Despite their similar size, material resources, shared geopolitical conditions and common history, the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have pursued remarkably different policies towards Russia in the 1994-2010 period. Complex patterns of differentiation are evident across issue areas and over time. Given the static structural similarities between the Baltic states, how can we explain their divergent policies towards Russia and the change in these policies over time? This puzzle informs the central research question of this study: Why did Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian foreign policies towards Russia diverge in the 1994 to 2010 period? This work analyses the foreign policy of the Baltic states using typologies based on two axes: cooperative/adversarial and pragmatic/principled. Relying primarily on the liberal approach to international relations, the theoretical framework identifies six independent variables: the left/right political orientation of the government, instrumental usage of principled policies, the ethnic factor, business interests, membership in the EU and NATO, and, finally, Moscow’s own policies. It suggests that these factors played causal roles in determining Baltic policy towards Russia. Three case studies on the oil and gas sectors, as well as historical tensions, provide the empirical evidence to trace and explain the differentiated pathways of Baltic foreign policies. The empirical analysis provides evidence to argue that due to domestic political differences Lithuania pursued the most adversarial and principled policy towards Russia. Estonia, by way of contrast, pursued cooperative and pragmatic policies regarding energy issues. On political questions, however, it maintained a principled and adversarial stance, though this was less pronounced that that of Lithuania. Finally, Latvia pursued moderately principled and relatively adversarial energy policies placing it in between Lithuania and Estonia. With regard to history, Estonia’s and particularly Latvia’s policies experienced a notable evolution from adversarial and principled to more cooperative and pragmatic policies. In sum, this work demonstrates that the typologies of Baltic policies differed across sectors and experienced both divergence and at times convergence in rhetoric if not policies.

中共改革開放後，經濟快速發展，能源需求高漲。自 1993 年成為石油淨進口國，石油消費量不斷擴大，產量卻無法大幅提升，石油供給不足的缺口正逐步擴大，對進口原油的依賴成為中共國家安全的潛在威脅。因此中共試圖以國有石油企業「走出去」到海外投資的能源外交政策，以達成供應安全、油源多元化目標。 本文以政治經濟途徑分析中共能源外交政策的發展，探討中共政府如何形成側重能源供應面的石油戰略，何以藉由國有石油企業海外投資做為政策工具，而發展出來的能源外交政策。如何推動能源外交政策以保證石油供應安全？中共能源外交活動究竟取得什麼樣的成果？又將面臨多大的挑戰？透過這幾個研究問題的驗證，本文認為中共能源外交活動以國家安全為主軸，以政府力量扶持三大石油企業海外投資活動，在某種程度上是代表國家力量的擴張，儼然成為國際能源體系不安全的因素，導致無法確保石油供應安全。未來中共能源安全策略雖仍以國家安全、經濟民族主義為基調，但可預見中共將更加積極參與國際能源貿易活動與國際能源組織，建構具有中國特色的能源外交政策。 關 鍵 詞：能源、能源安全、石油安全、中共外交、能源外交 英文關鍵詞：Energy, Energy Security, Oil Security, China's Foreign Policy , Energy Foreign Policy