’s argument that ‘the main prize in the geopolitics
of central Asia and the Caucasus for Russia is control of the transportation
of oil and gas’ (Buzan and Waever, 2003, p. 422). This aim is
explicitly expressed in the Russian Energy Strategy for the period up to
2020, and is associated with Russian efforts to act as a peacekeeper, which
can be seen as a means of maintaining a military presence in these regions
(O’Hara, 2005, p. 149). The strongest manifestation of the importance
Russia attaches to the control of oil and gas routes, as well as its resistance
to further Nato encroachment, was the stand it took over South Ossetia and
Abkhazia in August 2008. The latter skirmish has not only raised fears in the
newly found independent states in the Caucasus and central Asia, it has also
affected EU attempts to use Azerbaijan and Georgia as an energy supply
corridor (Gorst, 2008).
Although central Asian countries have huge hydrocarbon reserves by
virtue of their geopolitical situation, they have thus far been unable to take full
advantage of their natural resource, in part due to their landlocked nature.
They have three different outlets to export their energy sources to western
energy markets: (1) via Russia, (2) via the Caspian Sea, (3) via Iran. Of these
three options, the last two options are politically unsustainable. Iran’s political
future is ambiguous because of its nuclear programme and the continued
enmity between Iran and the US.10
Since there are already UN sanctions and
national sanctions such as the US Iran Sanctions Act, development of a
southern pipeline through Iran, in the short run, is not a possible scenario. On
the other hand, a pipeline crossing the Caspian Sea looks equally hopeless
unless littoral states reach an agreement about its status. In addition, since the
ECT has not been ratified by Russia, no third party access to the existing
pipeline from central Asia is possible. Of the three options, the Russian one
stands out due to its existing pipeline network.
Thus, the only way for both parties (central Asian countries and western
countries) to benefit would be to build new pipelines, but this is, at least in
part, flawed by the uncertain status of the Caspian Sea. For this reason it is
unlikely that central Asian states can be expected to provide the Nabucco
10
Nevertheless, according to the Managing Director of the Nabucco pipeline project (interview), Iran is
still to be included in the scope of this project, at least for the short term.
874 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
project with a gas supply. Rather, states of the region rely on the Russian
pipeline network, which is a combination of the Central Asia Centre (CAC)
pipeline and Russia’s other western natural gas pipeline system. Russia has
arranged new deals with central Asian states (Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan)
to renovate the existing CAC pipeline and to build a new one to increase its
exporting capacity, as well as negotiating with Kazakhstan to export much of
its known gas supplies to Russia until approximately 2015 (Socor, 2007). Not
only has Russia been active in central Asia to impede EU diversification
efforts, it has also made attempts within the EU to do so, by appealing to
Hungary, one of the participants in the Nabucco project, to opt instead for an
extension of the South Stream pipeline within its borders. In addition, Greece,
Serbia and Bulgaria have agreed to host a section of this pipeline. Such efforts
indicate a ‘divide and rule’ tactic and encourage Russia to set the pace for
EU–Russia relations (Leonard and Popescu, 2007).
Hence, for the time being, it seems likely that EU efforts to induce Russia
to co-operate (for example, consent to ratify the ECT) through enhanced
attempts at diversification will have the opposite effect. There is also a direct
need for Russia to engage in the central Asian energy fields. Although Russia
is the world’s largest natural gas producer and a major supplier to Europe, due
to its large amount of domestic consumption it relies on centralAsian supplies
to meet these commitments. In any case, there is uncertainty, due to lack of
reliable data on the size of proven energy sources and whether central Asian
countries will be able to fulfil their contractual supply obligations to both
Russia and the EU countries (Feklyunina, 2008, pp. 130–48).
However, given the advancement of MENA countries in the LNG trade, in
the long run, co-operation may still be realized in two ways: either Russia
co-operates with the EU in energy security, or Russia may co-operate with the
MENAcountries to take advantage of emergent gas markets. But this scenario
is hard to envisage in the short term, firstly, because the LNG trade is very
weak and second, because pipelines already exist which have been the object
of high investment and are bound by long-term contracts. This will also have
repercussions on the intra-regional theme or scenario in so far as the Caspian
Basin gas will continue to come through the Russian pipeline, and thus
dependence on Russia will not diminish. Instead, with new increases in
capacity, witnessed in the expansion of the Kazakh gas capacity by 20 billion
cubic metres (bcm), reliance on Russia will increase. However, this may also
induce EU Member States to stake out a more unified position. As a result,
energy security has an impact on the change and continuity of the EU RSC as
well as on its neighbouring RSCs. With regard to the regional level, energy
security will probably change the anarchic structure of the EU RSC in the
field of energy by giving rise to a common energy policy. In other words,
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 875
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
current fragmentation in the energy sector will probably be eradicated with
the establishment of a common energy policy. As such, energy security, in
line with RSCT assumptions, will probably bring about an internal transformation
in the EU RSC. However, it is hard to envisage that energy security
will bring any external transformation in the short run, i.e., the outer boundary
of the EU RSC will probably not change because of Russia’s disinclination to
co-operate. On the other hand, if the impact of European energy security
concerns (diversification efforts) on the central Asia sub-region becomes
more autonomous, this will induce Russia to increase its influence in the
central Asia sub-complex. Therefore, Russian influence will probably impede
any noteworthy attempts of co-operation between the EU and central Asia.
Thus with respect to diversification attempts, EU–Russia relations, while not
necessarily manifesting conflict formation, have a highly competitive edge,
approximating the notion of security regimes on the RSCT amity–enmity
spectrum of security interdependence.
Conclusions
The concept of energy security, which was born out of the 1970s oil crisis, has
once again emerged as a dominant issue on the global agenda as linked to a
broadened perspective of security growing out of the post-cold war era.
Equally, it has implications in the European context because of the depletion
of indigenous sources in the North Sea, unstable energy prices, its growing
dependence on Russia for gas, environmental concerns over climate change,
and uncompetitive energy markets. Thus, this article sets out to assess how
growing concerns over energy security have affected the formation, maintenance
and changes within the European RSC as well as neighbouring RSCs,
based on the perspective provided by the RSCT. In this concluding section,
brief summaries will be provided of the findings of this research, as well as on
the relevance of the RSCT as an overall conceptual tool.
In line with the number of empirical themes or scenarios put forward on
the pros and cons of regional and inter-regional energy co-operation, this
article finds that, at the intra-regional level, greater European co-operation
can be expected in the foreseeable future. In this respect, although Member
States continue to act nationally, factors such as the liberalization of energy
markets, the importance given to a common energy policy, efforts to introduce
a super grid of power supplies across the EU, and the spin-off from
environmental policy will promote the establishment of a common energy
policy within the EU. Thus, it is expected that desires for energy security will
change the culture of fragmentation currently existing between European
876 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Member States with regards to energy policy. Put differently, energy security
will probably have a positive impact upon the transformation of the EU RSC,
leading it from fragmentation to integration.
However, in the foreseeable future no such favourable development can be
envisaged in EU–Russia relations generally and with regard to energy issues
specifically. Despite the advancement of MENA countries in LNG trade, and
the absence of a gas cartel akin to OPEC, Russia’s negative reaction to these
developments is likely to impede EU–Russia relations. This outlook is
also hardened by the negative fallout of the Russia–Georgia conflict, which
resulted in the temporary suspension of talks for a new Strategic Partnership
between the EU and Russia.11
Consequently, prospects that energy security
will contribute in the foreseeable future to co-operation between Europe and
Russia are low, as current conditions make the presence of a Eurasian supercomplex
in this field highly unlikely.
While RSTC has provided a useful framework for the analysis of regional
and inter-regional energy co-operation, it has also presented some difficulties.
Even though RSCT asserts that it includes new security sectors (environmental,
economic, social etc.) these only have a reinforcing role for the existing
security interdependence within an RSC. As this article has shown, decisions
concerning pipeline routes strengthen security interdependence in the CIS
RSC. However, at the inter-regional level, energy security is not capable of
creating security interdependence unless it is transformed into a politicomilitary
security concern. The importance RSCT places on proximity
explains why pipeline transportation, where proximity plays a major role for
decision-making, has turned energy security issues from systematic pressure
into a regional security threat. This feature of energy security makes RSCT
applicable, at least in the regional context. Another difficulty of the RSCT
framework is the sui generis structure of the EU. Given that the EU is
oscillating between a great power and supranational organization, RSCT has
difficulty in dealing with the EU. It treats the EU as a blurred anarchy which,
on completion of integration, will become a great power.
The conclusions reached in this article are that, in spite of present unilateral
and bilateral manoeuvres on the part of EU Member States to the
contrary, a common energy security policy appears feasible over the next five
to ten years. A second major finding is that EU–Russia co-operation in the
energy sector is not likely to improve considerably over this period, and that
EU attempts to counterbalance the dominant and growing position that Russia
11
Negotiations for this Strategic Partnership, which was temporarily suspended between July and August
2008, contain EU and Russian commitment to the dialogue on energy, especially the predictability and
safety of demand and supply. See Schmidt-Felzmann (2008, pp. 67–70).
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 877
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
has occupied in the supply of gas to EU countries – by seeking alternative
energy supply from central Asia – are likely to be thwarted by countervailing
Russian measures.
Correspondence:
Emil Kirchner
University of Essex
Colchester
CO3 3SQ
Tel +44 (0) 1206 872749
email emil@essex.ac.uk
References
Barnes, P. (2008) ‘Security of Energy Supply in the New Europe: A Role for the
European Atomic Energy Community in the European Union’s Neighbourhood
Policy’. Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 107–29.
Barroso, J. (2009) ‘Press Speaking points and Technical update on Gas Flows’.
Brussels, 20 January 2009.
Birol, F. (2006) ‘World Energy Outlook: Policies and Prices’. IEA, Paris. Available at
«http://www.ifri.org/files/CFE/Birol.pdf».
BP (2007) ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’. June, available at «http://www.
bp.com/statisticalreview».
BP (2009) ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’. June, available at «http://www.
bp.com/statisticalreview».
Buckley, N. (2008) ‘Gazprom Signs Fuel Supply Deal with Libya’. Financial Times,
17 April.
Buzan, B. (2003) ‘Regional Security Complex Theory in the Post-Cold War World’.
In Soderbaum, F. and Shaw, T.M. (eds) Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave
Reader (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 140–59.
Buzan, B. and Waever, O. (2003) Regions and Powers: The Structure of International
Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Buzan, B., Waever, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for
Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Cameron, P.D. (2007) Competition in Energy Markets (2nd edn) (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Champion, M. and Osborn, A. (2009) ‘EU Fails to Broker Deal to Restart Russian
Gas’. The Wall Street Journal, Europe Edition, 9–11 January.
Collins, A. (2007) Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Commission of the European Communities (2000) ‘Green Paper: Towards a European
Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply’. COM(2000) 769 final, Brussels,
29 November 2000. Available at «http://ec.europe.eu/official-docs/green-papers/
index_en.htm#2000».
878 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Commission of the European Communities (2006) ‘Green Paper: A European
Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy’. COM(2006) 105 final,
Brussels, 8 March 2006. Available at «http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green-paper-
energy/doc/2006_03_08_gp_document_en.pdf».
Commission of the European Communities (2007a) ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council and European Parliament: An Energy Policy for Europe’.
COM(2007) 1 final, Brussels, 10 January 2007. Available at «http://ec.europa.eu/
energy/energy_policy/doc/01_energy_policy_for_europe_en.pdf».
Commission of the European Communities (2007b) ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council and European Parliament: Prospects for the Internal Gas
and Electricity Market’. COM(2006) 841 final, Brussels, 10 January 2007.
Available at «http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/09_internal_gas_and
_electricity_market_en.pdf».
Commission of the European Communities (2008) ‘Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Second Strategic
Energy Review, an EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan. SEC(2008)
2794.
Eurobarometer (2006) ‘Attitudes Towards Energy’. Special Eurobarometer 247/
Wave 64.2, January. Available at «http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/
ebs/ebs_247_en.pdf».
European Council (2007) ‘Presidency Conclusions 8/9 March 2007’. Brussels,
March. Available at «http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/
pressData/en/ec/93135.pdf».
Feklyunina, V. (2008) ‘The “Great Diversification Game”: Russia’s Vision of the
European Union’s Energy Projects in the Shared Neighbourhood’. Journal of
Contemporary European Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 130–48.
Gorst, I. (2008) ‘Azerbaijan Oil Moves Likely to Worry West’. Financial Times, 25
September.
Green, M. and Wallis, W. (2008) ‘Europe Plays Catch-Up in Race for Gas’. Financial
Times, 16 September.
Haghighi, S. (2007) Energy Security: The External Legal Relations of the European
Union with Major Oil and Gas Supplying Countries (Oxford: Hart Publishing).
Hughes, J. (2006) ‘EU Relations with Russia: Partnership or Asymmetric Interdependency?’
LSE Research Online, London. Available at «http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/
archive/00000651».
Leonard, M. and Popescu, N. (2007) ‘A Power Audit of EU–Russia Relations’.
European Council on Foreign Relations Policy Paper.
Macalister, T. and Gow, D. (2008) ‘Britain Warned of Danger to Gas Supplies as
Russia Steps up Dispute with Ukraine’. The Guardian, 23 December.
MacDonald, N. and Buckley, N. (2008) ‘Gazprom Secures Serbian Energy
Company’. Financial Times, 25 January.
Matlary, J.H. (1997) Energy Policy in the European Union (London: MacMillan
Press).
EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY CO-OPERATION 879
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
McGowan, F. (2008) ‘Can the European Union’s Market Liberalism Ensure Energy
Security in a Time of “Economic Nationalism”?’ Journal of Contemporary
European Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 90–106.
Meier-Walser, R. (ed.) (2007) ‘Energieversorgung als Sicherheitspolitische Herausforderung’.
Akademie für Politik und Zeitgeschehen, Berichte & Studien Nr. 88,
Hanns Seidel Stiftung, Fuchs Druck Gmbh. Available at «http://www.hss.de/
uploads/tx_ddceventsbrowser/Berichte_Studien_88_Energie.pdf».
Natorski, M. and Herranz-Surralles, A. (2008) ‘Securitizing Moves to Nowhere? The
Framing of the European Union’s Energy Policy’. Journal of Contemporary
European Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 70–89.
Newman, N. (2009) ‘Russia’s Gas Wars’. Generalitat de Catalunya. Available at
«www.gencat.cat».
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. (2005) Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to
Theory and History (5th edn) (New York: Pearson Longman).
O’Hara, S.L. (2005) ‘Great Game or Grubby Game? The Struggle for Control of
the Caspian’. In Le Billon, P. (ed.) The Geopolitics of Resource Wars:
Resource Dependence, Governance and Violence (New York: Frank Cass),
pp. 138–60.
Oskanian, K. (2008) ‘Of “Friends” and “Enemies”: Expanding the Amity/Enmity
Variable within Regional Security Complex Theory’. Available at «www.
allacademic.com/meta/p2532289_index.html».
Riley, A. (2007) Russian Gas and EU Energy Security (Brussels: European
Parliament).
Roller, L., Delgado, J. and Friederiszick, H.W. (2007) ‘Energy: Choices for Europe’.
Bruegel Blueprint Series, Brussels. Available at «http://www.bruegel.org/Public/
fileDownload.php?target=/Files/media/PDF/Publications/Blueprint/BP_energy.
pdf».
Schmidt-Felzmann, A. (2008) ‘Editorial: The European Union’s External Energy
Policy’. Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 67–70.
Socor, V. (2007) ‘Caspian Energy Projects: Time to Advance from Talking to Acting’.
Eurasia Daily Monitor 4(109), 5 June. Available at «http://www.jamestown.org/
programs/edm/archivesedm/edm2007».
Stern, J. (2006) ‘The New Security Environment for European Gas: Worsening
Geopolitics and Increasing Global Competition for LNG’. Oxford Institute for
Energy Studies, NG 15, October. Available at «http://www.oxfordenergy.org/
NG15.pdf».
Waever, O. and Buzan, B. (2000) ‘An Interregional Analysis: NATO’s New Strategy
Concept and the Theory of Security Complex’. In Behrendt, S. and Hanelt,
C.P. (eds) Bound to Co-operate – Europe and the Middle East (Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers), pp. 55–106.
Youngs, R. (2007) ‘Europe’s External Energy Policy: Between Geopolitics and the
Market’. Centre for European Policy Studies, Working Document No. 278,
pp. 1–16.
880 EMIL KIRCHNER AND CAN BERK
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd