Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Constructivist–Discursive Approach to Studying EU-Russia Energy Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU-Russia Energy Relations

  • 670 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an important theoretical–methodological basis for the analysis of the energy discourse between the EU and the RF and related issues. The first part consists of an explanation of the possibility of combining a conventional and a critical constructivist approach with the aim of creating a theoretical framework to be used as an analytical tool for exploring the EU and RF discourse on energy relations. For this purpose, the second part examines a broader constructivist approach to the matter of discourse, the actions of both parties with regard to foreign energy relations, and the issue of identity, interests, norms, and values. The third part focuses on a methodological elaboration of discourse analysis and its application and the selection of primary methods. The fourth part specifies the major actors that form the energy discourse of the EU and Russia. The fifth part deals with the question of data collection and the criteria for selecting relevant data. The final part provides a preliminary analysis of select documents and speeches, followed by the identification of several dominant energy discourses in the EU and the RF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Petr Kratochvíl and Elsa Tulmets (2010, p. 26), rationalism stems from the conviction that the actors try to maximise their own interests, which can be both material and ideational. At the same time, these actors attempt to rationally manipulate their surroundings, which can also be either material or ideational, in the effort to achieve their own interests.

  2. 2.

    However, conventional constructivism does not claim that material resources and conditions are unimportant; rather, it claims that their impact is always mediated by ideas, which give them meaning (cf. Fearon and Wendt 2005, p. 57).

  3. 3.

    Securitisation is a dynamic process of the social construction of threats and risks, where a certain matter becomes a security issue not due to the existence of a real threat, but because it is presented and understood as a threat (Buzan et al. 1997). Thierry Balzacq (2005) states that effective securitisation has three preconditions: (1) it is context-dependent, (2) it is audience-focused, and (3) it allows for the aspect of power. This extension is essential for the understanding of the securitisation of energy security.

  4. 4.

    This happens when a given threat loses its urgency and is moved back down the scale to the sphere of politicisation or when a given threat is completely solved and removed from the political debate (Buzan et al. 1997). This means that topics that no longer pose an existential threat (in the actors’ opinion) are usually relegated to the political agenda, which should ensure that the threat will not reappear.

  5. 5.

    In this sense, critical constructivists consider it important for this construction of identity and security/threat to take place in the framework of discourse, which enables the (re)production, transformation, and constitution of the interests and power of the actor (Dias 2013, p. 258).

  6. 6.

    In the time from when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, that is, 1 December 2009, until 30 January 2010, individual commissioners were appointed, and then the whole European Commission was approved with José M. Barroso as its president.

References

  • Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alhajji, A. F. (2014). Dimensions of energy security: Competition, interaction and maximization. In B. K. Sovacool (Ed.), Energy security: Definitions and concepts of energy security (Vol. 1, pp. 113–136). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahgat, G. (2006). Europe’s energy security: Challenges and opportunities. International Affairs, 82(5), 961–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D. A. (Ed.). (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Balzacq, T. (Ed.). (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barša, P., & Císař, O. (2008). Anarchie a řád ve světové politice: Kapitoly z teorie mezinárodních vztahů [Anarchy and order in world politics. Chapters from international relations theory]. Prague: Portál.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brutschin, E. (2016). EU gas security architecture: The role of the commission’s entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burchill, S. (2005). The national interest in international relations theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burman, E., & Parker, I. (Eds.). (1993). Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., Waever, O., & De Wilde, J. (1997). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (1998). Writing security: United States foreign policy and politics of identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carta, C., & Morin, J.-F. (Eds.). (2014). EU foreign policy through the lens of discourse analysis: Making sense of diversity. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2013). Theoretical pluralism in IR: Possibilities and limits. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 220–243). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1947–1952). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Colin, G. (2004). Russian foreign policy discourse during the Kosovo crisis: Internal struggles and the political imaginaire. Centre d’études et de recherches internationales. Accessed August 13, 2018, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290892

  • 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 

  • Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, J., Kellehear, A., & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichler, J., & Tichý, L. (2013). USA a Ruská federace: Komparace z pohledu bezpečnostní a strategické kultury [The US and the Russian Federation: A comparison from a security and strategic culture viewpoint]. Prague: Institute of International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change: Textual analysis for social research. Cambridge: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (Language in social life). New York: Longman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J., & Wendt, A. (2005). Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 52–72). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (1996). Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), Culture and national security: Security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 153–185). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (2004). The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force (Cornell studies in security affairs). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gariup, M. (2009). European security culture: Language, theory, policy. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2010). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hague, R., & Harrop, M. (2010). Political science: Comparative government and politics – An introduction (8th ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid rain in Great Britain. In F. Fisher & J. Forster (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, practices, meaning. In M. Van Den Brink & T. Metze (Eds.), Words matter in policy planning: Discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Key research concepts in politics and international relations. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkin, J. (2010). The comparative method. In D. Marsh & M. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D., & Torfling, J. (Eds.). (2005). Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D., Norval, A. J., & Stavrakakis, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. (2010a). Český diskurz o protiraketové obraně a národní zájem [Czech discourse on missile defense and national interest]. Mezinárodní vztahy [Czech Journal of International Relations], 45(1), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2003). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javadi, M., & Zarea, M. (2016). Understanding thematic analysis and its pitfalls. Journal of Client Care, 1(1), 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse analysis (Introducing linguistics) (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokela, J. (2011). Europeanization and foreign policy: State identity in Finland and Britain. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantola, J. (2006). Feminists theorize the state. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karacasulu, N., & Uzgören, E. (2007). Explaining social constructivist contributions to security studies. Perceptions, 12(Summer–Autumn), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaivanova, S. (2012). EU’s normative and securitization discourse in the energy sector. Contradicting or complementary discourses? Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kratochvíl, P., & Tichý, L. (2012). Diskurz Evropské unie o energetických vztazích s Ruskou federací [European Union discourse on energy relations with the Russian Federation]. Politologický časopis [Czech Journal of Political Science], 19(2), 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl, P., & Tichý, L. (2013). EU and Russian discourse on energy relations. Energy Policy, 44(5), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl, P., & Tulmets, E. (2010). Constructivism and rationalism in EU external relations: The case of the European neighbourhood policy. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuchyňková, P. (2010). Vývoj vztahů Ruské federace a Evropské unie v kontextu problematiky energetické bezpečnosti [Development of relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union in the context of energy security issues]. Doctoral dissertation. Brno: Masarykova univerzita Brno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, H. (1997). Foreign policy and discourse analysis: France, Britain and Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J, 9(3), 3351–33514.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau, H., & Thompson, K. W. (1985). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nia, M. M. (2012). Discourse and identity in Iran’s foreign policy. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 3(3), 29–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocelík, P., & Černoch, F. (2014). Konstruktivismus a energetická bezpečnost v mezinárodních vztazích [Constructivism and energy security in international relations]. Brno: Muni Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 144–160). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reus-Smit, C. (2005). Constructivism. In S. Burchill (Ed.), Theories of international relations (pp. 188–212). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Říchová, B. (2002). Úvod do současné politologie. Srovnávací analýza demokratických politických systémů [Introduction to contemporary political science. Comparative analysis of democratic political systems]. Prague: Portál.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s Argue!”: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2009). Social constructivism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roulston, K. (2001). Data analysis and ‘theorizing as ideology’. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 279–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato, Y., & Hirata, K. (Eds.). (2008). Norms, interests, and power in Japanese foreign policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savigny, H., & Marsden, L. (2011). Doing political science and international relations: Theories in action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics, 27(2), 183–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stråth, B. (2010). Europe and the other and Europe as the other (Europe Plurielle/Multiple Europes). Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tichý, L., & Kratochvíl, P. (2014). The EU-Russia energy relations under the prism of the political discourse. Perspectives, 22(1), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tkachenko, S. L. (2008). Actors in Russia’s energy policy towards the EU. In P. Aalto (Ed.), The EU-Russian energy dialogue: Europe’s future energy security (pp. 163–192). Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsygankov, A. (2015). Vladimir Putin’s last stand: The sources of Russia’s Ukraine policy. Post-Soviet Affairs, 31(4), 279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. (2005). European integration and security: Analysing French and German discourses on state, nation, and Europe. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 33–67). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing national interests. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldes, J., et al. (1999). Cultures of insecurity: States, communities, and the production of danger. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Feklyunina, V. (2014). Identities and foreign policies in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus: The other Europes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in international relations: The politics of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of International Relations, Prague, Czech Republic

    Lukáš Tichý

Authors
  1. Lukáš Tichý
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tichý, L. (2019). A Constructivist–Discursive Approach to Studying EU-Russia Energy Relations. In: EU-Russia Energy Relations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04107-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation