Energy Security Logics in Europe

Threat, Risk or Emancipation?

Izabela Surwillo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429759994
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: History

This book analyzes energy security dynamics in Europe through the prism of security logics.

Drawing on the literature on securitization, security logics and security contexts, it scrutinizes energy security debates and policy developments in Germany, Poland and Ukraine, focusing on the pipeline politics, nuclear energy and renewables sector. The contextualized analysis accounts for the wider historical, socio-economic and cultural background from which energy policies emerge and gives a voice to the different stakeholders—from policymakers to the local NGO sector. The book sheds light on the root causes of different energy policy decisions and illustrates that European energy security is currently driven by four security logics—war, subsistence, risk and emancipation. The logic of emancipation is a newly emergent phenomenon embraced by many bottom-up citizens' initiatives and manifested in their drive to self-reliance, the rhetoric of liberation and local practices of energy production. The conceptualization and analysis of the emancipatory logic vis-à-vis other energy security logics help to explain European energy context most effectively—with its background conditions, emerging trends and often controversial national policy approaches.

This book will be of much interest to students of critical security studies, energy policy and European politics in general.

1
Energy security and its logics

Towards contextual analysis

Introduction

This chapter departs from briefly sketching conceptual challenges of energy security analysis and demonstrates how theoretically-oriented security studies provide a useful analytical lens for in-depth research on the practice-oriented energy security field. The Copenhagen School (CS) securitization theory¹ is taken as a starting point for establishing an analytical framework of the book. Since the CS theory constituted a genuine advancement in the discipline, as it sought to account for the mechanism of security issues’ construction, the chapter reviews some critical re-engagement with the framework—in particular those tackling its problematic adherence to the Schmittian logic of security (based on exception and existential threats) and the consequential obstacles with the contextualization of analysis.² The insights derived from these critiques are used to establish a theoretical and analytical approach that is grounded within a wider critical security studies debate on security logics.³ Felix Ciută’s typology of the energy security logics⁴ and Olaf Corry’s classification of the security grammars⁵ in particular are utilized for developing an analytical blueprint for the study of German, Polish and Ukrainian energy security dynamics. Additionally, the chapter operationalizes a broader analytical approach to the study of energy contexts by building on the critiques of the CS framework that call for the inclusion of the “embeddedness” of security mechanisms,⁶ distal context⁷ and “setting” of a securitization⁸ in the analysis. The discussion concludes with outlining the adopted interpretivist methodology and research practice grounded in hermeneutics. It is illustrated how this particular approach allows scrutinizing the multiple actors, meanings, understandings and background conditions that influence the diverse and context-bound conceptualizations of energy security in Europe most effectively.

The challenge of energy security analysis

An overwhelming number of the contemporary energy security definitions might raise doubts whether different actors that invoke the “energy security” label— including the politicians, energy experts, business representatives or NGOs—do not end up talking past each other most of the time. This has not always been the case. The initial conceptualizations of energy security derived largely from the energy studies literature,⁹ and the “security” aspect of energy was often linked to the global market forces determining energy supply trends within the geopolitical context and its mechanisms.¹⁰ Therefore, in line with the realist logic of security that perceives security/insecurity as the outcome of states’ power struggles within the international system, traditional energy security studies saw energy security/insecurity as an outcome of the inescapable market forces.¹¹ Such conceptualizations of energy security linked to the geopolitical power plays were largely appropriated by a narrow circle of analysts working from the limited theoretical perspective.¹²

With time these definitions began to be questioned and the emerging reconceptualizations of energy security aimed at more inclusive definitions that would incorporate new energy sources, more economic indicators and various “qualitative” aspects. First, energy security started to focus on energy sources other than oil, such as biofuels, nuclear energy or renewables; second, not only a wider range of economic indicators was taken into consideration, but many definitions were broadened to encompass various “qualitative” dimensions of energy security (e.g., sustainability) or went beyond purely economic rationale; third, the multiplicity of actors—and consequently meanings—of energy security was gradually acknowledged, which led to the development of more complex analytical frameworks.^13,14 As a consequence, the concept of energy security became rather elusive and started to function as an “umbrella term” for heterogeneous scales, frames and policies.¹⁵ However, whereas the literature on the subject provides over 45 different definitions of energy security,¹⁶ neither the various working definitions and indicators of energy security provided for the broader understanding of this phenomenon, nor the major pieces of legislation¹⁷ answered the conceptual dilemma of “what does energy security mean?”¹⁸ As Valentine put it:

Some analysts have attempted to address the fuzzy nature of energy security by creating aggregate indices that conflate a number of different energy security criteria. Unfortunately, approaching energy security analysis through the application of multiple indicators does not lead to the “broader understanding” that some colleagues purport; rather, adding more indicators to an energy security assessment simply serves to enhance intellectual discord by introducing contentious debate over the weighting of multiple indicators and inveigling academic tantrums over criteria that was unfairly omitted or thoughtlessly added to the assessment. Comprehensive indices or methodologies for measuring energy security merely represent more complex mobilization of ideological bias.¹⁹

These conceptual challenges largely owe to the fact that despite energy security’s high policy standing, its definitions are appropriated by multiple different actors, who exhibit strong discrepancy in basic beliefs and attitudes towards it. Such differences between energy consumers and energy experts, as well as between energy “thinkers” (e.g., university experts and civil society stakeholders) and energy “doers” (e.g., businesspersons and government officials), have been highlighted by a number of studies.²⁰ Simultaneously, neither the expert community has a monopoly on defining energy security vis-à-vis other societal actors nor are the current energy systems solely in the hands of nation states or energy companies. On the contrary, attaching the tangible aspect of “energy” (resources, supply and use) to “security” (dimensions and practices) means that both the broadening moves (incorporation of various “new” dimensions to energy security definitions) and the deepening moves (from states and large energy companies to energy cooperatives and individual consumers) lead to the continuous reformulations of the energy security concept in the “liminal” sphere between its theory, policy and practice.²¹ Consequently, as Ciută argued, energy security dynamics is “marked by such a diversity of uses and understandings that it poses a difficulty of establishing any categorical or political boundaries to delineate it.”²² Therefore, energy studies incorporate diverse dimensions of energy security that already function within the mainstream policy approaches to their definitions, while the policymakers focus on establishing viable working frameworks for the purpose of domestic energy policies. Both strategies are sound given the respective orientations of the two fields. However, neither the application of the existing conceptualizations of energy security in the literature nor the analysis of the mainstream policy agendas can explain the nuanced energy security dynamics in different European states. There is no one-fits-all framework to be successfully applied to the empirical study of energy security, and adopting the mainstream methodological perspective that rarely includes qualitative data that would give more consideration to the multiplicity of local actors, agendas and perspectives is equally ill-suited for this task.²³ In this sense, Valentine’ s critique regarding the ongoing disputes over the adequacy of the indicators to be included in the energy security definitions highlights the fact that the latter cannot be accurate unless they are sufficiently contextualized. And paying sufficient attention to contexts in which energy policies are shaped is a challenging task indeed. Combining such multifaceted notions as “energy” and “security” by multiple stakeholders in relation to different energy sources (fossil fuels, renewables or nuclear) is likely to result in a matrix of competing policy approaches and security rationales. Such approaches are heavily influenced not only by the economic concerns about the security of energy supply at affordable prices, but also by the more or less obvious political, societal, historical and cultural factors. Since energy security is a “total” field as it influences and permeates all sectors of human activity,²⁴ the reasoning behind it is also highly contextual and reflects wider security considerations of different stakeholders— together with their preferred solutions for attaining energy security in a given setting. Yet, if analyzing such root factors of energy security conceptualizations is understandably not in line with the traditional energy studies or mainstream policy analysis, this book proposes to do precisely that. It utilizes analytical tools derived from its critical engagement with the literature on securitization, security contexts and security logics and applies it to the in-depth study of German, Polish and Ukrainian energy security.

Turning into critical security studies for the analysis of a “hard” security issue such as energy might seem counterintuitive at first. Yet, the theoretical insights developed in the discipline’s own search for the broader approach to security analysis pr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Energy security and its logics: towards contextual analysis
• 2 Germany: towards a new energy security paradigm
• 3 Poland: energy and society at the crossroads
• 4 Ukraine: energy policy within geopolitical constraints
• 5 The energy security logics in Europe revisited
• Index