Energy diplomacy from the perspective of different international relations theories

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Energy diplomacy from the perspective

of different international relations theories

Zeynalova Shabnam,

candidate of political sciences, teacher, Azerbaijani

University of Tourism and Management, Azerbaijan, Baku

The rising energy demands due to the acceleration of the globalization process increase the importance of the energy factor in international relations. Energy diplomacy, as one of the directions of modern diplomacy and researchers tend to develop its conceptual foundations and mechanisms of implementation.

It can be assumed that these debates are linked to the contradictory and diverse nature of energy policy as a whole: it intersects various areas, including political, economic, technological, and environmental.

The article explains mission and significance of the phenomenon of “energy diplomacy” from the per-spectives of leading schools of international relations theory and examines the historical factors influencing its development. The author analyzes the phenomenon of “energy diplomacy” from the perspectives of lead-ing schools of international relations theory, as well as understand its contemporary interpretation and the key characteristics of its content.

Keywords: energy diplomacy, international relations theory, diplomacy, traditional approaches, con-temporary approaches.

ЕНЕРГЕТИЧНА ДИПЛОМАТІЯ З ТОЧКИ ЗОРУ РІЗНИХ ТЕОРІЙ МІЖНАРОДНИХ ВІДНОСИН

Зейналова Шабнам,

кандидатка політичних наук, викладач, Азербайджанський університет туризму та менеджменту, Азербайджан, Баку

Зростаючі потреби в енергії внаслідок прискорення процесу глобалізації збільшують значення енергетичного чинника в міжнародних відносинах. Енергетична дипломатія, як один із напрямків су-часної дипломатії, дослідники прагнуть розробити її концептуальні основи та механізми реалізації.Можна припустити, що ці дискусії пов'язані з суперечливою та різноманітною природою енергетичної політики в цілому: вона перетинає різні сфери, зокрема політичну, економічну, технологічну та екологічну.

У статті пояснюється місія та значення феномену «енергетичної дипломатії» з позицій провідних шкіл теорії міжнародних відносин та досліджуються історичні фактори, що впливають на її розвиток. Автор аналізує феномен «енергетичної дипломатії» з точки зору провідних шкіл теорії міжнародних відносин, а також розбирається в його сучасному трактуванні та основних харак-теристиках його змісту.

Ключові слова: енергетична дипломатія, теорія міжнародних відносин, дипломатія, традиційні підходи, сучасні підходи.

In contemporary political science, there are numerous approaches to interpreting the term “diplomacy,” ranging from a strict limitation of the concept to the activities of professional diplomats to the factual identification of the terms “diplomacy” and “foreign policy.” One approach implies that diplomacy is a negotiating process between sovereign participants in international relations, often between two states. Conversely, another approach interprets the field of diplomatic activity as a process of interaction not only between sovereign states but also among international governmental and non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations, political alliances, and even charitable organizations. Additionally, the term is understood as a bureaucratic mechanism to facilitate international cooperation through embassies, consulates and representations of foreign affairs ministries abroad.

Energy diplomacy, as one of the branches of contemporary diplomacy, despite its relatively short existence, has already sparked numerous discussions among politicians and researchers who seek to develop its conceptual foundations and implementation mechanisms. It can be assumed that these debates stem from the contradictory and diverse nature of energy policy as a whole: it intersects with various domains, including political, economic, technological and environmental. Consequently, the issues and conflicts that energy diplomacy aims to address encompass all these factors.

Traditionally economic interests have been one of the main driving forces behind the development of international relations among states. The establishment of trade routes, the search for new sources of raw materials and markets played crucial role in foreign affairs alongside issues of war and peace. They served as diplomatic instruments to strengthen states and simultaneously as a way to establish stable and long-term relations.

This direction in diplomatic practice, prioritizing commercial interests and peaceful resolution of disputes to preserve profits, was characterized by the British historian, writer, and one of the leading specialists in the theory of diplomacy, G. Nicholson, as the “shopkeeper's theory” or “merchant theory.” In contrast to the “heroic theory” based on the use of force to protect the interests of the state and enhance its prestige, the “shopkeeper's theory” assumes that external relations are primarily a “helper to trade” and a guarantee of stable and progressive development in conditions of establishing fair partnership relations with states on the international stage. Nicholson focuses on British diplomacy as a model of the great diplomatic theory, the “mercantile or shopkeeper” view of diplomacy as an aid to peaceful commerce among individuals and nations. This approach emphasizes “profit politics” instead of power politics. American diplomacy has always encompassed both warrior and mercantile currents of diplomacy, alternating or combining them in dealing with the world.

The energy factor, constituting one of the main directions of economic diplomacy, firmly entered the political and diplomatic discourse during the Industrial Revolution. Coal became a key resource for increasing the economic potential of a state, and the national reserves, accessibility of deposits and the possibility of development varied significantly. This, in turn, created the need to establish reliable channels for the supply and sale of fuel.

According to several researchers, the first step towards formalizing the energy sector into the global system and as a result, highlighting the energy direction in foreign policy as a substantial aspect was the formation, with the support of national governments in the 1930s, of the AngloSaxon cartel known as the “Seven Sisters.”

The emergence of energy dependence and the Western countries' desire to ensure secure and stable fuel supplies necessitated the creation of a platform for the coordinated measures in the field of energy security. This platform aimed to counterbalance the cartel of oil-exporting countries dominated by OPEC, which was prevalent in the global market at that time. The institutional embodiment of this initiative was the establishment of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 1974. The IEA was designed to protect the interests of countries whose economies depended on the import of energy resources, subsequently leading to the creation of a collective energy security system.

The cornerstone of this system became the mechanism for redistributing energy resources in case of unforeseen fuel supply disruptions, coordinating energy policies among member countries of the organization, promoting the development of alternative energy sources and fostering free markets.

The established system was built on the antagonism between energy-importing and energy-ex-porting countries, operating both unilaterally and bilaterally, as well as through the coordination of steps and measures within international organizations. A characteristic feature of this system was the active participation of not only sovereign states but also international energy organizations and non-state actors, primarily represented by oil-producing companies and corporations that still controlled the majority of global fossil fuel reserves. energy diplomacy international relations theory

The increasing role of the energy factor in both external and internal state policies, along with the institutional structuring of the industry on a global level, coincided with a parallel process of transforming the international relations and diplomacy system. This transformation is understood as the “aggregate of governmental and nongovernmental institutions, non-coercive instruments, and means used by a nation to protect its interests in international relations, participate in regional and global integration processes.”

This process resulted in the weakening of the role of individual nation-states as sole actors in the international relations system and, consequently, led to the formation of a “transnational environment of global interaction.” The pioneers of transnationalism theory, such as G. Nye Jr. and R. Keohane, defined it as the “movement of material and non-material objects across state borders, where at least one of the participating actors is not a state or a member of an intergovernmental organization.” Such changes primarily led to an expansion of the range of diplomatic actors, as well as the instruments and means used to achieve goals and tasks dictated by the interests of states on the international stage.

A reevaluation of the foundations of the phenomenon of diplomacy and the activities of diplomats on the global stage took place in the second half of the 20th century. The increasing openness of information, along with new technologies in communication and transportation, allowed other government agencies, in addition to the foreign ministries, to engage in foreign policy matters. This led to a noticeable increase in the number of diplomatic actors and the emergence of specialized areas of diplomacy, such as energy diplomacy. New trends, such as environmental protection issues and regional security, including energy security, also introduced new considerations into the agendas of bilateral and multilateral meetings.

In the second half of the 20th century, a relatively new type of diplomacy emerged, primarily characterized by a multilateral nature and developed within the framework of international orga-nizations and conferences. The expansion of diplomatic agendas also led to the rise of specialized branches like energy diplomacy. The mission and significance of “diplomacy,” including “energy diplomacy,” are commonly characterized through the lens of three leading paradigms within the field of international relations theory: radicalism, realism, and rationalism. The foundation for the development of diplomatic theory is laid by the memoirs of diplomats, monographs by prominent statesmen, and reflections of scholars on the instruments of interaction among actors on the international stage. Among the leading researchers in diplomatic theory, notable figures include N. Machiavelli, F Callieres, G. Nicholson, H. Kissinger, P. Sharp and B. Steiner. Each of these statesmen and scholars approached diplomatic theory from the perspective of one of the leading schools of international relations theory, thereby integrating diplomatic theory into the paradigmatic structure of international relations.

However, it is acknowledged that diplomatic theory, within any of the three leading schools of international relations theory, is incapable of providing a comprehensive picture of diplomacy as a global phenomenon. each paradigm offers its own vision of how diplomacy should be studied and what kind of actions can be expected from representatives of the diplomatic profession in various situations.

There are several approaches to understanding the phenomenon of “diplomacy,” among which three fundamental ones should be highlighted. Advocates of the first approach, such as J. Wood and J. Serres, authors of the study “Diplomatic Ceremonies and Protocol: Principles, Procedures, and Practices,” view diplomacy as a relatively narrow and purely professional sphere of activity. In this perspective, attempts are made to define the “correct” forms of behavior for diplomats in their relations with each other and with the officials of the country to which they are accredited.

Researchers following the second approach isolate diplomacy as part of international relations. In other words, the applied role of diplomacy in the development of international relations between states and other actors is studied. The third approach considers what diplomats themselves can say about their activities and about international relations in general. Autobiographies, diaries, and historical works describe the activities of diplomats but do not theorize about them.

As mentioned earlier, the traditional approaches to studying diplomacy include the rationalist, radical, and realist paradigms. The radical tradition perceives diplomacy, including energy diplomacy, as breaking established traditions and transforming old international processes into more progressive ones. The result of this process is a complete or partial change in the structure of the world order. To partially change the world energy structure, several prerequisites are needed, including a clear understanding of the future structure, a desire for change, and the ability to convince everyone around of the inevitability and usefulness of the proposed option. In the history of international relations, such a break has already occurred through energy diplomacy, resulting in the formation of a new intergovernmental structure OPEC, which proposed a new way to address old problems.

At the same time, the creation of OPEC subsequently led to the consolidation of the interests of energy resource-importing countries through the establishment of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November 1974. The emerging system of international energy security was led by the United States and aimed at creating a system of uninterrupted energy supply, establishing free and open markets, maintaining balanced prices, developing alternative energy sources, and contributing to “sustainable economic development... of peoples and the protection of the environment.”

From the perspective of the realist paradigm, energy diplomacy is an integral part of a state's foreign policy built on the concepts of power, strength, and national interest. The significance of diplomats in the dialogue between countries depends not on their personal characteristics but on the weight of the country they represent on the international stage. Diplomats' activities are strictly aimed at achieving specific goals embedded in the overall framework of the state's foreign policy. To achieve set tasks, diplomats are sometimes willing to resort to morally questionable instruments, including pressure tactics. In the first half of the 20th century, Western countries can be confidently said to have employed coercive methods of the realist approach in energy diplomacy.

The realist approach views energy diplomacy as an open system subject to external influences, focused on competition to achieve goals in a competitive struggle. The uniqueness of the realist ap-proach in studying energy diplomacy lies in the recognition that diplomacy is the only channel for transmitting information between states, which is a rarity in the modern world and is practically inherent only to energy states in the Middle East.

At the core of the rationalist approach to energy diplomacy lies the a priori rationality of actors, where reason is identical to the pursuit of peaceful resolution of disputes and the search for adequate responses to challenges. Based on the theory of comparative advantage, the development of the negotiating process in energy diplomacy will follow the path that is beneficial to the majority of negotiating participants.

In the rationalist approach, diplomats operate in the same terms of power; however, to optimize the negotiating process and seek benefits for all, the debatable issue is complemented by economics and culture, providing room for maneuver. The rationalist approach in diplomacy rejects zero-sum games. Diplomats advocate for limiting the sphere of “interests” and humanism to conduct effective policies, making it uncharacteristic for them to support a rigid and assertive national policy of their country.

In the rationalist tradition, energy diplomacy represents an incremental process where actors are guided by their rational goals and norms based on morality and international law. An ideal open system of energy diplomacy in this tradition does not exclude the presence of non-systemic crises and the need to respond to these internal and external crises. However, non-systemic crises do not lead to a change in the behavior of participants in energy diplomacy towards adapting to external circumstances. Through analyzing the situation and seeking the maximum acceptable alternatives, states understand the system in its diversity and strive to achieve collective benefit.

The process of the formation of European energy diplomacy also appeared as a sequence of rational steps. Its beginning can be traced back to May 9, 1950, when Robert Schuman, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, proposed the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to prevent future conflicts and competition for energy resources in Europe. At that time, Schuman's proposal to establish the ECSC, which united the coal of the Rhine basin, previously considered an arena of Franco-German confrontation leading to two world wars, was revolutionary for Europe, yet it did not diminish the rationality of this step for the foreign policy and diplomacy of European countries.

Freedom of action and its diversification lead to the creation of a rational system with a common set of rules and institutions within which participants in energy diplomacy can operate.

Despite some researchers expressing doubts about the relevance of traditional diplomacy of nation-states, the contemporary stage witnesses the emergence of new forms of diplomatic activity. These activities extend beyond the functions of consulates and embassies, covering a wide spectrum of societal relations, ranging from interstate negotiations to everyday matters. The international arena is experiencing the complication of issues and the emergence of new sources of tension, prompting a flourishing of diplomatic activities and substantial transformations in the field. Some scholars argue that the diversity of diplomatic participants and communication channels will enhance the effectiveness of diplomacy.

In his work “The Future of Diplomacy,” the leading theorist of political realism, H. Morgenthau, defines diplomacy as an element of a state's national power, whose primary function is the preservation of peace and the achievement of national interests through exclusively non-military means. Within the diplomatic theory developed by Morgenthau in 1972, the concept of “intelligent diplomacy” is introduced. This can be described as diplomacy conducted with the aim of maintaining peace, involving a correct and precise assessment of one's own strengths and those of the adversary. It utilizes a combination of persuasion, compromise, and the threat of force.

H. Morgenthau defines the beginning of the transformation of energy diplomacy from the classical form, conducted within the realist paradigm with a focus on power, to a new integrative form emerging within the development of a collective security system and the establishment of various supranational energy structures at the dawn of the atomic age. The speech by U.S. President D.D. Eisenhower, “Atoms for Peace,” delivered at the United Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1953, contributed to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The method of coordinating foreign policy positions through compromise, the rational use of a state's power to address issues, and a pragmatic approach to defining one's position in international negotiations have long been employed by diplomats from Northern European countries operating in the energy sector. The neutral stance adopted by Northern European countries for over a century minimizes conflicts and allows them to assert their positions even within larger alliances.

The institutional approach is based on understanding diplomacy as a specific set of rules, re-quirements, norms of human behavior, principles, and organizational models governing behavior in interstate relations. These can have a formal or informal nature, limiting and structuring relationships between people and influencing energy processes.

H. Morgenthau defines the beginning of the transformation of energy diplomacy from the classical form, conducted within the realist paradigm with a focus on power, to a new integrative form emerging within the development of a collective security system and the establishment of various supranational energy structures at the dawn of the atomic age. The speech by U.S. President D.D. Eisenhower, “Atoms for Peace,” delivered at the United Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1953, contributed to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In his work “The Dynamics of Diplomacy,” Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux describes the institutional structure of diplomacy, emphasizing its most vivid manifestation in international organizations. In these organizations, negotiation techniques, goal achievement strategies, and modes of interaction range from purely formal to informal. The institutionalization of the organizational space is a subject of negotiations between countries, and the outcome largely depends on the international climate and the willingness of states to collaborate towards their ultimate goal. One should not overlook leadership potential, political insight, creative approaches, and other factors that can influence the negotiation process.The energy diplomacy of the European Union serves as an example of the institutionalization of organizational space.

The constructivist approach offers an intriguing perspective in the study of energy diplomacy. Its main postulate asserts that a state's interests, including those related to energy diplomacy, are largely constructed by social structures and closely intertwined with identity. Therefore, energy diplomacy is considered a product of the beliefs and will of decision-makers. The agenda in the energy sector on the international stage is shaped not by the strength and power of states but by the norms and beliefs of political leaders in power. This perspective emphasizes the idea that the interests and priorities in energy diplomacy are socially constructed and influenced by the values and beliefs of those in political leadership positions.

The concept of energy diplomacy as an independent direction in the foreign policy activities of a sovereign state at the intersection of politics and economics entered scholarly and professional discourse in the 1970s. This was driven by increased attention from the global community and political elites to the issue of energy security. Energy security became a priority in state policies and global challenges due to disruptions in the energy resource market caused by unforeseen increases in oil prices and reductions in supply and production volumes.

It became evident that uninterrupted access to sources of energy is not only crucial for economic development but also a guarantee of the social stability of a state. This recognition elevated energy security to a prominent position among the priorities of state policies and global issues facing the international community.

The key principle of energy diplomacy is the thesis formulated by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, almost a century ago, emphasizing the necessity of diversifying the import and export of energy carriers. Expanding channels of distribution and supply directly contributes to reducing the risk of disruptions in hydrocarbon supply by increasing the number of participants in the “producer-transitconsumer” chain. This serves the interests of both importers and exporters of fossil fuels, for whom stable markets are a priority.

The goal of energy diplomacy, therefore, is to establish a global energy security system based on the rational use of traditional energy resources in light of their limitations and the gradual increase in the share of alternative energy sources in the energy balance of countries. This, in turn, will help reduce states' energy dependence on natural gas and oil while decreasing the environmental impact caused by the oil, gas, and coal industries.

In addition to this, another equally significant principle is the intensification of interstate co-operation in the global energy market in aspects such as exchanging reliable information about the state of national industries, sharing intelligence data on presumed reserves of fossil fuels, exchanging technologies, and collaborating in the field of investment.

References

1. Brzezinski Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and first Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books; New York.

2. Buzan B., Waever O. (1998). Wilder J. Security: a new framework for analysis, Lynne Riuenner, London. 239 p.

3. Buzan B., Waever O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press. 594 p.

4. Christie E. H. (2009). The Battle of Nord Stream // Baltic Rim Economies. № 2. P. 15-21.

5. (1998). Comprehensive National Energy Strategy. Wash.

6. (22 June 1998). Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

7. (1998). Energy Policies of IEA Countries 1998 Review. Paris.

8. (2004). Energy Security: Managing Risk in a Dynamic Legal and Regulatory Environment. / eds. Barton B., Redgwell C., Ronne A., Zillman D. 1st edition, Oxford University Press. 506 p.

9. Haighighi S. (2007). Security: The External Legal Relations of the European Union with Major Oil and Gas Supplying Countries (Modern Studies in European Law. Hart Publishing. 510 p.

10. Rogers J., Udalov D. (1994). European Security Policy Paper / Berlin, 2006, 70 p.

11. Scott R. Origins and Structure of IEA. Vol. 1. Paris.

12. Sedra A. F. (1998). The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries: A Study of its Or-ganization, Policies and Legal Significance: PhD Thesis. The University of Hull Law School, p. 359-363.

13. (1998). The Role of IEA Governments in Energy. Paris, 1992, p. 294; Comprehensive National Energy Strategy. Wash.

14. World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency. Available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook. org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/ weo2008.pdf

15. Wyzan M. (1999). Oil and Gas no Panacea for Caspian Countries' Economic Woes. // RFE/RL Research Service. vol. 3, No. 1, part I.

16. Robert J., Georg S. (2013). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches 5th Edition Oxford University Press.

17. Aron R. (1967). What is the theory of IR? Columbia University Press.

18. Dunne T, Kurki M., Smith S. (eds) (2013). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru