Thesis (M. of Strategic Studies)--U.S. Army War College, 2007. / "USAWC program research paper." "DDE research project"--P. [iii]. Title from PDF title screen. Includes bibliographical references (p. 21-26). Also available online via the STINET website (http://stinet.dtic.mil/).

No description available.

This thesis analyzes the political economy of oil in the post-Soviet Kazakhstan. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan, which is one of the newly independent states of the former Soviet geography, became very popular in the international arena with its hydrocarbon riches. There have been discussions in the scholarly and international political agendas that the country will suffer from the so called &ldquo / curse&rdquo / that is associated with the producing states. This dissertation looks at the political, economic and social dynamics associated with the post-Soviet environment in Kazakhstan and the impact of oil revenues on each one of those domains. It discusses Kazakhstan&rsquo / s political economy by engaging three relevant literatures on the issue. To this end first it is argued that the rentier state model which has been developed based on the experiences of other oil producing states is useful to understand the political economy of post-Soviet Kazakhstan, however it fails to explain its dynamics fully. Therefore, the dissertation engages with post-Soviet transformation as well as critical geopolitics literatures to overcome some of the gaps in the rentier state model. It has been argued that while analyzing the political economy of oil in Kazakhstan it is possible to identify three major trends with regard to the impact of oil revenues on the post-Soviet environment. The first one of those post Soviet trends is the consolidation of pre-existing institutions and structures. Second one is the restructuring of pre-existing institutions and third one is the creation of new institutions that was not present during the Soviet environment.

本文旨在透過地緣政治途徑研究□海地區因石油資源豐富而興起的爭霸戰，以瞭解□海沿岸五國（俄羅斯、伊朗、哈薩克斯坦、土庫曼斯坦、阿塞拜然）與其他非□海沿岸國家為取得資源而有的開發、運輸、國際秩序等問題。本論文將探討1992至2000年間，□海地區的石油資源爭霸戰。 本論文認為：蘇聯解體後，□海地區成為國際政治互動的熱點；□海地區豐富的石油資源不僅極具經濟價值，□海地區的地緣地位更具戰略價值；因此，□海地區的石油爭霸戰之所以越演越烈、越形複雜，乃是因為它牽動了該地區的國際政治勢力消長問題：從而可以斷言，□海地區石油爭霸戰的動因乃是該地區的地緣戰略利益以及石油資源經濟利益，而其爭執的主要關鍵問題在於□海的歸屬權以及運輸油管的建造。此一假設命題可再引伸為下列邏輯相關子命題： （一）蘇聯解體後，□海地區成為國際政治互動熱點。 （二）□海地區豐富的石油資源不僅極具經濟價值，□海地區的地緣地位更具戰略價值；因此，□海地區的石油爭霸戰牽動了該地區的國際政治勢力消長問題，而使該地區的情勢更形複雜。 （三）□海地區的石油爭霸戰的動因乃是該地區的地緣戰略利益以及石油資源經濟利益，因而牽動的不僅是□海地區的國家，連若干非□海地區的強權或組織－美國、中國、北約也涉入其中。 （四）各國在□海地區爭執的關鍵問題有二：一為□海的歸屬權爭議；另一則為油管管線運輸問題。 上述四命題構成本文核心論點；而對應此四個論點，本論文將分六章探討。第一章為緒論，說明研究動機與目的、假設命題與研究架構、文獻述評與研究途徑。第二章：□海地區霸權爭霸戰。本章將探討俄國、美國、伊朗、土耳其、中國等在此區相互爭戰的情形。第三章：□海的歸屬權爭議。此章將探討目前□海歸屬權的爭議。第四章：油管管線運輸問題。本章將介紹目前現有的油管以及籌畫中的油管路線。第五章：結論。總結整個論文之重點及研究之結果。 / The purpose of this research project has been to study with the use of geopolitics way to understand the dispute of oil of development, carriage and international order problems in the Caspian Sea Region（including Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan）. The proposition of this thesis is that after the decomposition of Soviet Union, the Caspian becomes international political focus. The rich oil reserves is not only involving economical interest, the geopolitical location of the Caspian Sea Region is but also engaging these states in strategical advantage. Accordingly, the dispute of oil in the Caspian Sea Region is getting more and more serious because of the changing of international politics force. And the major problems are the right of the Caspian Sea and the oil pipelines of construction. The proposition comprises the contention of this paper, and it will be discussed in six chapters. The first chapter is exordium. The second chapter is the haggle in the Caspian Sea Region. The third chapter is the dispute of the right of the Caspian Sea. The fourth chapter is the construction of the oil pipelines. And the last chapter is the conclusion.

No description available.

This thesis analyzes Russian foreign policy towards Azerbaijan in the post-Soviet era. The dissolution of the Soviet Union paved the way for the independence of Azerbaijan. This development necessitated the redefinition of the relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan. However, post-Soviet Russia was reluctant to treat Azerbaijan as a fully independent state that could develop its relations other states freely. In this way, Moscow sought to keep Azerbaijan under its own sphere of influence. To this purpose, Russia used its influence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the development of the Caspian Sea energy resources as its two main policy instruments for controlling Azerbaijan. When Vladimir Putin was elected as the President of Russia in 2000, it was not clear whether the previous Russian foreign policy towards Azerbaijan would continue as in the past or change. The developments between 2000 and 2005 show that Vladimir Putin changed the previous Russian stance on the Caspian Sea energy resources and took more collaborative posture towards Azerbaijan. However, Putin continued the earlier Russian position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This study argues that there has been both change and continuity in Russian foreign policy towards Azerbaijan since Vladimir Putin&rsquo / s rise to Russia&rsquo / s presidency in 2000. In this sense, Russian foreign policy under Putin could be conceptualized mainly as a pragmatic foreign policy. This conceptualization makes it possible to identify both change and continuity in Russian foreign policy towards Azerbaijan.

Originally presented as the author's Thesis (doctoral)--Université Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne), 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (v. 2, p. 233-270).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Köln, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 308-344).

The role of economic theory in the preservation of nature in Kazakhstan is very current, because mining industry in this country is quite large and it is a considerable burden for the environment. This burden is obvious mostly in extraction and processing of crude oil. The main aim of this thesis is the analysis of state environmental policy with the focus on prevention of oil spills in the Caspian Sea in accordance with "State concept of ecological safety in Kazakhstan in 2004-2015" and also methods of oil spills removal as tools for environment protection including factual techniques and firm based costs linked to the removal of oil spills. Thesis will also include the comparison of effectiveness of existing models for oil spills removal used by companies in Kazakhstan. The first part of work is methodologically based on analysis of secondary sources: scientific articles and literature, ecology bulletins, official data of Ministry of environment in Kazakhstan, firm based data and "State concept of ecological safety".

Depuis la création de l'Union soviétique jusqu'à sa dissolution, la mer Caspienne appartenait à l'Iran et à l'URSS, qui constituaient ses deux seuls États riverains. Ces derniers avaient convenu de gérer la Caspienne «en commun », selon un régime de condominium, dans deux accords bilatéraux signés en 1921 et 1940. Cependant, après le démembrement de l'Union soviétique en 1991, trois nouveaux États indépendants et riverains de la Caspienne (1'Azerbaïdjan, le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan) se sont ajoutés à l'équation, et ont exigé une révision du régime juridique conventionnel en vigueur. Ainsi, des négociations multilatérales ont été entamées, lesquelles ont mis en relief plusieurs questions juridiques faisant l'objet d'interprétation divergente: Le régime juridique conventionnel de 1921 et de 1940 (établissant une gestion en commun) est-il toujours valable dans la nouvelle conjoncture? Les nouveaux États riverains successeurs de l'Union soviétique sont-ils tenus de respecter les engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran quant à la Caspienne? Quel est l'ordre juridique applicable à la mer Caspienne? Serait-ce le droit de la mer (UNCLOS) ou le droit des traités? La notion de rebus sic stantibus - soit le « changement fondamental de circonstances» - aurait-elle pour effet l'annulation des traités de 1921 et de 1940? Les divisions administratives internes effectuées en 1970 par l'URSS pour délimiter la mer sont-elles valides aujourd'hui, en tant que frontières maritimes? Dans la présente recherche, nous prendrons position en faveur de la validité du régime juridique établi par les traités de 1921 et de 1940 et nous soutiendrons la position des États qui revendiquent la transmission des engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran aux nouveaux États riverains. Pour cela nous effectuerons une étude complète de la situation juridique de la mer Caspienne en droit international et traiterons chacune des questions mentionnées ci-dessus. Le droit des traités, le droit de la succession d'États, la Convention des Nations Unies du droit de la mer de 1982, la doctrine, la jurisprudence de la C.I.J et les positions des États riverains de la Caspienne à l'ONU constituent nos sources pour l'analyse détaillée de cette situation. / From the creation of the Soviet Union to its dissolution, the Caspian Sea belonged to Iran and the USSR, which were its only two littoral States. The Caspian was, during this period, governed by two bilateral agreements signed in 1921 and 1940, in which the two States had agreed to “jointly” manage the Sea. However, after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 gave birth to three newly independent States (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) with coast lines along the Caspian Sea, these three new actors demanded with insistence that the existing treaty-based regime be revised. During the course of the ensuing negotiations, several legal questions have been raised: Is the treaty-based legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties still valid in the new regional configuration? Are the newly independent States, successors to the USSR, obliged to respect the former Union's legal obligations towards Iran? If not, what is the appropriate legal regime applicable to the Caspian? Is it the law of the Sea (as defined mostly in the UNCLOS) or the law of treaties? Considering the new regional configuration, does the concept of rebus sic stantibus - or the fundamental change of circumstances - invalidate the 1921 and 1940 treaties? Will the internal administrative divisions established in 1970 by the former Soviet Union with regards to the Caspian become - de jure - the new international maritime frontiers? In this thesis, we argue in favour of the validity of the legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties and we support the position of those States which assert the transmissibility of the obligations of the former Union to the newly independent littoral States. In doing so, we will provide a complete analysis of the legal dilemma at hand and suggest appropriate analytical answers to the aforementioned questions. The law of treaties, the law of the succession of States, the 1982 United Nations' Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), doctrinal commentaries, case law of the I.C.J, and official U.N documents revealing the positions of each littoral States will be thoroughly conversed in this regard.