Advertisement

The EU-Russia Energy Relations Between Nondiscursive and Discursive Approaches: An Introduction

  • Lukáš Tichý
Chapter

Abstract

The introduction describes the meaning and importance of the topic, which focuses on the discourses of the European Union and the Russian Federation regarding energy relations in the years 2004–2014, and the monograph’s difference from previous research on the issue (the EU–RF energy relations). The introduction also mentions the main goal of the monograph which is to define the approaches to the EU energy discourse in relation to Russia and vice versa and to interpret the contents of the EU and Russian discourses on their mutual energy relations. Also, a brief overview is made of the theoretical framework and the main theoretical concepts, and this is followed by the methodological framework and the main methods applied. Finally, the introduction describes the main bibliographical sources and the structure of the monograph.

References

  1. Aalto, P. (Ed.). (2008a). The EU-Russian energy dialogue: Europe’s future energy security. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Aalto, P. (2008b). The EU-Russia energy dialogue and the future of European integration: From economics to politico – normative narratives. In P. Aalto (Ed.), The EU-Russian energy dialogue: Europe’s future energy security (pp. 23–42). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Aalto, P. (Ed.). (2012). Russia’s energy policies: National, interregional and global levels. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avšarov, A. G. (2012). Gosudarstvennaja vnešneekonomičeskaja politika Rossijskoj Federatsii. Piter.Google Scholar
  6. Baldwin, D. A. (Ed.). (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Balzacq, T. (2010). Constructivism and securitization studies. In V. V. Mauer & D. M. Cavelty (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of security studies (pp. 56–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Balzer, H. (2005). The Putin thesis and Russian energy policy. Post-Soviet Affairs, 21(3), 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belikova, M. A. (2013). Razvitie otnošenij meždu Rossijej i Evosojuzom v oblasti postavok gaza v XXI veke. Moskva: Vysokaja škola ekonomiki. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://goo.gl/us6nHp
  10. Birchfield, V. L., & Duffield, J. S. (Eds.). (2011). Toward a common European Union energy policy: Problems, progress, and prospects. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Böhme, D. (2011). EU-Russia energy relations: What chance for solutions? A focus on the natural gas sector. Potsdam: Universitätverlag Potsdam. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://goo.gl/vKyD1y
  12. Braun, J. F. (2011). EU energy policy under the treaty of Lisbon rules: Between a new policy and business as usual. European Policy Institutes Network. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://goo.gl/uMYLZD
  13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bušuev, B. B. (Ed.). (2003). Enegetika Rossii. Strategija Razvitija: Naučnoe obosnovanie energetičeskoj politiki. Moscow: Minenergo Rossii.Google Scholar
  16. Buzan, B., Waever, O., & De Wilde, J. (1997). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  17. Carta, C., & Morin, J.-F. (Eds.). (2014). EU foreign policy through the lens of discourse analysis: Making sense of diversity. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Checkel, T. (2013). Theoretical pluralism in IR: Possibilities and limits. In W. Carlsneas, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 220–243). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cho, Y. C. (2009). Conventional and critical constructivist approaches to national security: An analytical survey. The Korean Journal of International Relations, 49(3), 75–102.Google Scholar
  20. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Thomas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1947–1952). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collier, D. (1991). The comparative method: Two decades of change. In D. A. Rustow, P. Kenneth, et al. (Eds.), Comparative political dynamics: Global research perspectives (pp. 7–31). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  22. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dannreuther, R. (2016). EU-Russia energy relations in context. Geopolitics, 21(4), 913–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Demakova, E., & Godzimirski, J. M. (2012). Russian external energy strategy: Opportunities and constraints. In C. Kuzemko et al. (Eds.), Dynamics of energy governance in Europe and Russia (pp. 149–168). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dias, V. A. (2013). The EU and Russia: Competing discourses, practices and interests in the shared neighbourhood. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 14(2), 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Emeljanova, N. N. (2009). Rossija i Evrosojuz: Soperničesvo i partnerstvo. Meždunarodnue otnošenija.Google Scholar
  27. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change: Textual analysis for social research. Cambridge: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (language in social life). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Fiala, V. (2007). Současné neracionalistické evropské teoretické koncepty [Contemporary non-rationalist European theoretical concepts]. In V. Fiala et al. (Eds.), Teoretické a metodologické problémy evropské integrace [Theoretical and methodological problems of European integration] (pp. 178–212). Olomouc: Periplum.Google Scholar
  30. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Georgiou, N. A. & Rocco A. (2017). Energy governance in EU-Russia energy relations: Paving the way towards an energy union. Institute of European Law, University of Birmingham. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/2944/1/IEL_Working_Paper_01-2017.pdf
  32. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Godzimirski, J. M. (2016). Russia-EU energy relations: From complementarity to distrust? In J. M. Godzimirski (Ed.), EU leadership in energy and environmental governance: Global and local challenges and responses (pp. 89–112). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  34. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Harriman, D. (2009). Energy is what states make of it: Exploring new aspects in the EU-Russian energy relations from a constructivist perspective. Department of Political Science, Lund University. Accessed August 13, 2018, from https://goo.gl/C83GKH
  36. Haukalla, H. (2008). The EU’s common strategy on Russia: Four lessons learned about consensus decision-making in foreign policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 13(3), 317–331.Google Scholar
  37. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hopkin, J. (2010). The comparative method. In D. Marsh & M. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (pp. 285–307). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. (2010a). Český diskurz o protiraketové obraně a národní zájem [The Czech discourse on the missile defense and the national interest]. Mezinárodní vztahy [Czech Journal of International Relations], 45(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  40. Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. (2010b). The fortunes of the Czech discourse on the missile defense. In P. Drulák & M. Braun (Eds.), The quest for the national interest: A methodological reflection on Czech foreign policy (pp. 87–104). Prague: Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, D., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2008). Perspectives on EU-Russia relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse analysis (introducing linguistics) (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Jokela, J. (2011). Europeanization and foreign policy: State identity in Finland and Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karacasulu, N., & Uzgören, E. (2007). Explaining social constructivist contributions to security studies. Perceptions, 12(Summer–Autumn), 1–31.Google Scholar
  46. Keohane, R. O. (1989). Neoliberal institutionalism: A perspective on world politics. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory (pp. 1–20). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. Khasson, V. (2009). Discourses and interests in EU-Russia energy relations. Leuven: Institute for International and European Policy.Google Scholar
  48. Kirchner, E., & Berk, C. (2010). European energy security co-operation: Between amity and enmity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), 829–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Knodt, M. (2018). EU energy policy. In H. Heinelt & S. Münch (Eds.), Handbook of European policies interpretive approaches to the EU (pp. 224–240). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kořan, M. (2008). Jednopřípadová studie [Single-case study]. In P. Drulák et al. (Eds.), Jak zkoumat politiku: kvalitativní metodologie v politologii a mezinárodních vztazích [How to research policy: Qualitative methodology in political science and international relations] (pp. 29–61). Prague: Portál.Google Scholar
  51. Kuzemko, C. (2014). Ideas, power and change: Explaining EU-Russia energy relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Larsson, L. R. (2006). Russia’s energy policy: Security dimensions and Russia’s reliability as an energy supplier. FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency. Accessed August 10, 2018, from http://goo.gl/qOfRKy
  53. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liutho, K. (Ed.). (2009). The EU-Russia gas connection: Pipes, politics and problems. Turku: Pan-European Institute. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://goo.gl/0BM5ts
  55. MacDonnel, D. (1986). Theories of discourse: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Machnač, I. (2013). Razvitie energetičeskovo dialoga Rossijskoj Federacii I Evropejskovo sojuza. Meždunarodnovo prava i meždunarodnych otnošenij, 4. Accessed August 10, 2018, from http://evolutio.info/content/view/2124/235/
  57. Makarychev, A. (2014). Russia and the EU in a multipolar world: Discourses, identities, norms (soviet and post-soviet politics and society). Stuttgart: ibidem.Google Scholar
  58. Marín-Quemada, J. M., García-Verdugo, J., & Escribano, G. (Eds.). (2012). Energy security for the EU in the 21st century: Markets, geopolitics and corridors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Marocchi, T. (2017). EU-Russia relations: Towards an increasingly geopolitical paradigm. Heinrich Böll Stiftung, July 3. Accessed August 10, 2018, from https://eu.boell.org/en/2017/07/03/eu-russia-relations-towards-increasingly-geopolitical-paradigm
  60. McNabb, D. E. (2016). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative methods (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Milliken, J. L. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations, 5(2), 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Milov, V. (2006). The use of energy as a political tool. EU-Russia Centre Review. Accessed August 10, 2018, from http://www.eu-russsacentre.org
  63. Milov, V. (2008). Russia and the West: The energy factor. Institute français des relations internationales + Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accessed August 10, 2018, from http://www.policypointers.org/Page/View/8005
  64. Mišík, M. (2013). Energetická politika v rozšírenej Európskej únii: Roly a preferencie Českej republiky, Poľska a Slovenska [Energy policy in an enlarged European Union. The roles and preferences of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia]. Prague: Ústav mezinárodních vztahů.Google Scholar
  65. Monaghan, A. (2007). Russia’s energy diplomacy: A political idea lacking a strategy? Southes European and Black Sea Studies, 7(2), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Morgenthau, H. (1951). In defense of the national interests: A critical examination of American foreign policy. New York: Alfred A Knopf.Google Scholar
  67. Oxenstierna, S., & Tynkkynen, V. P. (Eds.). (2014). Russian energy and security up to 2030. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  69. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pirani, S. (2012). Russo-Ukranian gas wars and the call on transit governance. In C. Kuzemko et al. (Eds.), Dynamics of energy governance in Europe and Russia (pp. 169–188). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1996). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Proedrou, F. (2010). Sensitivity and vulnerability shifts and the new energy pattern in the EU-Russia gas trade. Studia Diplomatica, 63(3), 95–104.Google Scholar
  73. Repyeuskaya, O. (2013). European energy security relations with Russia: The constructivist view. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Bisa-Isa Joint International Conference “Diversity in the Discipline: Tension or Opportunity in Responding to Global Challenges”, Edinburgh, 20 June 2012. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p599166_index.html
  74. Romanova, T. (2016). Is Russian energy policy towards the EU only about geopolitics? The case of the third liberalisation package. Geopolitics, 21(4), 857–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sharples, J. D. (2011). The social construction of Russia’s gas policy. University of Glasgow. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://goo.gl/MvyMXQ
  76. Siddi, M. (2018). Identities and vulnerabilities: The Ukraine crisis and the securitisation of the EU-Russia gas trade. In K. Szulecki (Ed.), Energy security in Europe: Divergent perceptions and policy challenges (pp. 251–273). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Simmerl, G. (2011). Critical constructivist perspective on global multi-level governance: Discursive struggles among multiple actors in a globalized political space. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  78. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  79. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Youngs, R. (2009). Energy security: Europe’s new foreign policy challenge. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukáš Tichý
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of International RelationsPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations