Energy diplomacy in the context of multistakeholder diplomacy: The EU and BICS
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836715573541 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Author | Michèle Knodt,Natalia Chaban |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2015, Vol. 50(4) 457 –474
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836715573541
cac.sagepub.com
Energy diplomacy in the
context of multistakeholder
diplomacy: The EU and BICS
Natalia Chaban and Michèle Knodt
Abstract
This paper examines a supranational actor, the European Union (EU), as a producer of energy
diplomacy. This study uses a comparative analytical framework of state-centred vs. multistakeholder
diplomacies to explore EU energy diplomacy towards the ‘emerging’ powers of Brazil, India, China
and South Africa (BICS). It also elaborates the multistakeholder model by advocating the inclusion
of a new element – a consumer of diplomatic actions – into its conceptualization. In this way
the paper suggests a new synthesis of the concepts of multistakeholder and public diplomacies.
Advancing the notion of energy diplomacy, our analysis suggests that this type of diplomacy
goes beyond state actors as producers of diplomatic outcomes, and is no longer confined to
the norms of security of supply and competitiveness; EU energy diplomacy is a complex blend
of multistakeholder and state-centred diplomacies, participants (producers and consumers) and
communication modes. This comprehensive approach to diplomacy – led in the EU’s case by
norms of sustainability, competitiveness and security of supply – is a response to the challenges of
global governance, multipolarity and multinational cross-sectoral networks.
Keywords
BICS, energy diplomacy, EU, multistakeholder diplomacy model
Introduction
As global governance, networking and multipolarity challenge states as the main diplomacy
actors, traditional diplomacy is facing an identity crisis. The practice of diplomacy is now
attempted by multilateral and supranational organizations as well as NGOs, companies and
lobbies. Scholarly reflections on this complexity argue for a parallel existence of state-
centred and multistakeholder diplomacies (Hocking, 2006). In state-centred diplomacy, the
state is the diplomatic actor and other stakeholders are the consumers. In the multistake-
holder context, other actors can also become producers of diplomatic outcomes. While inter-
national policy is still predominantly shaped by governments, the roles of ‘consumers’ and
Corresponding author:
Natalia Chaban, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Email: natalia.chaban@canterbury.ac.nz
573541CAC0010.1177/0010836715573541Cooperation and ConflictChaban and Knodt
research-article2015
Article
458 Cooperation and Conflict 50(4)
‘producers’ of diplomacy are dependent on the ‘dynamics underpinning the trisectoral inter-
actions between governments, NGOs, and business’ (Hocking, 2006: 17). In the shaping of
international politics, states find it increasingly difficult to ignore other stakeholders.
This paper applies the multistakeholder diplomacy model to the energy interactions of
the European Union (EU), as a supranational actor, with major ‘netto’ energy consumer
countries in the South: the four ‘emerging’ powers of BICS (Brazil, India, China and
South Africa). In an increasingly multipolar world, with a growing demand by newly
‘emerging’ powers for energy, external energy relations between the main ‘poles’ who
remain energy consumers is a high-priority issue for policy-makers and scholars.
However, these relations are scarcely addressed in the relevant literature. Driven by sig-
nificant strategic constraints that risk the securitization of energy policies, how does the
EU harness the potential for cooperation with newly ‘emerging’ powers and realize the
possibilities for multipolar energy relations?
Our study has both an empirical and a theoretical aim as it explores the EU energy
interactions with BICS, which range from formal negotiations to a variety of partner-
ships and interactions between state and non-state actors. The multistakeholder analyti-
cal model is thus useful to classify the EU as a producer of energy diplomacy. Energy
diplomacy remains under-operationalized and under-defined. Goldthau’s widely
accepted definition states that energy diplomacy is:
…the way countries give their energy companies a competitive edge in bidding for resources
by using the state’s power: consumer countries strengthen their supply situation by diplomatically
flanking energy contracts, whereas producer countries use diplomacy to enhance access to
markets or reserves. (Goldthau, 2010: 25)
This paper revisits the concept of energy diplomacy as a type of diplomacy generated
only by state or state actors and limited to the security and competitive norm only, and
argues a conceptual difference between energy diplomacy on the one hand and global
energy governance and energy markets on the other. More specifically, our research
focuses on a supranational producer of energy diplomacy outcomes (the EU) and the
scope of its relations with a wide range of state and non-state actors (including busi-
nesses, NGOs, scientific experts and even the general public).
A complex sui generis entity, the EU is a unique international actor – neither a central-
ized federal state, nor simply a loose intergovernmental organization. Much of the litera-
ture has reflected on the EU’s role as an actor in the international arena (Bretherton and
Vogler, 1999; Elgström and Smith, 2006; Rhodes, 1998; Smith, 2002), including EU
performance since the Lisbon Treaty and the introduction of the European external action
service (EEAS) (Keukeleire and Delreux, 2014). Relevant literature also contends that
this supranational producer of diplomatic efforts aspires to and claims its global identity
as a ‘normative power’. ‘Normative Power Europe’ (NPE) (Manners, 2002) intends to
shape and transfer norms, rules and values of sustainability, competitiveness and security
of supply by non-coercive practices and recognition of this identity in the energy field by
its external partners, including BICS.
Considering a range of global reactions to the EU’s normative messages – from accept-
ance to rejection (Björkdahl et al., 2015) – this paper proposes to extend the multistake-
holder diplomacy model’s exclusive focus on a producer of diplomatic outcomes to an
To continue reading
Request your trial