Search

The common characterisation of European Union (EU) and Russian external energy relations as liberal versus realist does not do justice to the efforts of both entities to shape energy market regulation in their shared neighbourhood. This article aims to contribute to the understanding of energy regulation as a tool of strategic influence by examining from a geopolitical perspective how the EU, Russia and, to a lesser extent, China attempt to shape gas pricing and pipeline access regimes in the post-Soviet Eurasian space. A geopolitical analysis of regulatory convergence in the region helps understand how liberal concepts of energy regulation acquire a strategic function when exported to contested spheres of influence, with important consequences for the legitimacy and acceptability of these regulatory models. The EU, Russia and China recognise common principles of gas market regulation at the domestic level, but geopolitical considerations, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, prevent the implementation of these principles at the regional level, hindering the transition of this contested neighbourhood towards more efficient energy systems and reduced dependence on Russian supplies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns over the weaponization of energy during the war in Ukraine have revived state anxieties about overreliance on certain foreign energy sources. This Essay argues that instruments of energy trade and investment protection have helped to lock states into dangerous dependencies. Trade and investment law can inhibit energy security strategies designed to diversify away from unreliable sources and to block suspicious investors. With energy used as a weapon, reform of the liberal energy regime is needed to allow states to prevent the creation of dependencies and protect their energy security in the new geopolitical reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Energy geopolitics has received limited attention in the climate law scholarship, despite the importance of the energy sector for climate change and the impact of energy crises on the effectiveness of decarbonisation mechanisms. The shock caused by the current war in Ukraine shows that, in a geopolitical world, geopolitical analysis must be integrated into climate, and more generally environmental, law analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines whether the collapse of fossil energy markets and the introduction of decarbonisation regulation can trigger force majeure relief from fossil energy contracts. A critique of force majeure clauses from an environmental perspective will help to clarify how energy contracts lock buyers and suppliers into a carbon-intensive path. By not relieving buyers from their purchase obligations, even after respective market meltdowns and the disappearance of demand, force majeure, as defined in most energy contracts, can incentivise irrational energy use and waste, and is thus incompatible with a low-carbon transition. Climate regulation preventing a party from using fossil fuels can excuse performance of the obligation to purchase fossil energy, but the affected party can be required to challenge these decarbonisation measures and thus oppose the low-carbon transition. To avoid these perverse effects and align energy contracts to the reality of decarbonisation, economic hardship and environmental regulation should be explicitly included in force majeure clauses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to decarbonise the Chinese economy faces challenges relating to the tradition of heavy regulation that characterises the functioning of the largest carbon-emitting sector—coal-fired electricity production. This article examines what scope there is for the market to drive the decarbonisation of China's electricity supply, when hitherto most emission reductions have been achieved through traditional regulation (eg emissions performance standards and the forced closure of inefficient installations). The importance of traditional regulation does not mean that the ETS will not contribute to the decarbonisation of China's energy supply, but the role of the ETS will be different from that in liberalised energy markets (eg the European Union) where the market is supposed to be the main driver of emission reductions. In China, the role of the ETS will be limited to help achieve the energy investment targets set under the government's central planning policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the Ukraine conflict and the resulting political hostility between Russia and the West have put a stop to the 2000 EU-Russia Energy Dialogue, the mutual benefits of energy cooperation and cross-border energy investments are undeniable. Taking these mutual benefits into account, energy would be a logical area of focus if the EU and Russia were to decide to re-initiate their strategic partnership in the event of a normalization of the situation in Ukraine. Although this scenario still is highly hypothetical and a further deterioration of EU-Russian relations is possible, it is important to reflect on the creation of institutional structures that would enable the EU and Russia to rebuild trust by working together in a field of common strategic interest. In this context, this article examines the possibility of establishing an EU-Russian energy agreement to overcome the current misunderstandings that exist between the EU and Russia in respect of the interpretation and application of the main concepts of energy law. The legal certainty resulting from such an energy-specific agreement could contribute to improving the investment climate for cross-border EU-Russian energy investments and possibly, through closer investment ties, enhancing trust between the EU and Russia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a sequel to 'Improving the Climate for European Investments in the Russian Electricity Production Sector: (I) the Role of Investment Protection Law', which appeared in the previous issue of the Journal. It examines whether convergence of the regulatory frameworks governing the European and Russian electricity markets could improve the predictability of investment conditions in the Russian electricity production sector. Could the creation of an EU--Russian level playing field in the electricity sector answer the legal uncertainties faced by European investors in Russia? This question is analysed in the broader context of the EU--Russian energy relationship. The article first examines the notion of regulatory convergence and its conceptual evolution in the context of the increasing strategic importance of Russia for the European energy market. Thereafter the potential success of this approach is assessed in light of comparative law, especially legal transplant theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]