.jpg)
printThe EU's energy policy and its driving forces
Borovsky Yu.V.,
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, yuribor@mail.ru
elibrary_id: 278990 | ORCID: 0000-0001-8855-5147 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAE-7582-2019
Shishkina O.V.,
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, o.shishkina@inno.mgimo.ru
elibrary_id: 644075 | ORCID: 0000-0002-3582-3563 | RESEARCHER_ID: 0E-7047-2017
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.03.06
For citation:
Borovsky Yu.V., Shishkina O.V. The EU's energy policy and its driving forces. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 3. P. 67-79. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.03.06
Abstract
The energy crisis, which the EU faces since Autumn 2021 and especially dramatically since March 2022, has once again brought up the issue of stable and affordable energy supply. The mechanisms of crisis management at the EU’s disposal did not allow it to react to the situation effectively, although the new energy resources price spike was caused by ‘old’ reasons, known to the EU from its experience of 1970-1980s: the resources deficit and political instability in the supplier region. What was new was that paradoxically, the EU energy policy, instead of preventing or at least smoothing the crisis, made it worse. The authors consider the driving forces that stand behind the development of EU energy policy and, proceeding from that, explain why, with a chronic energy resources deficit, the EU was steadily abandoning its long-term contracts with suppliers and calling on its member states to proceed with a nuclear phase-out. Why, under the conditions of post-pandemic energy growth of demand on the world market and an unprecedented price spike, it took these seemingly illogical steps: it refused to start the newly built gas pipeline Nord Stream-2 and was keen to buy costly LNG from alternative suppliers and to continue the development of unreliable and expensive renewable energy while gas prices on the spot markets kept breaking the records. To define the driving forces of the EU’s energy policy both international relations (realism, liberalism, social constructivism and neo-Marxism) and European integration theories (intergovernmental approach, institutionalism, neofunctionalism and communication theory) are applied to cover each aspect. Rational approaches such as realism and liberalism, as well as neofunctionalism and some other theories do not yield any insights into the driving forces and practical steps taken by the EU during the 2021-2022 energy crisis. Theories, which have social approach at their basis – social constructivism, neo-Marxism, etc., offer a more logical explanation of the EU’s decisions.
Keywords
EU, energy policy, European Union, energy security, theories of international relations, realism, liberalism, constructivism, theories of European integration.
Дополнительные материалы
Приложение
References
Aoun, M.-C. (2015). European energy security challenges and global energy trends: old wine in new bottles? IAI (Istituto Affari Internazionali) Working Papers, 3(15).
Bloom, P. (2017). The ethics of neoliberalism. The business of making capitalism moral. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boykoff, M.T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978586
Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: the structure of international security. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Deutsch, K. (1966). Nationalism and social communication. An inquiry into the foundations of nationalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eyl-Mazzega, M.-A. (2019). Russia-Ukraine gas relations: the mother of all crises or a new start to 2030? Édito Énergie (Ifri), April 19. https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/eylmazzega_russia_ukraine_ gas_2019.pdf
Haas, E.B. (1964). Beyond the nation state. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heinrich, A., & Szulecki, K. (2019). Energy securitization: applying the Copenhagen school’s Framework to energy. In K. Szulecki (Ed.), Energy Security in Europe. Divergent Perceptions and Policy Challenges (pp. 33-61). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64964-1_2
Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe. Deadalus, 95(3), 862-915.
Keohane, R.O. (2005). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lindberg, L.N. (1963). The political dynamics of the European economic integration. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Luft, G., & Korin, A. (2009). Realism and idealism in the energy security debate. In G. Luft, A. Korin (Ed.), Energy Security Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 335-349). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Lobell, S.E. (2010). Structural realism / offensive and defensive realism. The international studies compendium project. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.304
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European community. A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473-524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.1993.tb00477.x
Morgenthau, H., Thompson, K.W., & Clinton, D. (2005). Politics among nations. 7th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Natorski, M., & Herranz Surrallés, A. (2008). Securitizing moves to nowhere? The framing of the European Union’s energy policy. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2(4), 70-89. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v4i2.88
Özcan, S. (2013). Securitization of energy through the lenses of Copenhagen school. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 57-72.
Pierson, P. (1996). The Path to European integration: a historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414096029002001
Pollack, M.A. (2005). Theorizing the European Union: international organization, domestic polity, or experiment in governance? Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 357-398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104858
Scharpf, F. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500275
Schelly, C., Bessette, D., Brosemer K., Gagnon V., Arola K.L., Fiss A., Pearce J.M., & Halvorsen K.E. (2020). Energy policy for energy sovereignty: Can policy tools enhance energy sovereignty? Solar Energy, 205, 109-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.05.056
Tranholm-Mikkelsen, J. (1991). Neo-Functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A reappraisal in the light of the new dynamism of the EC. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 20(1),1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298910200010201
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis an introduction. Durham, London: Duke University Press.
Walt, S.M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4), 3-43.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Weichlein, S. (2012). Soziale Kommunikation: Karl W. Deutsch und die Folgen. In P. Kolář, M. Řezník (Eds.), Historische Nationsforschung im geteilten Europa 1945-1989. (pp. 29-41). Köln: SH-Verlag.
Yergin, D. (2020). The new map: energy, climate, and the clash of nations. London: Penguin Press.
Dedenkulov, A.V. (2015). EU: Evolution of priorities of European energy policy. Contemporary Europe, 1, 116-125. (In Russ.)
Kaveshnikov, N.Yu. (2015). European Union’s climate and energy strategy. Contemporary Europe, 1, 93-103. (In Russ.)
Khudaykulova, A.V. (2020). Explaining the security of the global South: Western and Non-Western approaches. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, 13(3), 394-417. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2020.307
Vedernikov, M. (2020). Slovak-Russian relations: in search of a new forms of cooperation. Contemporary Europe, 1, 135-145. (In Russ.)
Content No. 3, 2022
See also:
Arbatova N.K.,
Climate threats – a new dimension of EU security. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No6
Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M.,
What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1
Simonia N.A., Torkunov A.V.,
European Union’s energy security and Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No5
Arbatova N.K.,
Strategic Autonomy of the European Union: Reality or Good Intention?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No6
Moiseeva D.E.,
Benefits of using Alexander Bogdanov’s organizational theory in explaining the transformations of the European Union. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No3
.jpg)
.jpg)