Suchergebnisse

Baigiamajame magistro darbe analizuojamas projekto "Nord Stream 2" įgyvendinimas ES-Rusijos užsienio ir energetikos politikos kontekste. Tyrimo objektas - ES-Rusijos užsienio ir energetikos politikos perspektyvos. Tyrimo tikslas - išanalizuoti ES-Rusijos bendradarbiavimo energetikos srityje ir projekto "Nord Stream 2" įgyvendinimo problematiką. Tikslui pasiekti iškelti šie uždaviniai: palyginti neoklasikinio realizmo ir liberaliojo tarpvyriausybiškumo teorines kryptis, aiškinančias ES ir Rusijos užsienio ir energetikos politikos perspektyvas bei prielaidas energetinio bendradarbiavimo vystymui; įvertinti bendrosios ES energetikos politikos kontekstą: vystymosi etapus, institucijų ir valstybių narių vaidmenį; paaiškinti, kokią įtaką ES bendroji energetikos politika turi energetiniam bendradarbiavimui su Rusija ir kitomis ne ES valstybėmis; išnagrinėti projekto "Nord Stream 2" įgyvendinimą, atsižvelgiant į teisinius, politinius ir ekonominius aspektus; išanalizuoti ir palyginti ES ir trečiųjų valstybių požiūrį į NS2 įgyvendinimą, įvertinti galimas priežastis, dėl kurių susiformavo atitinkama pozicija. Tyrimo eigoje naudoti šie metodai: mokslinės literatūros analizė, atvejo studija, dokumentų analizė, antrinė statistinių duomenų analizė, lyginamoji analizė ir interviu metodas. Atlikus tyrimą prieita prie išvadų, kuriomis remiantis galima teigti, kad Rusijos atveju energetinis bendradarbiavimas yra paremtas valstybės interesu ir geopolitiniais siekiais, o ES atveju – ekonominiais tikslais. Šiame kontekste abi pusės yra linkę kliautis pragmatinėmis nuostatomis. ES pasižymi ypač didele gamtinių dujų importo iš Rusijos priklausomybe, kurią projekto NS2 įgyvendinimas tik dar labiau sustiprintų. Dėl šios priežasties projekto kritikai pabrėžia politinį ir saugumo kontekstą, taip pat, NS2 nesuderinamumą su ES teise ir strateginiais ES energetikos tikslais. Projekto šalininkai pabrėžia ekonominę naudą, kuri NS2 įgyvendinimo kontekste yra linkusi nusverti daugelį kitų argumentų. Įgyvendinant projektą išryškėja 4 pagrindiniai veikėjai ir jų grupės: NS2 iniciatorės - Vokietija ir Rusija, projektą palaikančios ES šalys, NS2 kritikuojančios ES valstybės ir JAV. Pastebėta, kad ES šalys, turinčios kitų alternatyvų rusiškoms dujoms, NS2 vertina neutraliai arba priešiškai, o Vokietijos suinteresuotumas projekto įgyvendinimu remiasi dideliu priklausomumu nuo gamtinių dujų tiekimo iš Rusijos ir svarių alternatyvų neturėjimu. ; The final Master's theses presents the analysis of implementation of the "Nord Stream 2" project in the context of EU-Russia foreign and energy policies. Object - prospects of the EU-Russia foreign and energy policy. Aim of the study is to analyze issues regarding EU-Russia energy cooperation and implementation of "Nord Stream 2" under certain circumstances. Research tasks are defined as following: to compare theories of neoclassical realism and liberal intergovernmentalism, explaining the perspectives of EU-Russia foreign and energy policy and the preconditions for energy cooperation; to assess the context of the EU's common energy policy: stages of development, role of the institutions and EU member states; to explain the impact of the EU's common energy policy on energy cooperation with Russia and other non-EU countries; to examine the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project, taking into account legal, political and economic aspects; to analyze and compare attitudes of the EU and other countries towards the implementation of the NS2, in order to assess possible reasons for the respective position. The following methods have been chosen: scientific literature analysis, case study, document analysis, secondary statistic data analysis, comparative analysis and interview method. The study came to conclusion that Russia perceives energy cooperation as based on the state interest and geopolitical goals while the EU emphasizes economic objectives. In this context, both sides tend to rely on pragmatic attitudes. The EU is particularly dependent on natural gas imports from Russia and this dependence would increase after implementation of the NS2. For this reason, critics of the project emphasize political and security issues as well as incompatibility of the NS2 with the EU law and strategic energy objectives. Proponents of the project emphasize economic benefits, which in the context of implementing NS2 usually outweigh many other arguments. The case of NS2 highlights 4 main actors and their groups: initiators of the project (Germany and Russia), EU countries supporting the project, EU countries criticizing NS2 and the USA. It has been noted that EU countries having other alternatives to Russian gas declares neutral or adverse position towards NS2, while Germany's interest in successful completion of the project is based on its high dependence on natural gas supply from Russia and lack of other significant alternatives. ; Politikos mokslų ir diplomatijos fakultetas ; Politologijos katedra

Master Work, analysing social efficiency of implementing environmental law in Lithuania, is relevant in understanding why environmental laws, though comprehensive and strict, often seem to fail proving their social efficiency. Analysing Nord stream pipeline project, one can reveal any amount of basic environmental principles and guidelines. Also to be emphasized, that Nord Stream project nowadays is one of the most controversial environmental, as well as political, social, economical issue in the Baltic Sea region. The object of the research is to analyse and assess the efficiency of environmental laws. The aim of the research is to analyse and assess the social efficiency of implementing ecological law in Lithuania, as subject of international and EU law. Main tasks in achieving the mentioned aim: to assess the efficiency of international environmental policy solving environmental problems worldwide; to analyse main streams and efficiency of EU and Lithuanian environmental laws; to assess the project of Nord Stream in the context of international and EU, including Lithuanian laws; also to analyse the actions of Lithuania in the process of Nord Stream project planning and ensuring the embodyment of environmental laws. The hypothesis is posed, that international, EU and Lithuanian environmental laws seem not to be effective according to the fact, that states usually follow the criterias of economical and political benefits rather than provisions of environmental law. In this research, case study and document analysis methods are used. The research leads to conclusions, that: provisions of environmental law in the EU are rather strict, but that does not always guarantee their efficiency; the environment protection system of Lithuania is abundant in laws, but measures for implementing them are lacking; the project of Nord stream pipeline contradicts the main common principles of environmental law. Proposals that follow: environmental laws must include specific measures for implementing them; Lithuanian environmental laws must be harmonized; specific laws must be adopted – in this case, a law for regulation pollution from pipelines.

Master Work, analysing social efficiency of implementing environmental law in Lithuania, is relevant in understanding why environmental laws, though comprehensive and strict, often seem to fail proving their social efficiency. Analysing Nord stream pipeline project, one can reveal any amount of basic environmental principles and guidelines. Also to be emphasized, that Nord Stream project nowadays is one of the most controversial environmental, as well as political, social, economical issue in the Baltic Sea region. The object of the research is to analyse and assess the efficiency of environmental laws. The aim of the research is to analyse and assess the social efficiency of implementing ecological law in Lithuania, as subject of international and EU law. Main tasks in achieving the mentioned aim: to assess the efficiency of international environmental policy solving environmental problems worldwide; to analyse main streams and efficiency of EU and Lithuanian environmental laws; to assess the project of Nord Stream in the context of international and EU, including Lithuanian laws; also to analyse the actions of Lithuania in the process of Nord Stream project planning and ensuring the embodyment of environmental laws. The hypothesis is posed, that international, EU and Lithuanian environmental laws seem not to be effective according to the fact, that states usually follow the criterias of economical and political benefits rather than provisions of environmental law. In this research, case study and document analysis methods are used. The research leads to conclusions, that: provisions of environmental law in the EU are rather strict, but that does not always guarantee their efficiency; the environment protection system of Lithuania is abundant in laws, but measures for implementing them are lacking; the project of Nord stream pipeline contradicts the main common principles of environmental law. Proposals that follow: environmental laws must include specific measures for implementing them; Lithuanian environmental laws must be harmonized; specific laws must be adopted – in this case, a law for regulation pollution from pipelines.

The master thesis "Motives of Europe's Energy Union Creation and its Perspectives" present analysis of recent developments which happened before and after creation of EU's Energy Union. An assumption is made at the beginning that current challenges might be related to the level of national energy policies of EU members. Two main approaches deciding what national energy policy priorities are could be securization and competitiveness. Securization puts energy topic on the top of political agenda, allowing to implement projects which otherwise would be not technically or commercially viable. Competitiveness conception in national energy sector is based on country's aim to have competitive advantage worldwide. If this approach is chosen, security in all the aspects becomes issue of secondary importance. EU energy sector and Energy union was widely analyzed in academic researches during last few decades. Almost every author agrees that until 1996 and 1st Energy Package energy sector was exceptionally part of national policy of EU member states. Oil shocks impact, other successful EU unions which include Common Agriculture policy, Schengen agreement or Monetary Union which lead to creation of Eurozone, examples – nothing advocated to successful applying of the same rules and scope to newly created Energy union. Though Energy Union implementation struggles with unplanned challenges, common energy policies are successfully implemented EU-wide. To name a few it would be Renewable Energy Directive (accepted in 2009), Energy 2020 (2009), Energy Plan 2050 (2011), 2030 Framework for climate and energy (2014), Summer Package (2015) or Winter Package (2016). Therefore, 2015 marks not only presentation of EU's Energy union, but also announcement about project, debates on which still divides EU into two large groups – supporters and opposing ones. It was named as Nord Stream expansion and later became Nord Stream 2. Project will allow to bypass East-West gas transportation corridor, creating new one in North-South direction. Nord Stream 2 eliminates Ukraine, Poland and Slovak Republic from the list of gas transit countries, and potentially jeopardizes their security of supply. New pipeline will go along the route of the first one, starting in Russia and ending in Germany, and will connect Gazprom with its clients in Western Europe. Poland sees this project as a threat to energy supply security, making Western Europe dependent on one single supplier. Country gives priority to diversification via gas interconnectors (Eustream, GIPL, Baltic Pipe) and Swinoujscie LNG terminal, which need was foreseen in Energy Union, but cannot influence Germany which uses competitive approach and claims Nord Stream 2 is purely commercial project, implemented by private companies. Germany needs cheap abundant natural gas implementing its national energy transition plan called Energiewende. It will result in coal and nuclear energy abandonment in favor of renewable energy sources (RES) like wind or solar. But increase of RES share in primary energy balance means need for back-up generation which could be based on natural gas. So for a long time – few decades - energy policy among EU members could be either part of security or competitiveness agendas, depending on particular state national priorities and energy policy chosen to conduct. If EU wants Energy Union to become typical political-economical union, it will have finally to name to which agenda energy sector should belong to. Member states would like to continue "business-as-usual", so whatever decision will be made, it will face harsh resistance from the part of EU members.

The master thesis "Motives of Europe's Energy Union Creation and its Perspectives" present analysis of recent developments which happened before and after creation of EU's Energy Union. An assumption is made at the beginning that current challenges might be related to the level of national energy policies of EU members. Two main approaches deciding what national energy policy priorities are could be securization and competitiveness. Securization puts energy topic on the top of political agenda, allowing to implement projects which otherwise would be not technically or commercially viable. Competitiveness conception in national energy sector is based on country's aim to have competitive advantage worldwide. If this approach is chosen, security in all the aspects becomes issue of secondary importance. EU energy sector and Energy union was widely analyzed in academic researches during last few decades. Almost every author agrees that until 1996 and 1st Energy Package energy sector was exceptionally part of national policy of EU member states. Oil shocks impact, other successful EU unions which include Common Agriculture policy, Schengen agreement or Monetary Union which lead to creation of Eurozone, examples – nothing advocated to successful applying of the same rules and scope to newly created Energy union. Though Energy Union implementation struggles with unplanned challenges, common energy policies are successfully implemented EU-wide. To name a few it would be Renewable Energy Directive (accepted in 2009), Energy 2020 (2009), Energy Plan 2050 (2011), 2030 Framework for climate and energy (2014), Summer Package (2015) or Winter Package (2016). Therefore, 2015 marks not only presentation of EU's Energy union, but also announcement about project, debates on which still divides EU into two large groups – supporters and opposing ones. It was named as Nord Stream expansion and later became Nord Stream 2. Project will allow to bypass East-West gas transportation corridor, creating new one in North-South direction. Nord Stream 2 eliminates Ukraine, Poland and Slovak Republic from the list of gas transit countries, and potentially jeopardizes their security of supply. New pipeline will go along the route of the first one, starting in Russia and ending in Germany, and will connect Gazprom with its clients in Western Europe. Poland sees this project as a threat to energy supply security, making Western Europe dependent on one single supplier. Country gives priority to diversification via gas interconnectors (Eustream, GIPL, Baltic Pipe) and Swinoujscie LNG terminal, which need was foreseen in Energy Union, but cannot influence Germany which uses competitive approach and claims Nord Stream 2 is purely commercial project, implemented by private companies. Germany needs cheap abundant natural gas implementing its national energy transition plan called Energiewende. It will result in coal and nuclear energy abandonment in favor of renewable energy sources (RES) like wind or solar. But increase of RES share in primary energy balance means need for back-up generation which could be based on natural gas. So for a long time – few decades - energy policy among EU members could be either part of security or competitiveness agendas, depending on particular state national priorities and energy policy chosen to conduct. If EU wants Energy Union to become typical political-economical union, it will have finally to name to which agenda energy sector should belong to. Member states would like to continue "business-as-usual", so whatever decision will be made, it will face harsh resistance from the part of EU members.

The master thesis "Motives of Europe's Energy Union Creation and its Perspectives" present analysis of recent developments which happened before and after creation of EU's Energy Union. An assumption is made at the beginning that current challenges might be related to the level of national energy policies of EU members. Two main approaches deciding what national energy policy priorities are could be securization and competitiveness. Securization puts energy topic on the top of political agenda, allowing to implement projects which otherwise would be not technically or commercially viable. Competitiveness conception in national energy sector is based on country's aim to have competitive advantage worldwide. If this approach is chosen, security in all the aspects becomes issue of secondary importance. EU energy sector and Energy union was widely analyzed in academic researches during last few decades. Almost every author agrees that until 1996 and 1st Energy Package energy sector was exceptionally part of national policy of EU member states. Oil shocks impact, other successful EU unions which include Common Agriculture policy, Schengen agreement or Monetary Union which lead to creation of Eurozone, examples – nothing advocated to successful applying of the same rules and scope to newly created Energy union. Though Energy Union implementation struggles with unplanned challenges, common energy policies are successfully implemented EU-wide. To name a few it would be Renewable Energy Directive (accepted in 2009), Energy 2020 (2009), Energy Plan 2050 (2011), 2030 Framework for climate and energy (2014), Summer Package (2015) or Winter Package (2016). Therefore, 2015 marks not only presentation of EU's Energy union, but also announcement about project, debates on which still divides EU into two large groups – supporters and opposing ones. It was named as Nord Stream expansion and later became Nord Stream 2. Project will allow to bypass East-West gas transportation corridor, creating new one in North-South direction. Nord Stream 2 eliminates Ukraine, Poland and Slovak Republic from the list of gas transit countries, and potentially jeopardizes their security of supply. New pipeline will go along the route of the first one, starting in Russia and ending in Germany, and will connect Gazprom with its clients in Western Europe. Poland sees this project as a threat to energy supply security, making Western Europe dependent on one single supplier. Country gives priority to diversification via gas interconnectors (Eustream, GIPL, Baltic Pipe) and Swinoujscie LNG terminal, which need was foreseen in Energy Union, but cannot influence Germany which uses competitive approach and claims Nord Stream 2 is purely commercial project, implemented by private companies. Germany needs cheap abundant natural gas implementing its national energy transition plan called Energiewende. It will result in coal and nuclear energy abandonment in favor of renewable energy sources (RES) like wind or solar. But increase of RES share in primary energy balance means need for back-up generation which could be based on natural gas. So for a long time – few decades - energy policy among EU members could be either part of security or competitiveness agendas, depending on particular state national priorities and energy policy chosen to conduct. If EU wants Energy Union to become typical political-economical union, it will have finally to name to which agenda energy sector should belong to. Member states would like to continue "business-as-usual", so whatever decision will be made, it will face harsh resistance from the part of EU members.

The master thesis "Motives of Europe's Energy Union Creation and its Perspectives" present analysis of recent developments which happened before and after creation of EU's Energy Union. An assumption is made at the beginning that current challenges might be related to the level of national energy policies of EU members. Two main approaches deciding what national energy policy priorities are could be securization and competitiveness. Securization puts energy topic on the top of political agenda, allowing to implement projects which otherwise would be not technically or commercially viable. Competitiveness conception in national energy sector is based on country's aim to have competitive advantage worldwide. If this approach is chosen, security in all the aspects becomes issue of secondary importance. EU energy sector and Energy union was widely analyzed in academic researches during last few decades. Almost every author agrees that until 1996 and 1st Energy Package energy sector was exceptionally part of national policy of EU member states. Oil shocks impact, other successful EU unions which include Common Agriculture policy, Schengen agreement or Monetary Union which lead to creation of Eurozone, examples – nothing advocated to successful applying of the same rules and scope to newly created Energy union. Though Energy Union implementation struggles with unplanned challenges, common energy policies are successfully implemented EU-wide. To name a few it would be Renewable Energy Directive (accepted in 2009), Energy 2020 (2009), Energy Plan 2050 (2011), 2030 Framework for climate and energy (2014), Summer Package (2015) or Winter Package (2016). Therefore, 2015 marks not only presentation of EU's Energy union, but also announcement about project, debates on which still divides EU into two large groups – supporters and opposing ones. It was named as Nord Stream expansion and later became Nord Stream 2. Project will allow to bypass East-West gas transportation corridor, creating new one in North-South direction. Nord Stream 2 eliminates Ukraine, Poland and Slovak Republic from the list of gas transit countries, and potentially jeopardizes their security of supply. New pipeline will go along the route of the first one, starting in Russia and ending in Germany, and will connect Gazprom with its clients in Western Europe. Poland sees this project as a threat to energy supply security, making Western Europe dependent on one single supplier. Country gives priority to diversification via gas interconnectors (Eustream, GIPL, Baltic Pipe) and Swinoujscie LNG terminal, which need was foreseen in Energy Union, but cannot influence Germany which uses competitive approach and claims Nord Stream 2 is purely commercial project, implemented by private companies. Germany needs cheap abundant natural gas implementing its national energy transition plan called Energiewende. It will result in coal and nuclear energy abandonment in favor of renewable energy sources (RES) like wind or solar. But increase of RES share in primary energy balance means need for back-up generation which could be based on natural gas. So for a long time – few decades - energy policy among EU members could be either part of security or competitiveness agendas, depending on particular state national priorities and energy policy chosen to conduct. If EU wants Energy Union to become typical political-economical union, it will have finally to name to which agenda energy sector should belong to. Member states would like to continue "business-as-usual", so whatever decision will be made, it will face harsh resistance from the part of EU members.