Suchergebnisse

Russland nutzt seine Energieressourcen zu geopolitischen Zwecken. Gazprom ist pro forma ein unabhängiges Unternehmen, de facto aber Mittel zu Zwecken, die der Kreml vorgibt. So werden etwa die Gaspreise für die Nachbarstaaten in Abhängigkeit von der politischen Nähe der jeweiligen Führung zum Kreml festgelegt, und es zeigt sich auch in der Krise zwischen Russland und der Ukraine. Auf dem europäischen Energiemarkt ist die Abhängigkeit von Gas aus Russland aufgrund der Leitungsgebundenheit ein besonders sensibler Aspekt der Energiesicherheit. Die EU wäre gut beraten, für ihre Energiepolitik nach Alternativen zu suchen. (Osteuropa (Berlin) / SWP)

During an intense period of only 14 months, from June 2010 to August 2011, six major cooperation agreements between oil companies were announced in Russia. Almost all of these partnerships involved offshore projects, with an international oil company as one of the partners and Rosneft as the other. The agreements were concentrated along Russia's Arctic petroleum frontier, and the three that survived the longest involved oil or gas extraction in the Arctic. This article analyses and compares the contents and contexts of the agreements, to ascertain what they have to tell about access for international companies to Russia's offshore petroleum resources and the influence of competing Russian political actors over the country's petroleum sector. The article argues that the new partnerships did represent an intention to open up the Russian continental shelf, and that the agreements were driven and shaped by a series of needs: to secure foreign capital and competence, to reduce exploration risk, to lobby for a better tax framework, to show the government that necessary action was being taken to launch exploration activities, to improve Rosneft's image abroad, and either to avert or prepare for future privatisation of state companies such as Rosneft.

- ; This report presents the main findings of the research project conducted between 2013 and 2016 by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), with support from the Institute for Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ISP PAN). It also maps the project's achievements, examines its policy relevance and identifies various knowledge gaps revealed during the study that should be addressed by new research. The GoodGov project has revealed important governance-related differences between Poland and Norway. These result from the interaction of various internal and external factors, including historical experience and path dependence, geographical location and the challenges it poses, various types of resources and access to them, institutional solutions and membership in various international organisations and frameworks. The latter, such as the EU and the EEA, are of special note as they set their own governance-related priorities, rules and solutions that have both a direct and indirect bearing on national governance in Poland and Norway. Based on the analysis of available data, this research project found that the governance system in Norway is perceived as more efficient than in Poland. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this may also be linked to the application of domestic learning mechanisms in Norway, where review of governance and learning play an important role and the apparent lack of such mechanisms in Poland. Since Norway ranks systematically higher than Poland in all six key categories assessed within the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, one could expect the transfer of governance-related knowledge between Norway and Poland to be a possible means of improving governance in Poland, including in the three fields in focus in this study—security, energy and migration. However, the potential for governance learning seems to be hampered by structural differences between Norway and Poland, by the fact that Poland and Norway are in different categories in at least two of the examined fields (energy and migration), and because Norway has decided to remain outside of the EU while Poland is a fully-fledged member. What complicates the picture even more is that the experimentalist approach to governance learning works better in some fields, such as energy and migration, and is much less present and efficient in other governance fields, such as security. Another factor limiting governance transfer is a visible preference for the application of hierarchical, international means of learning instead of nonhierarchical transnational learning practices among professional equals, which is considered to be far more efficient. All the governance-related challenges and differences notwithstanding, Poland and Norway should seek to closely work together for the sake of governance-related improvements.

- ; This report presents the main findings of the research project conducted between 2013 and 2016 by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), with support from the Institute for Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ISP PAN). It also maps the project’s achievements, examines its policy relevance and identifies various knowledge gaps revealed during the study that should be addressed by new research. The GoodGov project has revealed important governance-related differences between Poland and Norway. These result from the interaction of various internal and external factors, including historical experience and path dependence, geographical location and the challenges it poses, various types of resources and access to them, institutional solutions and membership in various international organisations and frameworks. The latter, such as the EU and the EEA, are of special note as they set their own governance-related priorities, rules and solutions that have both a direct and indirect bearing on national governance in Poland and Norway. Based on the analysis of available data, this research project found that the governance system in Norway is perceived as more efficient than in Poland. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this may also be linked to the application of domestic learning mechanisms in Norway, where review of governance and learning play an important role and the apparent lack of such mechanisms in Poland. Since Norway ranks systematically higher than Poland in all six key categories assessed within the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, one could expect the transfer of governance-related knowledge between Norway and Poland to be a possible means of improving governance in Poland, including in the three fields in focus in this study—security, energy and migration. However, the potential for governance learning seems to be hampered by structural differences between Norway and Poland, by the fact that Poland and Norway are in different categories in at least two of the examined fields (energy and migration), and because Norway has decided to remain outside of the EU while Poland is a fully-fledged member. What complicates the picture even more is that the experimentalist approach to governance learning works better in some fields, such as energy and migration, and is much less present and efficient in other governance fields, such as security. Another factor limiting governance transfer is a visible preference for the application of hierarchical, international means of learning instead of nonhierarchical transnational learning practices among professional equals, which is considered to be far more efficient. All the governance-related challenges and differences notwithstanding, Poland and Norway should seek to closely work together for the sake of governance-related improvements.

Fermann, G.: Dynamic frontiers of energy security. - S. 9-35 ... Andersen, S. S.; Sitter, N.: The European Union gas market : differentiated integration and fuzzy liberalization. - S. 63-84 Austvik, O. G.: EU natural gas market liberalization and long-term security-of-supply and demand. - S. 85-118 ... ... Godzimirski, J. M.: Energy security and the politics of identity. - S. 173-205 ... Tonnesson, S.: Energy security and climate change : the potential role of China and India. - S. 237-270 Ramm, H. H.: The demise of the Norwegian diversity paradigm : innovation vs. internationalization in the petroleum industry. - S. 271-335 Moe, E.: All about oil and gas, or a window of opportunity for the renewables industry? : Vested interests and Norwegian energy policy-making. - S. 337-364

1. Introduction : NATO after the Warsaw Summit / Karsten Friis -- 2. NATO's responses to Russian belligerence : an overview / Jeffrey A. Larsen -- 3. Can NATO's new very high readiness joint task force deter? / Jens Ringsmose and Sten Rynning -- 4. Modern deterrence? NATO's enhanced forward presence on the eastern flank / Robin Allers -- 5. More teeth for the NATO-tiger : how the framework nations concept can reduce NATO's growing formation-capability gap / Claudia Major and Christian Molling -- 6. NATO nuclear adaptation at the Warsaw Summit / Jacek Durkalec -- 7. Divided by geography? NATO's internal debate about the eastern and southern flanks / Patrick Keller -- 8. NATO and Russia : spiral of distrust / Julie Wilhelmsen and Jakub Godzimirski -- 9. Sweden and Finland : to be or not to be NATO members / Ann-Sofie Dahl -- 10. Rethinking strategy : NATO and the Warsaw Summit / Christopher Coker -- 11. Conclusions : looking towards Brussels 2017 and Istanbul 2018 / Karsten Friis.