European Energy Union? Caught between securitisation and ‘riskification’

Abstract

Fears about the security of supplies have been central to debates about the development of an integrated EU energy policy over the past decade, leading to claims that energy has been 'securitised'. Previous analyses have found, however, that although shared security concerns are frequently used as a justification for further integration, then can also serve as a rationale for Member States to resist sharing sovereignty. Transcending this apparent paradox would require not just agreement about whether energy supplies are security concerns, but also agreement about what kind of security concern they are. In this article, we examine whether such an agreement could emerge through a comparative analysis of constructions of gas security in the UK and Poland. Utilising a framework that draws from both the philosophical and sociological wings of Securitisation Studies, we demonstrate that although gas has been elevated on the security agendas of both states, the specific logic of insecurity -securitisation or riskificationunderpinning these constructions differs substantially, and is conditioned by

Expanding actorness to explain EU external engagement in originally internal policy areas

“…In the energy domain, a partial internal market exists that is in the process of being upgraded with the 2015 Energy Union proposal (Batzella 2018a;Judge & Maltby 2017). In the migration and asylum case, and although the 'crisis' may have exposed the flaws of existing EU rules, the Union has a series of legal acts and policies in place that amount to the basic contours of common migration and asylum systems (Emiliani & Linck 2018;Monar 2014).…”

Behind the EU's Energy and Climate Policy Conundrum: Erroneous Power Toolbox, Deadlocks and the Way Forward

“…In particular: EU member states empowered the European Commission to negotiate with gas‐rich Caspian states in terms of building infrastructure and agreeing to supply schemes (Maltby, , p. 440). The European energy security strategy (2014) focuses on gas supply security risks and has prioritized the implementation of no fewer than 27 gas projects. The European Commission (, p. 4) published an energy diplomacy paper, highlighting the EU's prime goal of enhancing gas diversification through central Asia, the east Mediterranean, and trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG). The EU's security strategy paper (2016, p. 22) further stresses the prioritization of gas imports and diversification. The European Commission's () LNG strategy underlined the role of LNG in achieving diversification These moves and documents render crystal clear the focus of the EU on increasing gas supply from external suppliers and on fostering further diversification to ensure that these supplies will be secure. In view of the persistent deadlocks over the previous 25 years on opening up new gas sources and routes of supply, inherent in this policy approach is a securitizing turn and the subsequent securitization of gas (Judge and Maltby, ). As the liberal‐internationalist energy paradigm failed to lead to a functional pan‐European gas market (Kuzemko et al, , pp.…”

“…The European Commission's (2016b) LNG strategy underlined the role of LNG in achieving diversificationThese moves and documents render crystal clear the focus of the EU on increasing gas supply from external suppliers and on fostering further diversification to ensure that these supplies will be secure. In view of the persistent deadlocks over the previous 25 years on opening up new gas sources and routes of supply, inherent in this policy approach is a securitizing turn and the subsequent securitization of gas (Judge and Maltby, 2017). As the liberal-internationalist energy paradigm failed to lead to a functional pan-European gas market (Kuzemko et al, 2015, pp.…”

Grand visions and pragmatic integration: Exploring the evolution of Europe’s electricity regime

“…Initially, scholars found it to be essentially a new iteration of familiar problems and terminology and that rather than a 'political' energy union, the strategy would result in a continuation of the established market approach to European energy integration (Fischer and Geden, 2015) (Dutton, 2015). At a time when Member States continue to be reluctant to share their sovereignty in energy matters (Judge andMaltby, 2017, Thaler, 2016), some commentators still argue that the strategy rather aims at offering incremental improvements to pre-existing European energy policies (Fisher, 2017).…”