Academic literature on the topic 'EU-Russia energy cooperation'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'EU-Russia energy cooperation.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "EU-Russia energy cooperation"
1
sangwon Kim. "EU and Russia economic cooperation in energy." Journal of Contemporary European Studies 26, no. 2 (August 2008): 161–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.17052/jces.2008.26.2.161.
Full text
2
Romanova, T. A. "Russia-EU energy efficiency cooperation in the Baltic region: the untapped potential." Baltic Region 1 (2014): 21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2014-1-2.
Full text
3
Duckjoon Chang. "Aspects of EU-Russia Energy Cooperation and its Prospects." 중소연구 36, no. 3 (November 2012): 197–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.21196/aprc.36.3.201211.007.
Full text
4
Ivcenko, Viktoria. "EU-Russia Energy Dialogue: economic and political dimensions." Przegląd Europejski, no. 2-2021 (September 8, 2021): 165–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.2.21.10.
Full textAbstract:
Against the background of strong and long-standing energy interdependence between the European Union and Russia, the two partners agreed in 2000 to launch the Energy Dialogue, which was intended to intensify their cooperation and to eliminate related problems. The political and economic dimensions of the EU–Russia Energy Dialogue are presented and studied in this article. The aim is to analyse the scale of their impact on the basis of some important projects within this dialogue, taking into account the overall context. The results of conducted analysis demonstrate that while this comprehensive instrument for jointly creating the future of the two co-dependent partners should bring apparent improvements, its functionality is hindered by various economic and political factors. The latter, in particular, have had a significant impact, putting the Energy Dialogue on hold, not lastly with the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis and growing bilateral and multilateral political tensions. Today, 20 years after the commissioning of this seemingly so fruitful platform of the Energy Dialogue, we are looking at a very disappointing intermediate assessment. Various problems of the Energy Dialogue hinder not only cooperation development based on trust, legal norms and understanding, but also existing and partly active projects, such as the Roadmap EU–Russia Energy Cooperation until 2050 and Nord Stream 2, which are being pushed into the uncertain future. However, in view of existing and possible further projects in the energy sector, it is necessary to create the functional dialogue format.
5
Basov, F. "Cooperation of Russia and Germany in Energy and Ecology." World Economy and International Relations, no. 8 (2011): 101–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2011-8-101-109.
Full textAbstract:
Energy cooperation between Russia and Germany is a pragmatic basis of the Russian-German relations and also the key factor for Russia-EU relations. The author makes an attempt to consider German national interests in energy sphere and actual tendencies of energy cooperation in Europe. Energy is inseparably linked with ecology. The interaction of Russia and Germany in environmental sphere is also covered.
6
Boute, Anatole. "Toward an eu-Russian Energy Agreement: Principles of Liberalization Under eu and Russian Energy Law." Review of Central and East European Law 40, no. 2 (October 9, 2015): 109–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04002008.
Full textAbstract:
Although the Ukraine conflict and the resulting political hostility between Russia and the West have put a stop to the 2000 eu-Russia Energy Dialogue, the mutual benefits of energy cooperation and cross-border energy investments are undeniable. Taking these mutual benefits into account, energy would be a logical area of focus if the eu and Russia were to decide to re-initiate their strategic partnership in the event of a normalization of the situation in Ukraine. Although this scenario still is highly hypothetical and a further deterioration of eu-Russian relations is possible, it is important to reflect on the creation of institutional structures that would enable the eu and Russia to rebuild trust by working together in a field of common strategic interest. In this context, this article examines the possibility of establishing an eu-Russian energy agreement to overcome the current misunderstandings that exist between the eu and Russia in respect of the interpretation and application of the main concepts of energy law. The legal certainty resulting from such an energy-specific agreement could contribute to improving the investment climate for cross-border eu-Russian energy investments and possibly, through closer investment ties, enhancing trust between the eu and Russia.
7
Leonov, E. S. "The Specific Features of the Contemporary Russian Foreign Energy Policy Shift in Modern Times." MGIMO Review of International Relations, no. 2(41) (April 28, 2015): 94–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2015-2-41-94-101.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years there has been brewing up a necessity in Russia to change direction of its external energy policy radically as a result of unconstructive and hugely politically charged approach of the EU - main and traditional partner of Russia - to settlement of fundamental issues in bilateral cooperation. First of all this refers to failed efforts to create regional energy security system, based on respective institutions and legal framework, by reason of unwillingness of the EU to respect the Russian standpoint as an exporter of energy resources. As a result, there is a legal vacuum today in energy cooperation between Russia and the EU, which they failed to fill. The current political crisis in Europe, which is caused by accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and events in Ukraine, has aggravated long-standing problems of energy partnership EU-Russia. At the same time active EU policy on diversification of energy sources and supply routes discredits peculiar role of Russia as EU key energy supplier. These factors have triggered a significant revision of Russian interests in favor of eastern direction. A new promising contract with China on 21 May 2014 and memorandum with Turkey on 1 December 2014 are the milestones of the present Russian eastern policy. Both contracts can disrupt power balance on the global energy market. The article deals with background and causes for the present Russian eastern activity.
8
Cebotari, Livia. "EU-Russia energy relations: problems and perspectives." Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence 16, no. 1 (August 1, 2022): 1001–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2022-0093.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper analyzes the EU-Russia energy relations in the period 2010-2022. Although in other sectors the European Union has a competitive advantage, in this area the vulnerability of the EU to Russia is fully felt. The gas crises (2006 and 2009) and the conflict in Ukraine (2014 and 2022) highlighted the European Union’s over-reliance on Russian energy resources. The escalation of the conflict in February 2022 has created a state of uncertainty about the evolution of the energy cooperation between the EU and Russia. The aim of this research is to identify and assess the impact of sanctions and counter-sanctions on trade in the energy sector between the EU and the Russian Federation, as well as the problems and prospects of EU-Russia energy relations. In order to achieve the proposed objectives, this paper is the result of a mixed research design, based on a quantitative and a qualitative component, respectively. The topicality of the debate on EU-Russia energy relations is reflected in the field of scientific investigation through a significant literature. Official documents of the European Commission and the European Parliament, academic articles and studies conducted by various prestigious think-tanks were analysed. Also, the research is based on data published by Eurostat and International Energy Agency.
9
Davydova, Yuliya A., Ekaterina V. Kargapolova, Marina A. Simonenko, and Andrey A. Lezhebokov. "Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan in Ensuring Integrated Security in the Caspian Macro Region." Journal of Frontier Studies 7, no. 3 (September 1, 2022): 106–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.46539/jfs.v7i3.426.
Full textAbstract:
The article identifies the main areas of cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan in the Caspian Sea region. As the most promising, we see cooperation in fuel and energy industry, military cooperation and humanitarian cooperation in science and higher education. Yet, Russia now has to compete with Turkey and China for the influence in the region, as Kazakhstan tends to promote multi-vector foreign policy. Moreover, the US and the EU share a strong determination to keep Kazakhstan’s fuel and energy industry under their total control, and this is the reason why they maintain sanctions policy in this territory. We conclude that Russia-Kazakhstan relations have a potential for constructive cooperation.
10
Romanova, Tatyana. "EU — Russia energy cooperation: major development trends and the present state." Baltic Region 3 (2013): 4–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2013-3-1.
Full textDissertations / Theses on the topic "EU-Russia energy cooperation"
1
Kustova, Irina. "The Conflict-Cooperation Nexus. Politicisation, Security and Domestic Institutions in EU-Russia Energy Relations." Doctoral thesis, Università degli studi di Trento, 2015. https://hdl.handle.net/11572/367649.
Full textAbstract:
Over the last decade, EU–Russia gas relations have witnessed significant deterioration—the bilateral agenda has been narrowed down to ad hoc consultations, disputes over investment and long-term contract provisions have multiplied, and disagreements between the EU and Russia have significantly hindered the multilateral process of the Energy Charter Treaty (the ECT). This deterioration seems to be rather paradoxical in light of high gas interdependence between the EU and Russia and a rich history of well-established cooperation during the Cold War under profound ideological and strategic constraints. In addition, conflictual patterns in EU–Russia gas relations occurred in the beginning of the 2000s, during the period of high oil prices and growing global natural gas demand—the period when enhancement of cooperation would be a more expected outcome. Therefore, the core research question of the thesis addresses the puzzle: why, despite decades of cooperation during the Cold War between Western European countries and the USSR, have EU–Russia gas relations become conflictual since the 2000s? By answering this research question, the study seeks to contribute to the analysis of institutionalisation of energy relations and to reveal factors that lead to cooperative or conflictual outcomes. So far, IR research inquiries in the field have prioritised resource and normative determinisms in addressing the success or failure of energy cooperation, which assume a geopolitical-realist struggle for energy resources and a priori benevolence of free markets in line with the neoliberal economic agenda respectively. The broader geopolitical approach has explained energy conflicts by structural factors of unequal resource allocation across the world and attributed a direct impact of a state resource base (an energy-rich or energy-poor state) on states’ behaviour in the international arena. Another strand of the literature, ‘the market approach’, has also viewed problematic cooperation as a result of different interests of energy producers and consumers—but from a slightly different perspective. Limited institutionalisation of interactions has been explained by different models of gas markets producers and consumers choose. Thus, consumers favour a model of the competitive liberalised gas market (a market actor model), while producers would opt for a model of vertically-integrated monopoly and resource nationalism (a geopolitical actor model) in order to preserve control over resources. Pointing to a number of opposite cases, this study disregards the straightforward assumption that there is a direct link between a resource base and states’ strategies in the international arena. Bringing domestic conditions back to these debates, the study argues that increasing differences between the EU and Russia’s domestic institutional models of the gas market have been the main factor that has triggered conflictual patterns in EU–Russia gas relations since the 2000s. These domestic institutional changes have replaced attempts to build a strategic partnership with ad hoc consultations at the level of practical implementation, and have triggered broader deinstitutionalisation of multilateral gas governance in Europe. The three case studies analyse three instances of EU–Russia gas relations, tracing the crucial differences to determine the outcome—cooperation (a creation of a new or enhancement of an existing international institution), institutionalised conflict (disagreements regarding institutional settings of interactions, which are discussed and settled within the procedures of pre-existing or negotiated international institutions), or institutional conflict (expansion of disagreements beyond the pre-existing or negotiated framework of international institutions, which are no more accepted by the parties for conflict resolution) between the parties. The thesis contributes to ongoing debates about the impact of domestic institutions on actors’ policy strategies in the international arena, bringing insights from energy economics, energy law, and regulatory studies to IR. It argues that differences in domestic models under conditions of high interdependence might lead to politicisation of gas market issues and broader aspects of energy governance. The study also enriches debates about energy security, arguing that energy security depends also on a stable and predictable institutional framework for interactions, which inter alia requires compatibility of actors’ domestic models.
2
Skalamera, Morena. "Energy Interdependencies between the EU and Russia: Anything but Institutions?" Doctoral thesis, Università degli studi di Trieste, 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/10077/8626.
Full textAbstract:
2011/2012This dissertation offers a thorough analysis of European-Russian energy cooperation. It sheds light on the question: why is there a lack of binding institutionalization of the EU-Russia energy relationship despite the high degree of interdependence between the two sides? It is primarily focused on identifying the main actors on both sides of the relationship. This allows us to understand whether there are causal implications between the interest formation and the lobbying power of the crucial actors on the one hand, and the lack of binding governance structures in the EU-Russia energy cooperation on the other. It speaks to the body of literature examining the failure to cooperate in situations of high economic interdependence. Questions such as do multilateral agreements really matter to the main actors on both sides of the EU-Russian energy relationship form the core of this dissertation. My study differs from dominant liberal and constructivist interpretationsin that it links in a comprehensive way the influence of the main actors (i.e. the big gas companies) and the lack of binding governance structures regulating the relationship. Hence, unlike other analyses it finds that the central influence of the industrial gas lobby on decision-making processes is the direct cause of the lack of binding governance structures. It is therefore an alternative to studies that either conceptualize the institutional deadlock as a consequence of structural deficiencies on both sides, or as an outcome of a normative clash. In contrast, I point to the primacy of the private sector and I argue that the influence and the behavior of strategic corporate actors is key to understanding the deadlock. A crucial focus lies on the current paradigm changes in the European gas pricing systems, which widen the already high interest gap between the two blocs. Although being theoretically grounded in the realist tradition, in focusing on the large potential of cross-border cooperation this dissertation employs an innovative and complementary perspective. I investigate various angles on different levels of the complex interdependent relationship, such as the sub-regional level. Yet, the most distinctive feature of this work is the emphasis on the dynamic causal pathways between the influence of the strategic corporate actors and the weakness of governance patterns in the EU-Russia energy relationship. I show how the corporate sector’s pressures on both sides of the relationship ultimately shape and predetermine the configuration of EU-Russia energy governance structures. While evidence about the centrality of the corporate sector strengthens the conclusions of a growing body of research, this study provides an original causal explanation that links the interests of the big energy firms and their reluctance to be locked-into binding governance structures, with the energy governance deadlock. My propositions are tested empirically through an array of qualitative methods (interviews, case studies, analysis of legal and policy documents). I believe that my findings will contribute to the debate on energy relations between the EU and Russia, and help improve our understanding of the role of the corporate sector in relation to weak governance structures.
XXV Ciclo
1984
3
Böhme, Dimo. "EU-Russia energy relations: What chance for solutions? : A focus on the natural gas sector." Universität Potsdam, 2013. http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2014/6302/.
Full textAbstract:
Public debate about energy relations between the EU and Russia is distorted. These distortions present considerable obstacles to the development of true partnership. At the core of the conflict is a struggle for resource rents between energy producing, energy consuming and transit countries.
Supposed secondary aspects, however, are also of great importance. They comprise of geopolitics, market access, economic development and state sovereignty. The European Union, having engaged in energy market liberalisation, faces a widening gap between declining domestic resources and continuously growing energy demand. Diverse interests inside the EU prevent the definition of a coherent and respected energy policy. Russia, for its part, is no longer willing to subsidise its neighbouring economies by cheap energy exports. The Russian government engages in assertive policies pursuing Russian interests. In so far, it opts for a different globalisation approach, refusing the role of mere energy exporter. In view of the intensifying struggle for global resources, Russia, with its large energy potential, appears to be a very favourable option for European energy supplies, if not the best one. However, several outcomes of the strategic game between the two partners can be imagined. Engaging in non-cooperative strategies will in the end leave all stakeholders worse-off. The European Union should therefore concentrate on securing its partnership with Russia instead of damaging it. Stable cooperation would need the acceptance that the partner may pursue his own goals, which might be different from one’s own interests. The question is, how can a sustainable compromise be found? This thesis finds that a mix of continued dialogue, a tit for tat approach bolstered by an international institutional framework and increased integration efforts appears as a preferable solution.Die öffentliche Debatte über die Energiebeziehungen Russlands und der EU ist verzerrt. Diese Verzerrungen verhindern die Entwicklung einer wirklichen Energiepartnerschaft. Kern des Konflikts ist ein Kampf um Rohstoffrenten zwischen Energie produzierenden, Energie konsumierenden und Transitstaaten. Dabei sind scheinbar nebensächliche Aspekte wie geopolitische Überlegungen, Marktzutrittsbedingungen, wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und staatliche Souveränität, die kaum Beachtung finden, von umso größerer Bedeutung. Die EU, die ihre Energiemärkte liberalisiert, sieht sich einer wachsenden Lücke zwischen abnehmenden eigenen Ressourcen und stetig steigender Energienachfrage gegenüber. Vielfältige Interessen innerhalb der Union verhindern die Definition einer kohärenten und allgemein akzeptierten Energiepolitik. Russland seinerseits ist nicht länger gewillt, die Volkswirtschaften seiner Nachbarstaaten mit billigen Energieexporten zu subventionieren. Die russische Regierung verfolgt russische Interessen, und tut dies durchaus mit Nachdruck. Insofern, als dass sie für Russland selbst mehr als die Rolle eines bloßen Energieexporteurs wünscht, verfolgt sie auch eine eigene Herangehensweise an die Globalisierung. Vor dem Hintergrund des zunehmenden globalen Wettstreits um Ressourcen erscheint Russland mit seinem großen Energiepotential als sehr vorteilhafte, wenn nicht sogar die beste Option für die europäische Energieversorgung. In einem solchen strategischen Spiel der beiden Partner sind grundsätzlich verschiedene Ergebnisse vorstellbar. Wählen beide nichtkooperative Strategien, so verlieren letztlich alle Beteiligten. Die EU sollte sich deshalb darauf konzentrieren, ihre Partnerschaft mit Russland zu intensivieren, anstatt sie zu beschädigen. Eine verlässliche Kooperation setzt dabei die Akzeptanz voraus, dass der Partner seine eigenen Ziele verfolgt, die durchaus verschieden von EU-Interessen sein können. Die Frage ist, wie ein dauerhaft tragfähiger Kompromiss gefunden werden kann. Diese Arbeit argumentiert im Sinne einer Kombination aus fortgeführtem Dialog, einer tit-for-tat Strategie, die von einem internationalen institutionellen Rahmenwerk begleitet wird sowie verstärkten Integrationsbemühungen.
4
Böhme, Dimo. "EU-Russia energy relations: What chance for solutions? : A focus on the natural gas sector." Phd thesis, Universität Potsdam, 2011. http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2011/5021/.
Full textAbstract:
Public debate about energy relations between the EU and Russia is distorted. These distortions present considerable obstacles to the development of true partnership. At the core of the conflict is a struggle for resource rents between energy producing, energy consuming and transit countries.
Supposed secondary aspects, however, are also of great importance. They comprise of geopolitics, market access, economic development and state sovereignty. The European Union, having engaged in energy market liberalisation, faces a widening gap between declining domestic resources and continuously growing energy demand. Diverse interests inside the EU prevent the definition of a coherent and respected energy policy. Russia, for its part, is no longer willing to subsidise its neighbouring economies by cheap energy exports. The Russian government engages in assertive policies pursuing Russian interests. In so far, it opts for a different globalisation approach, refusing the role of mere energy exporter. In view of the intensifying struggle for global resources, Russia, with its large energy potential, appears to be a very favourable option for European energy supplies, if not the best one. However, several outcomes of the strategic game between the two partners can be imagined. Engaging in non-cooperative strategies will in the end leave all stakeholders worse-off. The European Union should therefore concentrate on securing its partnership with Russia instead of damaging it. Stable cooperation would need the acceptance that the partner may pursue his own goals, which might be different from one’s own interests. The question is, how can a sustainable compromise be found? This thesis finds that a mix of continued dialogue, a tit for tat approach bolstered by an international institutional framework and increased integration efforts appears as a preferable solution.Die öffentliche Debatte über die Energiebeziehungen Russlands und der EU ist verzerrt. Diese Verzerrungen verhindern die Entwicklung einer wirklichen Energiepartnerschaft. Kern des Konflikts ist ein Kampf um Rohstoffrenten zwischen Energie produzierenden, Energie konsumierenden und Transitstaaten. Dabei sind scheinbar nebensächliche Aspekte wie geopolitische Überlegungen, Marktzutrittsbedingungen, wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und staatliche Souveränität, die kaum Beachtung finden, von umso größerer Bedeutung. Die EU, die ihre Energiemärkte liberalisiert, sieht sich einer wachsenden Lücke zwischen abnehmenden eigenen Ressourcen und stetig steigender Energienachfrage gegenüber. Vielfältige Interessen innerhalb der Union verhindern die Definition einer kohärenten und allgemein akzeptierten Energiepolitik. Russland seinerseits ist nicht länger gewillt, die Volkswirtschaften seiner Nachbarstaaten mit billigen Energieexporten zu subventionieren. Die russische Regierung verfolgt russische Interessen, und tut dies durchaus mit Nachdruck. Insofern, als dass sie für Russland selbst mehr als die Rolle eines bloßen Energieexporteurs wünscht, verfolgt sie auch eine eigene Herangehensweise an die Globalisierung. Vor dem Hintergrund des zunehmenden globalen Wettstreits um Ressourcen erscheint Russland mit seinem großen Energiepotential als sehr vorteilhafte, wenn nicht sogar die beste Option für die europäische Energieversorgung. In einem solchen strategischen Spiel der beiden Partner sind grundsätzlich verschiedene Ergebnisse vorstellbar. Wählen beide nichtkooperative Strategien, so verlieren letztlich alle Beteiligten. Die EU sollte sich deshalb darauf konzentrieren, ihre Partnerschaft mit Russland zu intensivieren, anstatt sie zu beschädigen. Eine verlässliche Kooperation setzt dabei die Akzeptanz voraus, dass der Partner seine eigenen Ziele verfolgt, die durchaus verschieden von EU-Interessen sein können. Die Frage ist, wie ein dauerhaft tragfähiger Kompromiss gefunden werden kann. Diese Arbeit argumentiert im Sinne einer Kombination aus fortgeführtem Dialog, einer tit-for-tat Strategie, die von einem internationalen institutionellen Rahmenwerk begleitet wird sowie verstärkten Integrationsbemühungen.
5
Evgrafova, Elena. "Political and Economic Reasons for Energy Cooperation between the EU and Russia." Master's thesis, 2014. http://www.nusl.cz/ntk/nusl-330457.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I investigate the energy cooperation between the EU and Russia from the political and economic points of view. The relevance of the issue is due to the growing role of energy sector, the need for security of energy supply and demand and for political and economic balance of power in the region, and closer economic integration. Two theoretical approaches, geopolitical and bureaucratic, guiding the research, explain the behavior of protagonists. To better understand the present level of cooperation I analyze the background and dynamics of EU - Russia energy trade relations. As a case study, I investigate the Nord Stream project as an example of successful cooperation of Germany as an EU member state and Russia in this field. I discuss challenges for the healthy mutual partnership in the energy sector, namely, high politicization of the issue, monopolization of Russian energy sector and low sustainability of Russian economic development, and mistrust between the protagonists. I attempt to identify possible policy changes aimed to improve this cooperation and achieve fruitful partnership, security and stability. Key words: Russia, EU, energy, cooperation, Realpolitik, international relations, oil, gas, energy dialogue, ECT, security, balance of power, geopolitics, interest groups,...
6
Huang, Yi-Chen, and 黃怡臻. "The Competition and Cooperation between EU and Russia: The Case of Military Security, Energy Security and Anti-Drug Trafficking." Thesis, 2015. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/5y2n4k.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立中興大學
國際政治研究所
104
Ukraine military crisis outbroke by the end of 2013. EU-Russian relationship became a hot potato of international politics. This paper utilizes Social Constructivism to analyze competition and cooperation between EU and Russia. It is mainly divided into three part, military security, energy security and anti-drug trafficking. After that, possibility of cooperation in three cases would be diagnosed, followed by critical factors which decide the possibility of cooperation or changing status. Through this research, I think that EU-Russian bilateral relationship in military security is a status of complete competition, whereas other areas have a space for cooperation. The factors which decide bilateral relationship are history, culture, geopolitics and national security. Finally, it is proven that national interest and the third party’s intervention are the critical factors for changing bilateral relationship.
7
Lyapina, Elmira. "Ochrana investic v plynárenském sektoru: Perspektivy právních vztahů mezi Evropskou unií a Ruskou federací." Doctoral thesis, 2017. http://www.nusl.cz/ntk/nusl-368008.
Full textAbstract:
The absence of a relevant legal basis between huge commercial partners such as the EU as a single entity and the Russian Federation promoted the emergence of a legal vacuum. The long term cooperation between Russia and the EU has only one bilateral agreement - the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation signed in 1994, which is however obsolete, and does not meet the contemporary needs. The adequate legal basis for Russia-EU cooperation in the gas sector is still missing. The protection of investments in the gas sector is being realized by bilateral agreements between Russia and EU member states, soft law and general international agreements, without any specifications for those two partners. The only international instrument covering the energy relations of these two partners - Energy Charter Treaty cannot be considered as a reliable mechanism, as Russia withdrew from it more than 8 years ago. The reasons of the withdrawal and the Yukos case as an illustrative example are discussed in this paper. In order to avoid uncertainty in such strategic area as gas investment relations and unpredictable decisions between the states represented by the commercial entities, there is a need to design a substantive legal basis, and a need to consider on the adequate dispute resolution body. In this thesis, key...
Book chapters on the topic "EU-Russia energy cooperation"
1
Andrei, Roxana. "Ontological Energy Security: Cognitive and Material Foundations for a Conflict-Cooperation Perpetuum." In Natural Gas at the Frontline Between the EU, Russia, and Turkey, 61–86. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17057-7_3.
Full text
2
Siddi, Marco. "Theorising conflict and cooperation in EU-Russia energy relations: ideas, identities and material factors in the Nord Stream 2 debate." In Cooperation and Conflict between Europe and Russia, 80–99. London: Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003202349-6.
Full text
3
Wetzel, Birgit. "Caucasia and its Geostrategic Importance: Energy poker in Caucasia." In Caucasus, the EU and Russia - Triangular Cooperation?, 121–30. Nomos, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783845257402-121.
Full text
4
Artemenko, Lyubov. "Cooperation Between Ukraine and the EU Towards Innovation-Driven Economic Development." In Analyzing Political Tensions Between Ukraine, Russia, and the EU, 243–69. IGI Global, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2906-5.ch012.
Full textAbstract:
Innovation underpins productivity and lies at the heart of economic growth. Ukraine is far from the technological frontier. Its economy depends on energy-intensive industries, producing low value-added products, and using a relatively cheap labour force. As international cooperation is an important proxy of country's technological catch-up, this chapter aims to study ways of cooperation between Ukraine and the EU towards innovation-driven economic development. The chapter provides analysis of Ukraine's participation in EU 7th Framework programme and HORIZON2020. Special emphasis is assigned to the ability of Ukrainian participants to acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit gained knowledge.
5
"eu-Russia Cooperation on Energy Efficiency: An Unexpected Benefit of Regional Interdependence between Russia and the cee Member States?" In Reviewing European Union Accession, 293–311. Brill | Nijhoff, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004352070_018.
Full text
6
Tomić, Nikola, and Ben Tonra. "16. Defence." In Comparative European Politics, 327–46. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198811404.003.0016.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter takes a comparative state-centric approach to illustrate the core issues of defence in Europe. The chapter reviews the influence of history, size, and geography on defence in Europe. It assesses the external threats facing European countries, including territorial threats from neighbouring countries such as Russia, energy security, and cyber security, and the ways in which these threats are perceived in Europe and in European states. It then shows how states respond to these threats, examining differences between European countries in terms of their strategic culture, defence capabilities, and military alliances. Efforts to build defence cooperation between countries are examined, including NATO and the emergence of common defence policies at the EU level.
7
Gegenheimer, Anneliese, and Charles Michael Gegenheimer. "Harnessing Small Country Collaboration Opportunities to Advance Energy Innovation and Joint Investments." In Sustainable Energy Investment - Technical, Market and Policy Innovations to Address Risk. IntechOpen, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90348.
Full textAbstract:
Greater international collaboration is required to catalyze research and development (R&D) investment flows in energy technologies. Successful deployment of such technologies requires innovative funding mechanisms, intellectual property, and data-driven analyses to make smarter, sustainable investment decisions. As small countries are increasingly dealing with effects of climate change, some are projected to lose large portions of their economy. This chapter discusses ways that smaller countries, both in the developed and developing world, can harness international cooperation to advance energy innovation and mitigate such impact. In contrast to collaboration with larger countries, smaller country collaboration can build more agile, balanced partnerships in which participating countries co-develop and co-own R&D and training, and define pilot programs that target their own needs. Leveraging each other’s strengths, small countries can become catalysts for global change. Smaller country collaboration is explored through a proposed model of collaboration in energy innovation between Singapore and Estonia, often considered gateways to Southeast Asia and the EU plus Russia, respectively. Specifically, Singapore and Estonia have the opportunity to leverage each other’s startup ecosystems, innovation systems, knowledge-based economies, and regional markets to build a niche in clean energy technologies, particularly energy storage innovation, with potential global impact on larger markets.
8
Boute, Anatole. "60 THE GEOPOLITICS OF CLEAN ENERGY: RE-ENGAGING WITH RUSSIA THROUGH RENEWABLE ENERGY COOPERATION." In Delivering Energy Law and Policy in the EU and the US, 317–22. Edinburgh University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9780748696802-064.
Full textConference papers on the topic "EU-Russia energy cooperation"
1
Develi, Abdulkadir, Ahmet Ay, and Zeynep Karaçor. "The Role of Turkey in the Energy Supply of EU: A Cost and Benefits Analysys." In International Conference on Eurasian Economies. Eurasian Economists Association, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.36880/c01.00209.
Full textAbstract:
EU does not have adequate energy resources when it is compared with its grant amount of energy consumption.. Russia is one of the most important traditional suppliers for the EU and is trying to maintain its position in the future. Russia sometimes use energy as political tools as it seen in example of Ukraine Crises. So, diversification of energy resources of EU will provide more competitive energy supply and it strength energy security of EU. Therefore, EU needs to regional cooperation for energy diversification. Caspian region is energy rich region. Therefore Turkey’s strategic location makes it a natural "Energy Bridge" between the major oil producing areas in the Middle East and Caspian Sea. This paper tries to examine costs and benefits analyzing between Turkey and EU aspects of energy cooperation. These costs and benefits analyzing also include projects that are under the construction or still project process. Turkey has some benefits from this process. Because pipelines that provide energy to Europe passes though Turkish boundary and Turkey collect transportation fee from these pipelines and also EU has support these project financially. This is also contains cost for EU.
2
Irina, Akimova. "Managing Russian Mega-Projects Amid Geopolitical Turbulence: Challenges and Opportunities for International Cooperation." In ADIPEC. SPE, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/210866-ms.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Beginning of 2022 was marked by unprecedented geopolitical turbulence between Russia and Ukraine which followed by military conflict and sanctions applied to major Russian companies and projects. Most of the international energy majors announced cutting ties with Russian state-owned and private companies and a number of mega oil and gas projects. Among them BP, Shell, Caterpillar, Eni, Equinor and others. Some mega projects were temporary put on hold but after a very short break continue its development. This conflict made serious pressure on gas prices in Europe and costs for many industrial and domestic consumers in EU. In spite of strained relationships, Russian companies still supply gas to EU according to existing long-term contracts and even were able to increase trade volumes to Asia. As Russia is still main gas supplier to EU and its very unlikely for EU to substitute such volumes in a short-term, so its very important for international gas market security to made assessments of this geopolitical turbulence on the market volatility.
3
Ergül, Osman. "Regionalism in Russian Foreign Policy and Russian Integration Strategy through Eurasian Economic Community." In International Conference on Eurasian Economies. Eurasian Economists Association, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.36880/c03.00560.
Full textAbstract:
This paper aims to analyze how Russia could develop different regional models of economic cooperation in order to integrate better into the world economy. Russia’s new strategy especially after the establishment of the EurAsEC and its perception of regionalism, especially in the context of EurAsEC, is an important issue. This is valid not only for the specific analysis of the current concept of regionalism; but also for identifying the key variables of both the new international order and the changing character of new inter-state relations. With in this context, Russian foreign policies toward former Soviet republics in the areas of economy and energy have significant effects on the formation of a new world order. This article therefore aims at studying the attempts of the integration process within the EurAsEC that can be defined as a unique example combining both the process of old regionalism with the new one. Thus, EurAsEC is also worth analyzing not only for drawing inspiration from the EU; but also for being the only example declaring its ambition in its founding treaty of customs union to become a supranational integration process in the post-Soviet area.
4
Duffey, Romney B., and Hussam Khartabil. "Evolving Innovative Reactor Design: Putting the I Into R&D." In 17th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering. ASMEDC, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/icone17-75811.
Full textAbstract:
This paper traces the development path adopted for the SCWR, including the directions taken for innovative collaboration (R&D+i). In the pre-conceptual design work, instead of taking a fixed concept, the constraints and resulting design targets are defined first. By encouraging innovation, the motivation for the work is not just the size of the R&D funding for a single project, but rather the scale and opportunity of the technology challenge and the potential for attracting grass-roots support at all levels. From the beginning of the Generation IV ideas, the SCWR has taken a somewhat different path from other systems. Learning from the historical lessons of earlier unsuccessful designs of gas-cooled and liquid metal-cooled concepts, the SCWR targets the twin aims of increased efficiency and low cost by leveraging conventional thermal technology while also improving safety and avoiding open-ended development. By working with universities nationally, and other partners internationally, a wider R&D+i activity was possible that was not constrained by any early time-frame demonstration project. As a result, presently a number of unique and creative achievements stand out, where the collaborative SCWR R&D+i partnership is very different from other systems in approach, potential and scope by: a) Providing an open opportunity for some 30 countries to share their development efforts, while representing major global industrial and economic development (the 24 EU nations, plus Canada, Japan, Russia, China, India, Korea and others) without the impediments of any “national” demonstration projects; b) Allowing differing design concepts to flourish, from simple systems to more complex ideas, with process heat and hydrogen production applications emerging naturally, providing flexibility in application and design approach; c) Encouraging extensive educational research opportunities, ideas and contributions outside national laboratories, providing a unique framework for quality assurance that meets the needs of industry, universities and other partners worldwide, as well as a coordinated effort within the Generation IV International Forum and the IAEA cooperative research efforts; d) Examining many innovations (e.g., on alternate thermal cycles, fuel cycles and energy uses) without impacting any specific demonstration, so the testing and research are based largely on new capability development, without committing large funding to design teams with already fixed or unrealizable concepts. This paper describes this new R&D+i concept and its potential directions and results.