As global energy demand increases in the next century increased demand will focus global attention on geographical energy rich concentrated areas. One such area of interest is Central Asia and the primary vehicle for energy extraction in the region, the Caspian Sea. The long history of oil development is being reignited as global powers increase their interests with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the creation of three new littorals around the body of water. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan create new opportunities for interested parties such as the United States, China and the European Union. The new littorals challenge the pre-existing legal status quo of Iran and Russia but no energy extraction can continue on large-scales without legal consensus and efficient modes of transportation. The aim of this study is to explain why energy production stagnation has existed in the region and prove that the most efficient and beneficial position local states, global powers, and corporations can strive towards is by adopting cooperative policy structures on all levels. The results of the study find that cooperative structures are mandatory due to the unique legal and transportation issues of the region refuting the applicability of Realism and other non-cooperative analysis models.

The Obama Administration’s Pivot to Asia policy was a grand shift in focus for U.S. foreign policy and sought to lay the foundation of U.S. policy in the region for the future. This paper derives three fundamental assumptions that the Pivot policy was based upon, from the articulations of the main architects of the Pivot Policy: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. These assumptions are as follows, pivoting to the Asia-Pacific will be beneficial to the U.S., engagement with China is central to the Pivot policy and the policy is not an effort to contain China, and finally the draw down in the Middle East will happen and the Pivot policy cannot happen without this draw down. Then, this paper assesses whether they were realistic to presume. It is found that the foundation of the Pivot policy was sound, but certain actions by they Obama Administration undermined these assumptions and overall hurt the effectiveness of the Pivot policy.