EVOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION’S ENERGY
SECURITIZATION PROCESS:
‘ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN DISCOURSES TO THE ENERGY
CRISES OF THE 1973/1979 OIL CRISES AND THE 2006/2009
NATURAL GAS CRISES’
by Sezer ÖZCAN
Dissertation submitted
to the Faculty of Sociology at Bielefeld University
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Dr. phil.)
Disputation date: 04.12.2014
Supervisor 1: Prof. Mathias Albert
Supervisor 2: Dr. Andrey Belyy
Bielefeld, 2014
Berichte aus der Politik
Sezer Özcan
Evolution of the European Union's
Energy Securitization Process
Analysis of the European Discourses to the Energy Crises of the
1973/1979 Oil Crises and the 2006/2009 Natural Gas Crises
Shaker Verlag
Aachen 2015
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at
http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Zugl.: Bielefeld, Univ., Diss., 2014
Copyright Shaker Verlag 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission
of the publishers.
Printed in Germany.
ISBN 978-3-8440-3370-0
ISSN 0948-437X
Shaker Verlag GmbH • P.O. BOX 101818 • D-52018 Aachen
Phone: 0049/2407/9596-0 • Telefax: 0049/2407/9596-9
Internet: www.shaker.de • e-mail: [email protected]
To my beloved wife Mehtap Özcan,
ABSTRACT
Since the 1973 Oil Crisis, the European Union (the European Community in the
1970s) has become one of the actors in the international arena to have faced the obstacles in
respect to the energy issue and has paid more careful consideration to the issue of energy
security. The main reason for this is that the European Union (EU) is unable to meet its own
energy needs, and is becoming increasingly dependent on oil and natural gas resources.
Following the energy crises in the 2000s, European member states have argued that energy is
no longer a question of economics, but rather a matter of politics. Debates on the development
of the European energy policies have become dominated by a discourse of insecurity relating
to the questions of energy dependence and the relations with energy suppliers, repeating the
discussions from the energy crises of the 1970s. In such a context, the primary objective of
this thesis is to give a comprehensive analysis of the securitization process of European
energy policies based on the particular security speech acts of European actors between the
energy crises of the 1970s and those of the 2000s. Through doing so, I will compare these
speech acts to see how securitization played different roles during both periods and thus
analyze the policy initiatives which led to a policy fragmentation, on the one hand, and
Europeanization of the energy policies, on the other hand. This thesis essentially argues that
in contrast to the 1970s’ crises, after the 2000s’ energy crises, the effects of securitization
were positive, which accelerated both the Common Energy Policy (CEP) efforts and the
Europeanization of energy policies within the EU. In accordance with the theoretical and
methodological framework provided by the so-called Copenhagen School (CS) and following
the theory of securitization, I provide a general analysis of the energy securitization process in
the EU. This theory offers a new perspective for the analysis of policy declarations regarding
the security implications of energy. First, I will discuss the implications of this process to
clarify the involved actors, dynamics, and mechanism. Second, I will examine how and to
what extent the issue of energy has been constructed as a securitized issue at the EU level.
Keywords: The Copenhagen School, Securitization, Energy Security, the EU, Energy Crises.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Seit der Ölkrise 1973 entwickelte sich die Europäische Union (die Europäische
Gemeinschaft in den 1970er Jahren) zu einem der Akteure in der internationalen Arena, der
mit den Hindernissen in Bezug auf die Energiefrage konfrontiert wurde, und größere Sorgfalt
auf die Frage der Energiesicherheit legt. Der Hauptgrund dafür ist, dass die Europäische
Union (EU) nicht in der Lage ist, ihren eigenen Energiebedarf zu decken und immer
abhängiger von Öl- und Erdgas-Ressourcen wird. Den Energiekrisen in den 2000er Jahren
folgend, argumentieren die europäischen Mitgliedstaaten, dass die Energie nicht mehr eine
Frage der Ökonomie, sondern vielmehr eine Frage der Politik sei. Debatten über die
Entwicklung der europäischen Energiepolitik werden zunehmend von einem Diskurs der
Unsicherheit dominiert, in dem die Fragen der Energieabhängigkeit und die Beziehungen zu
den Energielieferanten in Bezug gesetzt werden und so an die Diskussionen aus den
Energiekrisen der 1970er Jahre erinnern. Vor diesem Hintergrund analysiert die vorliegende
Arbeit den Versicherheitlichungsprozess der europäischen Energiepolitik basierend auf
bestimmten Sprechakten zur Sicherheit, die die europäischen Akteure zwischen den
Energiekrisen der 1970er Jahre und denen der 2000er Jahre geprägt haben. Einem
komparativen Ansatz folgend, untersuche ich, die Bedeutung von Versicherheitlichung in
beiden Zeiträumen und argumentiere, dass die politischen Initiativen einerseits zu einer
Politik der Fragmentierung und andererseits zu einer Europäisierung der Energiepolitik
geführt haben. Somit macht diese Dissertation im Wesentlichen geltend, dass im Gegensatz
zu den Krisen der 1970er Jahre nach den Energiekrisen der 2000er Jahre der Prozess der
Versicherheitlichung sowohl die Bemühungen um eine gemeinsame Energiepolitik als auch
die Europäisierung der Energiepolitik innerhalb der EU beschleunigte. In Anlehnung an den
theoretischen und methodischen Rahmen der sogenannten Kopenhagener Schule und unter
Berücksichtigung der Theorie der Versicherheitlichung erfolgt in dieser Arbeit eine
allgemeine Analyse des Energieversicherheitlichungsprozesses in der EU. In einem ersten
Schritt werden zunächst die beteiligten
Akteure, Dynamiken
und Mechanismen
herausgearbeitet, um dann in einem zweiten Schritt zu diskutieren, wie und in welchem
Ausmaß Energie als Thema der Versicherheitlichung auf der EU-Ebene konstruiert wurde.
Stichworte: Kopenhagener Schule, Versicherheitlichung, Energieversorgungssicherheit, die
EU, Energiekrisen.
III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a pleasure to thank those who made this thesis possible. Initially, I would like to
express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Mathias Albert, for his kindness,
excellent academic guidance, patience, tolerance and commentary throughout this dissertation
project. He inspired me with his logical thinking of way and encouraging attitude throughout
the whole study. He has been and will be my role model as an academician in my academic
life. I also would like to express my warm gratitude to Dr. Andrey Belyy, who has been my
co-supervisor during this project, for the opportunities of research and study I have been
provided with. I thank to him for his generous recommendations and practical support that
contributed me to increase my academic skills and scientific thinking. Besides, I wish to
express my special thanks to the secretary of the Bielefeld Graduate School in History and
Sociology (BGHS), which funded my research of this thesis, for their support and providing
me the best environment to finish my studies at Bielefeld University. I also warmly thank to
the Centre for Advanced Security Theory (CAST) for providing me resources to do the
necessary research work for six months at Copenhagen University. I wish to express my
special thankfulness to Prof. Ole Waever for his kind support and guidance that have been a
great value of this study.
Moreover, I am also deeply grateful to my affectionate family helping me to complete
this thesis, which would not have been possible to be completed in the absence of their
continuous supports for me. Lastly, I wish to express my love to my beloved wife Mehtap
Özcan for her support of any type and giving me the necessary motivation I need to write this
thesis from the very beginning. I owe her a lot. This study is dedicated to her. Thank you all !
IV
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
2.1 Securitization Process ........................................................................................................ 63
2.2 Levels of Securitization ...................................................................................................... 65
3.1 EU Member States’ 2009 Energy Import Dependence…………………………………..110
3.2 1973 Oil Shock…………………………..………………………………………………122
3.3 1979 Oil Shock…………………………………………………………………………..126
3.4 The 20-20-20 Targets……………………………………………………………………159
Figures
2.1 World Primary Energy Demand by Fuel ............................................................................ 93
2.2 World Marketed Energy Consumption .............................................................................. 94
2.3 World Liquids Fuels Consumption for 2007 and 2035, by region and country group ...... 95
3.1 OECD Europe Gas Production and Conceptual Forecast ................................................ 101
3.2 European Liquids (oil including natural gas liquids, ‘refinery expansion’ and biofuels)
production and consumption .................................................................................................. 105
3.3 The EU’ Gross Inland Energy Consumption by Fuel in 1990 and 2009 ......................... 106
3.4 The EU’s Energy Dependence According to Energy Product ......................................... 107
3.5 Proportion of Russian Gas of the EU’s Gas Consumption in the EU .............................. 108
3.6 Europe’s Energy Consumption Development from 1973 to 2003 ................................... 144
3.7 Russian Gas Supplies to Europe via Ukraine………….………………………………...150
3.8 Proposed Nabucco Gas Pipeline Project……………………………………………...…158
V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AA
Association Agreement
ASEAN
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BP
British Petroleum
Btu
British thermal units
CEEC
Central and Eastern European Countries
CEP
Common Energy Policy
CERA
Cambridge Energy Research Associates
CERM
Coordinate Emergency Response Measures
CFSP
Common Foreign and Security Policy
COPRI
Copenhagen Peace Research Institute
CS
Copenhagen School
CSS
Critical Security Studies
CSS
Constructivist Security Studies
DCFTA
Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area
DG
Directorate-General
ECAP
European Council Action Plan
ECFR
European Council Foreign Relations
ECSC
European Coal and Steel Community
ECT
Energy Charter Treaty
EDF
Électricité de France SA
ENP
European Neighbourhood Policy
ENI
Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi
EPE
Energy Policy for Europe
ESS
European Security Strategy
EP
European Parliament
EC
European Council
EC
European Commission
EC
European Community
EEA
European Environmental Agency
EEC
European Economic Community
EU
European Union
VI
EURATOM
European Atomic Energy Community Treaty
EIA
Energy Information Administration
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
HHI
Herfindahl–Hirschman Index
IEA
International Energy Agency
IEM
Internal Energy Market
IEP
International Energy Program
IR
International Relations
ISS
International Security Studies
IEO
International Energy Outlook
INOGATE
Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas
MSs
Member States
Mtoe
Million Tones
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEP
National Energy Policy
NEP
New Energy Policy
NEPDG
National Energy Policy Development Group
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
NSS
National Security Strategy
OPEC
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
OAPEC
Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries
OECD
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
PCA
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
PLO
Palestine Liberation Organization
SEA
Single European Act
TACIS
Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States
TRACECA
Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia
TSS
Traditional Security Studies
UK
United Kingdom
UN
United Nations
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
USSR
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
US
United States
VII
USA
United States of America
WMD
Weapons of Mass Destruction
WTO
World Trade Organisation
WW2
World War II
VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ................................................................................................................................... I
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... II
Zusammenfassung ....................................................................................................................III
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. IV
List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................................................ VI
List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. VII
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... X
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 20
1.2. Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 27
1.3. Scope and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 32
1.4. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 34
2. The Copenhagen School and the Theory of Securitization........................................... 39
2.1. The Evolution of Security Studies .................................................................................... 41
2.2. The Concept of Security in International Relations……………………………………...48
2.3. The Copenhagen School’s Security Approach ………………………………………….51
2.3.1. The Theory of Securitization ................................................................................ 56
2.3.2. The Securitization Theory’s Building Blocks ...................................................... 65
2.3.2.1. Speech Act ................................................................................................ 66
2.3.2.2. Referent Object ......................................................................................... 67
2.3.2.3. Securitizing Actor..................................................................................... 69
2.3.2.4. Securitizing Move .................................................................................... 70
2.3.2.5. Audience ................................................................................................... 71
2.4. Energy’s Importance in the Global System ....................................................................... 72
2.5. The Concept of Energy Security ...................................................................................... 77
2.6. The Issue of Energy Securitization ................................................................................... 83
3. The Evolution of the Energy Securitization Process in the European Union ............... 91
3.1. The European Union’s Energy Outlook ............................................................................ 94
3.2. The Historical Formation of the Energy Securitization Process in Europe .................... 107
3.2.1. European Energy Policies before the 1973 Oil Crisis ........................................ 108
IX
3.2.2. The 1973 and 1979 Energy Crises Period .......................................................... 116
3.2.3. European Energy Policies after the Energy Crises ............................................. 123
3.2.3.1. The International Energy Agency .......................................................... 125
3.2.3.2. The 1987 Single European Act .............................................................. 127
3.2.3.3. The Energy Charter Treaty ..................................................................... 130
3.2.3.4. The EU–Russian Energy Dialogue ......................................................... 133
3.2.3.5. Integration of the Central and Eastern European Countries ................... 138
3.2.4. The 2006 and 2009 Russian-Ukrainian Gas Crises ............................................ 142
4. European Actors’ Discourses on the Energy Securitization Process .......................... 155
4.1. The European Commission’s Discourses ........................................................................ 156
4.1.1. The Commission’s Official Documents ............................................................. 168
4.1.1.1. Green Paper: For A European Union Energy Policy (1995) .................. 170
4.1.1.2. White Paper: An Energy Policy for the European Union (1995) ........... 172
4.1.1.3. Green Paper: Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy
Supply (2000) ...................................................................................................... 174
4.1.1.4. Green Paper: Energy Efficiency or Doing More with Less (2005) ........ 179
4.1.1.5. Green Paper: A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and
Secure Energy (2006) .......................................................................................... 182
4.2. Other European Actors’ Discourses ................................................................................ 189
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 208
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 221
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................252
Annex 1. Responses from EU States to Gas Supply Cuts in 2009………..………257
X