Suchergebnisse

Over the last two years Russian and European Union, as well as Russian and Lithuanian relations became the worst since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia's annexation of Crimea peninsula and aggression in Eastern Ukraine has made a serious impact on relations with Russian and for security of the European Continent. After all, not so long ago EU and Russia was strategic partners, developed common projects and was preparing to renew a Strategic Partnership Agreement. However at this moment EU is imposing economic sanctions on Russia. At that time Moscow even not trying to accomplish Minsk agreement. Lithuania–Russia relations was consistently complicated. In 2004 Lithuania's accession to the EU made a possibility to influence and increase one's role in EU-Russian relations by using Foreign policy instruments - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). To some purpose Lithuania is the country which criticizing Russia's actions the most in the EU. In this thesis is trying to find out Lithuanian role in forming the EU common Foreign and Security policy against Russia during the crisis in Ukraine. The aim of the thesis – by using European integration theories to analyze Lithuanian role of the formation of the EU common Foreign and Security policy against Russian Federation in 2014-2015. The first part of the thesis is written about the European integration theories. By using these theories in this thesis is trying to present the main ideas and postulates of the European integration. The second part of the thesis is written about the Common Foreign and Security Policy historical development. Also in this part of the thesis is identifying the national States role in CFSP decision making. It is important to mention that in this part of the thesis is trying to find out why the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy is not that effective and common. The third part of the thesis is written about Lithuanian foreign policy towards Russia since 1990 to present day. Also in this part is analyzing the main three phases of the Lithuanian foreign policy towards Russia. The last part of the thesis is analyzing Lithuanian representatives in the European Parliament, President Dalia Grybauskaitė and Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevičius official discourse towards Russia in 2014-2015.

Over the last two years Russian and European Union, as well as Russian and Lithuanian relations became the worst since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia's annexation of Crimea peninsula and aggression in Eastern Ukraine has made a serious impact on relations with Russian and for security of the European Continent. After all, not so long ago EU and Russia was strategic partners, developed common projects and was preparing to renew a Strategic Partnership Agreement. However at this moment EU is imposing economic sanctions on Russia. At that time Moscow even not trying to accomplish Minsk agreement. Lithuania–Russia relations was consistently complicated. In 2004 Lithuania's accession to the EU made a possibility to influence and increase one's role in EU-Russian relations by using Foreign policy instruments - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). To some purpose Lithuania is the country which criticizing Russia's actions the most in the EU. In this thesis is trying to find out Lithuanian role in forming the EU common Foreign and Security policy against Russia during the crisis in Ukraine. The aim of the thesis – by using European integration theories to analyze Lithuanian role of the formation of the EU common Foreign and Security policy against Russian Federation in 2014-2015. The first part of the thesis is written about the European integration theories. By using these theories in this thesis is trying to present the main ideas and postulates of the European integration. The second part of the thesis is written about the Common Foreign and Security Policy historical development. Also in this part of the thesis is identifying the national States role in CFSP decision making. It is important to mention that in this part of the thesis is trying to find out why the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy is not that effective and common. The third part of the thesis is written about Lithuanian foreign policy towards Russia since 1990 to present day. Also in this part is analyzing the main three phases of the Lithuanian foreign policy towards Russia. The last part of the thesis is analyzing Lithuanian representatives in the European Parliament, President Dalia Grybauskaitė and Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevičius official discourse towards Russia in 2014-2015.

Over the last two years Russian and European Union, as well as Russian and Lithuanian relations became the worst since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia's annexation of Crimea peninsula and aggression in Eastern Ukraine has made a serious impact on relations with Russian and for security of the European Continent. After all, not so long ago EU and Russia was strategic partners, developed common projects and was preparing to renew a Strategic Partnership Agreement. However at this moment EU is imposing economic sanctions on Russia. At that time Moscow even not trying to accomplish Minsk agreement. Lithuania–Russia relations was consistently complicated. In 2004 Lithuania's accession to the EU made a possibility to influence and increase one's role in EU-Russian relations by using Foreign policy instruments - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). To some purpose Lithuania is the country which criticizing Russia's actions the most in the EU. In this thesis is trying to find out Lithuanian role in forming the EU common Foreign and Security policy against Russia during the crisis in Ukraine. The aim of the thesis – by using European integration theories to analyze Lithuanian role of the formation of the EU common Foreign and Security policy against Russian Federation in 2014-2015. The first part of the thesis is written about the European integration theories. By using these theories in this thesis is trying to present the main ideas and postulates of the European integration. The second part of the thesis is written about the Common Foreign and Security Policy historical development. Also in this part of the thesis is identifying the national States role in CFSP decision making. It is important to mention that in this part of the thesis is trying to find out why the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy is not that effective and common. The third part of the thesis is written about Lithuanian foreign policy towards Russia since 1990 to present day. Also in this part is analyzing the main three phases of the Lithuanian foreign policy towards Russia. The last part of the thesis is analyzing Lithuanian representatives in the European Parliament, President Dalia Grybauskaitė and Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevičius official discourse towards Russia in 2014-2015.

The purpose of research – to find out the possibilities of Eurasian Union realization; the object of research – the idea of Eurasian Union and possibilities of its realization; the problem of research is the tangibility of Eurasian Union idea's realization and perspectives of further regional integration. The chosen analytical methods are descriptive research and analysis, which help to reveal characteristics and development of the research object and to consider possibilities of further realization; comparative analysis helps to distinguish differences and similarities of various sources. Primary and secondary sources are used in the analysis. Structure of this master thesis is based on the raised goals and research starts with presentation of the Eurasian Union idea (mostly the analysis of primary sources). After presenting the research object (Eurasian Union idea) and scholars and politicians opinions about the idea, research concentrates on the analysis of regional integration. Intergovernmentalism and liberal intergovernmentalism are determined as the most appropriate theories of analyzing realization of Eurasian Union idea. The third chapter of master thesis analyzes the concept of neoauthoritarianism and functioning of neoauthoritarian states. In order to improve quality of analyzing Eurasian Union idea's realization possibilities, master thesis concentrates on the specific of the region; Russia's role in the region; problems of the interstate relations in the region; and the post-Soviet regional experiences. After the analysis of situation in the region and the process of Eurasian Union idea's realization through intergovernmentalism and neoauthoritarianism theories, conclusions are formulated. Conclusions of master thesis states: Eurasia's Union idea's realization is realistic, but in limited space of post-Soviet area. The integration process is driven by the state's national interests and economical interdependence. First of all, effective integration must be achieved in limited number of states, and just after widening can be started. The success of idea's realization will depend on process of intergovernmental negotiations; on side-payments and discounts; on the possible alternatives to Eurasian Union; on Russia's capability to keep other countries in region in economical dependence; on common legal system development; and on the efficiency of institutional cooperation.

The purpose of research – to find out the possibilities of Eurasian Union realization; the object of research – the idea of Eurasian Union and possibilities of its realization; the problem of research is the tangibility of Eurasian Union idea's realization and perspectives of further regional integration. The chosen analytical methods are descriptive research and analysis, which help to reveal characteristics and development of the research object and to consider possibilities of further realization; comparative analysis helps to distinguish differences and similarities of various sources. Primary and secondary sources are used in the analysis. Structure of this master thesis is based on the raised goals and research starts with presentation of the Eurasian Union idea (mostly the analysis of primary sources). After presenting the research object (Eurasian Union idea) and scholars and politicians opinions about the idea, research concentrates on the analysis of regional integration. Intergovernmentalism and liberal intergovernmentalism are determined as the most appropriate theories of analyzing realization of Eurasian Union idea. The third chapter of master thesis analyzes the concept of neoauthoritarianism and functioning of neoauthoritarian states. In order to improve quality of analyzing Eurasian Union idea's realization possibilities, master thesis concentrates on the specific of the region; Russia's role in the region; problems of the interstate relations in the region; and the post-Soviet regional experiences. After the analysis of situation in the region and the process of Eurasian Union idea's realization through intergovernmentalism and neoauthoritarianism theories, conclusions are formulated. Conclusions of master thesis states: Eurasia's Union idea's realization is realistic, but in limited space of post-Soviet area. The integration process is driven by the state's national interests and economical interdependence. First of all, effective integration must be achieved in limited number of states, and just after widening can be started. The success of idea's realization will depend on process of intergovernmental negotiations; on side-payments and discounts; on the possible alternatives to Eurasian Union; on Russia's capability to keep other countries in region in economical dependence; on common legal system development; and on the efficiency of institutional cooperation.

The purpose of research – to find out the possibilities of Eurasian Union realization; the object of research – the idea of Eurasian Union and possibilities of its realization; the problem of research is the tangibility of Eurasian Union idea's realization and perspectives of further regional integration. The chosen analytical methods are descriptive research and analysis, which help to reveal characteristics and development of the research object and to consider possibilities of further realization; comparative analysis helps to distinguish differences and similarities of various sources. Primary and secondary sources are used in the analysis. Structure of this master thesis is based on the raised goals and research starts with presentation of the Eurasian Union idea (mostly the analysis of primary sources). After presenting the research object (Eurasian Union idea) and scholars and politicians opinions about the idea, research concentrates on the analysis of regional integration. Intergovernmentalism and liberal intergovernmentalism are determined as the most appropriate theories of analyzing realization of Eurasian Union idea. The third chapter of master thesis analyzes the concept of neoauthoritarianism and functioning of neoauthoritarian states. In order to improve quality of analyzing Eurasian Union idea's realization possibilities, master thesis concentrates on the specific of the region; Russia's role in the region; problems of the interstate relations in the region; and the post-Soviet regional experiences. After the analysis of situation in the region and the process of Eurasian Union idea's realization through intergovernmentalism and neoauthoritarianism theories, conclusions are formulated. Conclusions of master thesis states: Eurasia's Union idea's realization is realistic, but in limited space of post-Soviet area. The integration process is driven by the state's national interests and economical interdependence. First of all, effective integration must be achieved in limited number of states, and just after widening can be started. The success of idea's realization will depend on process of intergovernmental negotiations; on side-payments and discounts; on the possible alternatives to Eurasian Union; on Russia's capability to keep other countries in region in economical dependence; on common legal system development; and on the efficiency of institutional cooperation.

Summary The recent development of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has recently become the most debating issue in the EU integration process. Discussion on this topic has significantly increased as a result of changes in the security concept, geopolitical issues, terrorism, transatlantic unity challenges, Brexit, EU Institutions' positions and the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative (PESCO) which was agreed by 25 EU countries to join. The purpose of this work is to examine the role of supranational institutions of the European Union in the CFSP policy-making process by conducting the PESCO case study analysis. In order to achieve the goal of this research work, the dominant European Integration theories - neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism were used. The paper presents a case study of PESCO – its' definition, key characteristics, chronology of decision-making and the role of Member States and EU supranational institutions in it. According to the analysis presented, the correspondence between the two analyzed theoretical approaches is compared. By doing that, author is trying to answer which theory better explains the adopted ruling - neofunctionalism or intergovernmentalism. Using Critical Selection Approach, two main theories suggested 3 different variables from each, that were used to review the role of Member states and EU institutions in the PESCO acceptance process, were elaborated. The main questions that were asked in this work were these: what role does the EU supranational institutions play in the development of the EU CFSP? What were the main driving forces of PESCO - the national interests of the Member States or the interest of supranational institutions and which of two used EI theories could better explain the adoption of the PESCO? The results of this work show that in the most of the scientific analysis PESCO is considered to be a states' agreement, which was mainly influenced by the state-level interests and pressure from the countries with the highest negotiating power, such as Germany and France. However, EU supranational institutions and other supranational actors have had a huge influence not only on initiating discussions on PESCO, but have also retained this power when PESCO started its action. For this reason, in response to the main question and purpose of this study, the carried out analysis implies that supranational institutions are a powerful actor even in a socially sensitive area of the CFSP, and the PESCO ruling can be better justified on the basis of neofunctionalist theory rather than intergovernmental theory.

Summary The recent development of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has recently become the most debating issue in the EU integration process. Discussion on this topic has significantly increased as a result of changes in the security concept, geopolitical issues, terrorism, transatlantic unity challenges, Brexit, EU Institutions' positions and the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative (PESCO) which was agreed by 25 EU countries to join. The purpose of this work is to examine the role of supranational institutions of the European Union in the CFSP policy-making process by conducting the PESCO case study analysis. In order to achieve the goal of this research work, the dominant European Integration theories - neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism were used. The paper presents a case study of PESCO – its' definition, key characteristics, chronology of decision-making and the role of Member States and EU supranational institutions in it. According to the analysis presented, the correspondence between the two analyzed theoretical approaches is compared. By doing that, author is trying to answer which theory better explains the adopted ruling - neofunctionalism or intergovernmentalism. Using Critical Selection Approach, two main theories suggested 3 different variables from each, that were used to review the role of Member states and EU institutions in the PESCO acceptance process, were elaborated. The main questions that were asked in this work were these: what role does the EU supranational institutions play in the development of the EU CFSP? What were the main driving forces of PESCO - the national interests of the Member States or the interest of supranational institutions and which of two used EI theories could better explain the adoption of the PESCO? The results of this work show that in the most of the scientific analysis PESCO is considered to be a states' agreement, which was mainly influenced by the state-level interests and pressure from the countries with the highest negotiating power, such as Germany and France. However, EU supranational institutions and other supranational actors have had a huge influence not only on initiating discussions on PESCO, but have also retained this power when PESCO started its action. For this reason, in response to the main question and purpose of this study, the carried out analysis implies that supranational institutions are a powerful actor even in a socially sensitive area of the CFSP, and the PESCO ruling can be better justified on the basis of neofunctionalist theory rather than intergovernmental theory.

Summary The recent development of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has recently become the most debating issue in the EU integration process. Discussion on this topic has significantly increased as a result of changes in the security concept, geopolitical issues, terrorism, transatlantic unity challenges, Brexit, EU Institutions' positions and the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative (PESCO) which was agreed by 25 EU countries to join. The purpose of this work is to examine the role of supranational institutions of the European Union in the CFSP policy-making process by conducting the PESCO case study analysis. In order to achieve the goal of this research work, the dominant European Integration theories - neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism were used. The paper presents a case study of PESCO – its' definition, key characteristics, chronology of decision-making and the role of Member States and EU supranational institutions in it. According to the analysis presented, the correspondence between the two analyzed theoretical approaches is compared. By doing that, author is trying to answer which theory better explains the adopted ruling - neofunctionalism or intergovernmentalism. Using Critical Selection Approach, two main theories suggested 3 different variables from each, that were used to review the role of Member states and EU institutions in the PESCO acceptance process, were elaborated. The main questions that were asked in this work were these: what role does the EU supranational institutions play in the development of the EU CFSP? What were the main driving forces of PESCO - the national interests of the Member States or the interest of supranational institutions and which of two used EI theories could better explain the adoption of the PESCO? The results of this work show that in the most of the scientific analysis PESCO is considered to be a states' agreement, which was mainly influenced by the state-level interests and pressure from the countries with the highest negotiating power, such as Germany and France. However, EU supranational institutions and other supranational actors have had a huge influence not only on initiating discussions on PESCO, but have also retained this power when PESCO started its action. For this reason, in response to the main question and purpose of this study, the carried out analysis implies that supranational institutions are a powerful actor even in a socially sensitive area of the CFSP, and the PESCO ruling can be better justified on the basis of neofunctionalist theory rather than intergovernmental theory.

Summary The recent development of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has recently become the most debating issue in the EU integration process. Discussion on this topic has significantly increased as a result of changes in the security concept, geopolitical issues, terrorism, transatlantic unity challenges, Brexit, EU Institutions' positions and the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative (PESCO) which was agreed by 25 EU countries to join. The purpose of this work is to examine the role of supranational institutions of the European Union in the CFSP policy-making process by conducting the PESCO case study analysis. In order to achieve the goal of this research work, the dominant European Integration theories - neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism were used. The paper presents a case study of PESCO – its' definition, key characteristics, chronology of decision-making and the role of Member States and EU supranational institutions in it. According to the analysis presented, the correspondence between the two analyzed theoretical approaches is compared. By doing that, author is trying to answer which theory better explains the adopted ruling - neofunctionalism or intergovernmentalism. Using Critical Selection Approach, two main theories suggested 3 different variables from each, that were used to review the role of Member states and EU institutions in the PESCO acceptance process, were elaborated. The main questions that were asked in this work were these: what role does the EU supranational institutions play in the development of the EU CFSP? What were the main driving forces of PESCO - the national interests of the Member States or the interest of supranational institutions and which of two used EI theories could better explain the adoption of the PESCO? The results of this work show that in the most of the scientific analysis PESCO is considered to be a states' agreement, which was mainly influenced by the state-level interests and pressure from the countries with the highest negotiating power, such as Germany and France. However, EU supranational institutions and other supranational actors have had a huge influence not only on initiating discussions on PESCO, but have also retained this power when PESCO started its action. For this reason, in response to the main question and purpose of this study, the carried out analysis implies that supranational institutions are a powerful actor even in a socially sensitive area of the CFSP, and the PESCO ruling can be better justified on the basis of neofunctionalist theory rather than intergovernmental theory.

This paper analyzes the process of the services market integration in the context of Services Directive and the national preferences of member states towards this document in particular and towards the process of services liberalization in general. The methodological guidelines for the research are provided by one of the contemporary theories of EU integration – liberal intergovernmentalism, as developed by Andrew Moravcsik in his prominent book The Choice for Europe. The main argument of this author is that "European integration can be best explained as a series of rational choices made by national leaders."(A. Moravcsik: 18) What follows as the main hypothetical proposition is that the integration of services market in the European Union rests upon national preferences of member states, which are shaped by domestic economic interests groups and upon relative bargaining powers of these member states. According to A. Moravcsik's argumentation, it is assumed in this paper that it suffice to analyze three major member states – Germany, France and United Kingdom (UK). The analysis of this paper proved the relative interdependence between gains and bargaining power. It was showed, that UK has more competitive services providers, especially those providing professional services, then France and Germany. It is the reason why the service market opening could bring more benefits to British providers. This situation led UK to have less persuading arguments and made them make concessions. It was also proved that due to strong national concerns the Commission lacked ability to act as intermediate or shape national preferences towards its own position. In that case it was demonstrated, under A. Moravcsik terms, that the supranational body is irrelevant in EU policy making. It was partly vindicated that the governments pay more attention to the business interests. It was particularly true in UK, where the business interests were taken count of more then the interests of professional associations or consumer groups. But regarding the cases of France and Germany, the proposition of A. Moravcsik begs some reservations: when strong corporate culture thrives, well organized professional associations can counterweight the business interests, especially when the important referendums or elections are here to come. Lastly, it was impossible scientifically to test the validity of the statement, that UK strategically made concessions regarding the Services Directive, in order to gain more in other important issues, which were to be the beginning of Turkey accession talks, and the setting of financial perspective for the years 2007-2013. Such kind of evidence is possible only after some time, when the researcher can glance in to the archives. For the time being, the main hypothetical explanation could be the fact, that all those bargains were conducted during the period of British presidency in EU. The Services Directive case is a challenge for this paper in testing the explanatory capabilities of liberal intergovernmentalism. This theory is best in explaining "big" bargains, where only member states have a right to decide. The Services Directive is a piece of daily EU legislation, conducted under the co-decision procedure, where the European Parliament and the Council has an equal say. The paper showed that indeed some reservations should be made according to the institutional arena. Regarding the future of Services market integration, the research in this paper showed, that most probably the answer lies behind the member states. If their domestic interests groups see the process beneficial, and governments take that in to account, then there will be nothing that will stop Services Directive to be fulfilled to the greatest scale. Therefore the current, diluted version of this document should be considered as the second best solution for EU, and a marker for the future.

This paper analyzes the process of the services market integration in the context of Services Directive and the national preferences of member states towards this document in particular and towards the process of services liberalization in general. The methodological guidelines for the research are provided by one of the contemporary theories of EU integration – liberal intergovernmentalism, as developed by Andrew Moravcsik in his prominent book The Choice for Europe. The main argument of this author is that "European integration can be best explained as a series of rational choices made by national leaders."(A. Moravcsik: 18) What follows as the main hypothetical proposition is that the integration of services market in the European Union rests upon national preferences of member states, which are shaped by domestic economic interests groups and upon relative bargaining powers of these member states. According to A. Moravcsik's argumentation, it is assumed in this paper that it suffice to analyze three major member states – Germany, France and United Kingdom (UK). The analysis of this paper proved the relative interdependence between gains and bargaining power. It was showed, that UK has more competitive services providers, especially those providing professional services, then France and Germany. It is the reason why the service market opening could bring more benefits to British providers. This situation led UK to have less persuading arguments and made them make concessions. It was also proved that due to strong national concerns the Commission lacked ability to act as intermediate or shape national preferences towards its own position. In that case it was demonstrated, under A. Moravcsik terms, that the supranational body is irrelevant in EU policy making. It was partly vindicated that the governments pay more attention to the business interests. It was particularly true in UK, where the business interests were taken count of more then the interests of professional associations or consumer groups. But regarding the cases of France and Germany, the proposition of A. Moravcsik begs some reservations: when strong corporate culture thrives, well organized professional associations can counterweight the business interests, especially when the important referendums or elections are here to come. Lastly, it was impossible scientifically to test the validity of the statement, that UK strategically made concessions regarding the Services Directive, in order to gain more in other important issues, which were to be the beginning of Turkey accession talks, and the setting of financial perspective for the years 2007-2013. Such kind of evidence is possible only after some time, when the researcher can glance in to the archives. For the time being, the main hypothetical explanation could be the fact, that all those bargains were conducted during the period of British presidency in EU. The Services Directive case is a challenge for this paper in testing the explanatory capabilities of liberal intergovernmentalism. This theory is best in explaining "big" bargains, where only member states have a right to decide. The Services Directive is a piece of daily EU legislation, conducted under the co-decision procedure, where the European Parliament and the Council has an equal say. The paper showed that indeed some reservations should be made according to the institutional arena. Regarding the future of Services market integration, the research in this paper showed, that most probably the answer lies behind the member states. If their domestic interests groups see the process beneficial, and governments take that in to account, then there will be nothing that will stop Services Directive to be fulfilled to the greatest scale. Therefore the current, diluted version of this document should be considered as the second best solution for EU, and a marker for the future.

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

Aim of the Master thesis was to evaluate EU energy policy that was implemented up to the present time and to analyze the positions of the main EU energy policy actors, discerning their interests and priorities given to the specific aspects of energy sector. The task set was to determine the factors and conditions that influence the harmonization of economic policy in the EU. Furthermore, to evaluate which of these factors accelerate and which block the integration of common EU energy policy. Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) approach was chosen for the analysis. As LI supposes, interests of member states are most important in the context of the common energy policy. Member states keep the right of decision for this politics in their competence, as it is concerned with foreign policy of each country. The analysis shows that formally all member states agree with the main principles of EU energy policy. On the other hand most of their actions do not match the official rhetoric. The examples provided in the thesis concerned equivocal position of Germany due to the natural gas pipeline in the Baltic sea, also protectionism of French and Spanish governments and their unwillingness to admit the foreign capital in the national energy sector. Therefore it was concluded that national interests still have priority against the European policies. National governments experience pressure from two other groups of actors that are important in the course of the formulation of national interests. These actors are energy companies and foreign, non-EU, actors. Energy companies face ambiguity towards EU energy policy. On the one hand, common EU energy policy would mean simpler conditions for the businesses and also wider markets. On the other hand, most of these companies are so called "national champions". With the implementation of the main principles of common EU energy policy, such as unbundling of the companies, means loss of their national benefits. Due to these additional new challenges, energy companies support common energy policy in the reserved way. The exemption is companies of the Great Britain that are already working in the highly liberalized market and seeks for the same conditions in all EU member states. As regards foreign policy actors, the most important of them is Russia that tries to weaken the solidarity of member states against energy issues and to further influence EU politics through energy sector. Russia actively promotes bilateral treaties with EU member states this way deepening cleavages among them. Equally important is the indirect influence of Russia through the Gazprom. At the moment, the long termed contracts are signed between Gazprom and Ruhrgas, GDF, ENI. This way energy companies become the active lobbyists of Gazprom interests. Last but not least, highly important are interests and activities of supranational actors – for example European Commission. Although it is one of the most active energy policy initiators, the competence of the European Commission in the energy policy field is limited and is mostly related with its competences in the EU competition policy. Lately European Commission tried to strengthen its position as the supranational actor. Still, European Commission faces opposition from member states, who considers energy policy of strategic importance for them. Moreover, as analysis shows, European Commission at the moment is not eager to confront member states and therefore has missed some opportunities to strengthen its position as independent actor. To sum up, European Commission has set a very ambitious aim to form a common EU energy policy by 2010. Nevertheless, the analysis of the interests of the main actors, concerning energy policy, and main challenges for this policy, in the Master thesis is concluded that it is not likely for the European Commission to fulfill its set goal during three coming year. Energy policy most likely will be implemented gradually in the longer run.

Aim of the Master thesis was to evaluate EU energy policy that was implemented up to the present time and to analyze the positions of the main EU energy policy actors, discerning their interests and priorities given to the specific aspects of energy sector. The task set was to determine the factors and conditions that influence the harmonization of economic policy in the EU. Furthermore, to evaluate which of these factors accelerate and which block the integration of common EU energy policy. Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) approach was chosen for the analysis. As LI supposes, interests of member states are most important in the context of the common energy policy. Member states keep the right of decision for this politics in their competence, as it is concerned with foreign policy of each country. The analysis shows that formally all member states agree with the main principles of EU energy policy. On the other hand most of their actions do not match the official rhetoric. The examples provided in the thesis concerned equivocal position of Germany due to the natural gas pipeline in the Baltic sea, also protectionism of French and Spanish governments and their unwillingness to admit the foreign capital in the national energy sector. Therefore it was concluded that national interests still have priority against the European policies. National governments experience pressure from two other groups of actors that are important in the course of the formulation of national interests. These actors are energy companies and foreign, non-EU, actors. Energy companies face ambiguity towards EU energy policy. On the one hand, common EU energy policy would mean simpler conditions for the businesses and also wider markets. On the other hand, most of these companies are so called "national champions". With the implementation of the main principles of common EU energy policy, such as unbundling of the companies, means loss of their national benefits. Due to these additional new challenges, energy companies support common energy policy in the reserved way. The exemption is companies of the Great Britain that are already working in the highly liberalized market and seeks for the same conditions in all EU member states. As regards foreign policy actors, the most important of them is Russia that tries to weaken the solidarity of member states against energy issues and to further influence EU politics through energy sector. Russia actively promotes bilateral treaties with EU member states this way deepening cleavages among them. Equally important is the indirect influence of Russia through the Gazprom. At the moment, the long termed contracts are signed between Gazprom and Ruhrgas, GDF, ENI. This way energy companies become the active lobbyists of Gazprom interests. Last but not least, highly important are interests and activities of supranational actors – for example European Commission. Although it is one of the most active energy policy initiators, the competence of the European Commission in the energy policy field is limited and is mostly related with its competences in the EU competition policy. Lately European Commission tried to strengthen its position as the supranational actor. Still, European Commission faces opposition from member states, who considers energy policy of strategic importance for them. Moreover, as analysis shows, European Commission at the moment is not eager to confront member states and therefore has missed some opportunities to strengthen its position as independent actor. To sum up, European Commission has set a very ambitious aim to form a common EU energy policy by 2010. Nevertheless, the analysis of the interests of the main actors, concerning energy policy, and main challenges for this policy, in the Master thesis is concluded that it is not likely for the European Commission to fulfill its set goal during three coming year. Energy policy most likely will be implemented gradually in the longer run.