The aim of this paper is to reveal how the European – Russian political cooperation in the common Baltic Sea Region developed over the last twenty years, ending up at the recently adopted European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, which excludes Russian participation. This single case study is divided into two well-defined historical periods: starting from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the Eastern Bloc European enlargement and from 2004 to the adoption of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea region in 2009; where comparison and process-tracing methods are applied to connect different variables that matter for clarifying the current state of relations. Furthermore, the analysis is conducted with the help of Constructivist and Neo-Realist theories for two purposes – to achieve stronger scientific explanation and to avoid too loose interpretation of the events. The results show that the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is often seen and understood differently by the various political actors, but consequently this leads to a situation in which the role of Russia in the common region remains unclear. When it comes to defining the Russian position today, the Baltic Sea Region provides a good climate for collaboration but so far, the European Union has failed to recognize that the Russian Federation although with a limited access to the sea, remains an actor that should not be ignored. Russia, as well appears confused about its overall foreign policy towards the European Union. Nevertheless, another significant outcome reveals that the levels of regional cooperation have been continuously increasing over the last twenty years, which is an indicator that the Russian presence did not diminish. Finally, the study suggests the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is perhaps the beginning of a new tendency towards macro-regional policy development, which will play a future important role in the international relations.

Issued also as thesis, Kiel, 1963. / Offa-Bücher, Bd. 19.

This dissertation analyses the phenomenon of regionalism around the Baltic and the Black Sea since the end of the Cold War with a comparative approach and by applying an extended neorealist theory that includes geopolitics and historical legacy. The main focus is regional organizations, the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), which defines the geographical and political borders of the Baltic and the Black Sea region. These regional organizations are treated as international regimes. The three main varibales taken into consideration in this study are the distribution of power among the big states, the geographical location and the historical legacy that directly and indirectly affect the relations among the states in each region. These variables are consistently applied to the following  four sector analysed in this study: hard security, energy, economic development, and environment. While the last three sectors are areas of cooperation within the CBSS and the BSEC, hard security is not. Its inclusion in this study is because of the fact that it strongly affects the power relations among the states in the two regions and that it is strictly linked to the other three sectors. Although the CBSS and the BSEC have established ad hoc Working Groups with the aim to make cooperation working effectively, regional states cooperate to the extent that it brings relative gains according to the neorealist theory. The analysis shows that the two regimes created around the Balti and the Black Sea are ineffective despite the fact that the CBSS has managed to create stronger cooperative links among its members compared to the BSEC.

Issued also as thesis, Kiel, 1963. / Offa-Bücher, Bd. 19.

Thesis (doctoral)--Stockholms Universitet, 2003. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (p. 304-317).

Pastaruoju metu nevengiama pabrėžti, kad keičiasi valstybių saugumo pobūdis ir grėsmių specifika – dažnai ir išsamiai kalbama apie tradicinių, karinių grėsmių reikšmės sumažėjimą ir naujo tipo grėsmių atsiradimą. Dar visai neseniai ryšys tarp energetikos ir užsienio bei saugumo politikos nebuvo nei toks akivaizdus, nei taip stipriai akcentuojamas. Tačiau per pastaruosius kelerius metus tarptautinė situacija dėl energijos apsirūpinimo smarkiai pasikeitė. Garantuotas energetinių išteklių tiekimas stabiliomis kainomis tapo rimta tarptautinių santykių problema. Europos Sąjungos priklausomybė nuo Rusijos energijos šaltinių ypač padidėjo. Jau šiuo metu apie 40 procentų dujų ir apie trečdalį naftos daugelis ES �����alių gauna iš Rusijos, kitos, sakykim, Lenkija ar Baltijos valstybės, – dar daugiau. Lietuva jau ir šiandien yra per daug priklausoma nuo Rusijos energetinių išteklių, o kai bus uždaryta Ignalinos atominė elektrinė, priklausomybė nuo išorinių šaltinių - o tai reiškia, nuo Rusijos - dar padidės. Rusijai ir Vokietijai Baltijos jūros dugnu nutiesus Šiaurės Europos dujotiekį, Lietuva taps dar labiau izoliuota Europos „energetinė sala”. ES nesugeba suformuoti vieningos ES energetinės politikos Rusijos atžvilgiu, nes dauguma ES narių vis dar yra linkusios palaikyti joms palankų dvišalį dialogą su Rusija, neretai neatsižvelgdamos į kaimyninių valstybių ar ES interesus plačiąja prasme. Dėl to atskirų ES valstybių energetinė priklausomybė nuo Rusijos yra linkusi didėti. Tuo pačiu... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Energy security is, at its essence, an issue of national security. Due to the power that energy-producing states have relative to transit and consumer countries, energy security must be understood in terms of geopolitics. The gas cutoff to Ukraine on January 1, 2006 is often called a “wake-up moment” for Europe, in other words, the point at which Europeans became aware of their over-dependence on Russian gas. Recognizing the risk, that East and Central Europe countries will have difficulty resisting Russian political and economic pressure, US Vice President Dick Cheney underlined on May 4 at the 2006 Vilnius Conference that “No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation.” That said, and while countries ranging from Central Asia to the Baltic Sea want to diversify their sources away from Russia, to date, there is still no coherent energy security policy in Europe or the US. Despite some recent efforts, a real common energy strategy of the European Union is still in the making. Every single EU-member has therefore opted for bilateral policies towards energy exporters in order to tackle mounting energy demands at a time when global hydrocarbon resources are slowly but steadily being depleted. Europe is wedged between energy producers in the North Sea, North Africa and the Middle East, but Russia has come to be one of the most interesting exporters of energy to... [to full text]

Pirmininkavimas Europos Sąjungos (ES) Tarybai yra vienas iš būdų įgyvendinti bendrą ES politiką, bet valstybės narės siekia pasinaudoti šia pareigybe sprendžiant savo šaliai ar regionui aktualius klausimus. Besiplėtojantys ekonominiai, politiniai ir kultūriniai ryšiai Baltijos jūros regione gali atskleisti bendrus kaimyninių valstybių prioritetus formuojant ES Tarybos darbotvarkę. Šiame tyrime Baltijos jūros regionu laikomos Danija, Švedija, Suomija ir Lietuva. Šiaurės valstybės (Suomija, Švedija, Danija) ir Lietuva turi gana skirtingus socialinio ir ekonominio vystymosi modelius, todėl tai gali reikšti, jog jų regioniniai ryšiai gali būti ne tokie stiprūs kaip ryšiai su kitomis ES valstybėmis. Tai gali turėti įtakos valstybių laikysenai pirmininkaujant ES Tarybai. Šiame tyrime siekiama patvirtinti arba paneigti hipotezę, kad Baltijos jūros regiono valstybės pirmininkaudamos ES Tarybai sureikšmina vienus ir tuos pačius regionui svarbius klausimus. Tiriami Baltijos regiono valstybių paskutiniai pirmininkavimai (Suomijos 2006 m., Švedijos 2009 m., Danija pirmininkauja šiuo metu, 2012 m., o Lietuva pirmininkaus 2013 m. antrojoje pusėje). Pasirinktos energetikos, aplinkosaugos ir susisiekimo, sritys, kaip pagrindinės probleminės sferos skatinančios regioninį bendradarbiavimą. Remiantis šiomis politikos sritimis siekiama išsiaiškinti pirmininkavimo prioritetų ir regionalizmo ryšį bei išanalizuoti valstybių keliamų prioritetų bendrumus ir skirtumus. / The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

When implementing major European transport corridors, such as the Core network corridors (CNC) which is a part of the European Trans-European Network for Transports (TEN-T), the number of stakeholders affected is huge. A governance framework for the CNC’s implementation was introduced in EU Regulation No. 1315/2013, and is now being enacted. Sustainable development and stakeholder involvement are crucial areas in the implementation. This interview study investigated the need for complementary governance, here meaning governance in addition to the governance framework set in the regulation. The interviews involved 23 individuals from the Baltic Sea Region, who are affiliated to the four categories public authority, infrastructure organisation/company, private company and other organisation. The results confirm the importance of an inclusive approach. Further, the results showed a need to ensure that all three social, economic and ecological dimensions of sustainability are considered. Summarising the interview results, four areas for attention in the further CNC implementation process were identified: more and directed information, extended involvement of private sector transport stakeholders, extended involvement of regional and local stakeholders, and involvement of stakeholders located geographically outside the immediate corridor. Complementary governance can be a tool to address these areas, as governance structures and processes can involve stakeholders and steer towards desired outcomes. The interviewees own ideas for complementary governance are presented in this paper. The CNC implementation is currently an on-going process and these results will be further utilised in the process, as a basis for stakeholder discussions of changes in practice.

The Baltic Sea is the most polluted sea in the world. Its hydrological conditions and ongoing eutrophication are a high threat for marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Additionally, eutrophication has negative effects on the wellbeing of countries and their societies in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Actions to mitigate eutrophication in the Baltic Sea have been implemented through on-land measures in the last 40 years. Although the improvement in the marine environment is notable, it happens very slowly. In order to combat eutrophication, there is a need for a combination of on-land and in-situ measures. In this study, blue mussel farming practices are presented as one of the in-situ measures to combat eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Blue mussel farming has been implemented in Sweden since the 1980s and has potential to not only mitigate the amounts of nutrients that accumulate in the sea but also brings a circular approach to resource use. In this study, stakeholders from four different sectors that are closely related to blue mussel farming practices and Baltic Sea issues have been interviewed with the aim of making a comprehensive analysis of stakeholder perceptions of blue mussel farming practices in the BSR. Interviewed stakeholders represent four different sectors - academia, entrepreneurs, municipalities and NGOs. A comprehensive analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions on blue mussel farming practises from environmental, social and economic perspective is presented. All interviewed stakeholders are actors in Sweden and represent Swedish perspective on blue mussel farming activities. Potential causes for different perceptions across sectors are discussed.

The introduction of the European Union (EU) macro-regional strategies (MRS) in the latter half of the 2000s was a significant step in the process of transformation of EU governance system. EU MRSs act as a new form of comprehensive governance framework for multi-objective and cross-sectoral cooperation in geographically defined macro-regions. This thesis examines the case of the Baltic Sea Region in order to evaluate a potential of this new governance instrument to transform cooperation arrangements in the region. In order to shed light on the strategy’s patterns and dynamics, the present study utilizes a qualitative methodological approach that uses document analysis based on a comprehensive analytical framework. The analytical framework incorporates the theoretical perspectives of multi-level and experimentalist governance, as well as the theory of differentiated integration. The main findings of this study suggest that the inception of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) in 2009 has offered an innovative and dynamic framework for cooperation that enabled a wider representation and more active participation of local and regional actors. This allowed for a more coherent and coordinated policymaking, facilitated a more responsive and transparent cooperation system in the region, as well as fostered transnational cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region by ensuring a wider engagement of non-EU countries.