A Constructivist–Discursive Approach to Studying EU-Russia Energy Relations

  • Lukáš Tichý


This chapter provides an important theoretical–methodological basis for the analysis of the energy discourse between the EU and the RF and related issues. The first part consists of an explanation of the possibility of combining a conventional and a critical constructivist approach with the aim of creating a theoretical framework to be used as an analytical tool for exploring the EU and RF discourse on energy relations. For this purpose, the second part examines a broader constructivist approach to the matter of discourse, the actions of both parties with regard to foreign energy relations, and the issue of identity, interests, norms, and values. The third part focuses on a methodological elaboration of discourse analysis and its application and the selection of primary methods. The fourth part specifies the major actors that form the energy discourse of the EU and Russia. The fifth part deals with the question of data collection and the criteria for selecting relevant data. The final part provides a preliminary analysis of select documents and speeches, followed by the identification of several dominant energy discourses in the EU and the RF.


  1. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhajji, A. F. (2014). Dimensions of energy security: Competition, interaction and maximization. In B. K. Sovacool (Ed.), Energy security: Definitions and concepts of energy security (Vol. 1, pp. 113–136). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bahgat, G. (2006). Europe’s energy security: Challenges and opportunities. International Affairs, 82(5), 961–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin, D. A. (Ed.). (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balzacq, T. (2010). Constructivism and securitization studies. In V. V. Mauer & D. M. Cavelty (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of security studies (pp. 56–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Balzacq, T. (Ed.). (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Barša, P., & Císař, O. (2008). Anarchie a řád ve světové politice: Kapitoly z teorie mezinárodních vztahů [Anarchy and order in world politics. Chapters from international relations theory]. Prague: Portál.Google Scholar
  9. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, J. F. (2011). EU energy policy under the Treaty of Lisbon rules: Between a new policy and business as usual. European Policy Institutes Network. Accessed August 13, 2018, from
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brutschin, E. (2016). EU gas security architecture: The role of the commission’s entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burchill, S. (2005). The national interest in international relations theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burman, E., & Parker, I. (Eds.). (1993). Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buzan, B., Waever, O., & De Wilde, J. (1997). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, D. (1998). Writing security: United States foreign policy and politics of identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Carta, C., & Morin, J.-F. (Eds.). (2014). EU foreign policy through the lens of discourse analysis: Making sense of diversity. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Checkel, J. T. (2013). Theoretical pluralism in IR: Possibilities and limits. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 220–243). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cho, Y. C. (2009). Conventional and critical constructivist approaches to national security: An analytical survey. The Korean Journal of International Relations, 49(3), 75–102.Google Scholar
  23. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1947–1952). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Colin, G. (2004). Russian foreign policy discourse during the Kosovo crisis: Internal struggles and the political imaginaire. Centre d’études et de recherches internationales. Accessed August 13, 2018, from
  25. Collier, D. (1991). The comparative method: Two decades of change. In D. A. Rustow, P. Kenneth, et al. (Eds.), Comparative political dynamics: Global research perspectives (pp. 7–31). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  26. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Daly, J., Kellehear, A., & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Dias, V. A. (2013). The EU and Russia: Competing discourses, practices and interests in the shared neighbourhood. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 14(2), 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eichler, J., & Tichý, L. (2013). USA a Ruská federace: Komparace z pohledu bezpečnostní a strategické kultury [The US and the Russian Federation: A comparison from a security and strategic culture viewpoint]. Prague: Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  30. Epstein, C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change: Textual analysis for social research. Cambridge: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (Language in social life). New York: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fearon, J., & Wendt, A. (2005). Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 52–72). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Finnemore, M. (1996). Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), Culture and national security: Security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 153–185). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Finnemore, M. (2004). The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force (Cornell studies in security affairs). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gariup, M. (2009). European security culture: Language, theory, policy. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gerring, J. (2010). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  44. Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hague, R., & Harrop, M. (2010). Political science: Comparative government and politics – An introduction (8th ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Hajer, M. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid rain in Great Britain. In F. Fisher & J. Forster (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hajer, M. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, practices, meaning. In M. Van Den Brink & T. Metze (Eds.), Words matter in policy planning: Discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research.Google Scholar
  48. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Key research concepts in politics and international relations. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hopkin, J. (2010). The comparative method. In D. Marsh & M. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Howarth, D., & Torfling, J. (Eds.). (2005). Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Howarth, D., Norval, A. J., & Stavrakakis, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. (2010a). Český diskurz o protiraketové obraně a národní zájem [Czech discourse on missile defense and national interest]. Mezinárodní vztahy [Czech Journal of International Relations], 45(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  55. Hynek, N., & Střítecký, V. (2010b). The fortunes of the Czech discourse on the missile defense. In P. Drulák & M. Braun (Eds.), The quest for the national interest: A methodological reflection on czech foreign policy (pp. 87–104). Prague: Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  56. Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2003). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Javadi, M., & Zarea, M. (2016). Understanding thematic analysis and its pitfalls. Journal of Client Care, 1(1), 33–39.Google Scholar
  58. Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse analysis (Introducing linguistics) (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Jokela, J. (2011). Europeanization and foreign policy: State identity in Finland and Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Kantola, J. (2006). Feminists theorize the state. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Karacasulu, N., & Uzgören, E. (2007). Explaining social constructivist contributions to security studies. Perceptions, 12(Summer–Autumn), 1–31.Google Scholar
  62. Karaivanova, S. (2012). EU’s normative and securitization discourse in the energy sector. Contradicting or complementary discourses? Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  63. Keohane, R. O. (1989). Neoliberal institutionalism: A perspective on world politics. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory (pp. 1–20). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kořan, M. (2008). Jednopřípadová studie [Single-case study]. In P. Drulák et al. (Eds.), Jak zkoumat politiku: kvalitativní metodologie v politologii a mezinárodních vztazích [How to research policy: Qualitative methodology in political science and international relations] (pp. 29–61). Prague: Portál.Google Scholar
  65. Kratochvíl, P., & Tichý, L. (2012). Diskurz Evropské unie o energetických vztazích s Ruskou federací [European Union discourse on energy relations with the Russian Federation]. Politologický časopis [Czech Journal of Political Science], 19(2), 95–112.Google Scholar
  66. Kratochvíl, P., & Tichý, L. (2013). EU and Russian discourse on energy relations. Energy Policy, 44(5), 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kratochvíl, P., & Tulmets, E. (2010). Constructivism and rationalism in EU external relations: The case of the European neighbourhood policy. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kuchyňková, P. (2010). Vývoj vztahů Ruské federace a Evropské unie v kontextu problematiky energetické bezpečnosti [Development of relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union in the context of energy security issues]. Doctoral dissertation. Brno: Masarykova univerzita Brno.Google Scholar
  69. Larsen, H. (1997). Foreign policy and discourse analysis: France, Britain and Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J, 9(3), 3351–33514.Google Scholar
  72. Makarychev, A. (2014). Russia and the EU in a multipolar world: Discourses, identities, norms. (Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society). Stuttgart: ibidem.Google Scholar
  73. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Milliken, J. L. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations, 5(2), 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Morgenthau, H., & Thompson, K. W. (1985). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  77. Nia, M. M. (2012). Discourse and identity in Iran’s foreign policy. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 3(3), 29–64.Google Scholar
  78. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ocelík, P., & Černoch, F. (2014). Konstruktivismus a energetická bezpečnost v mezinárodních vztazích [Constructivism and energy security in international relations]. Brno: Muni Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 144–160). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Reus-Smit, C. (2005). Constructivism. In S. Burchill (Ed.), Theories of international relations (pp. 188–212). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  83. Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Říchová, B. (2002). Úvod do současné politologie. Srovnávací analýza demokratických politických systémů [Introduction to contemporary political science. Comparative analysis of democratic political systems]. Prague: Portál.Google Scholar
  85. Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s Argue!”: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Risse, T. (2009). Social constructivism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Roulston, K. (2001). Data analysis and ‘theorizing as ideology’. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sato, Y., & Hirata, K. (Eds.). (2008). Norms, interests, and power in Japanese foreign policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  89. Savigny, H., & Marsden, L. (2011). Doing political science and international relations: Theories in action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics, 27(2), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Siddi, M. (2018). Identities and vulnerabilities: The Ukraine crisis and the securitisation of the EU-Russia gas trade. In K. Szulecki (Ed.), Energy security in Europe: Divergent perceptions and policy challenges (pp. 251–273). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Simmerl, G. (2011). Critical constructivist perspective on global multi-level governance: Discursive struggles among multiple actors in a globalized political space. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  94. Stråth, B. (2010). Europe and the other and Europe as the other (Europe Plurielle/Multiple Europes). Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang S.A.Google Scholar
  95. Tichý, L., & Kratochvíl, P. (2014). The EU-Russia energy relations under the prism of the political discourse. Perspectives, 22(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  96. Tkachenko, S. L. (2008). Actors in Russia’s energy policy towards the EU. In P. Aalto (Ed.), The EU-Russian energy dialogue: Europe’s future energy security (pp. 163–192). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  97. Tsygankov, A. (2015). Vladimir Putin’s last stand: The sources of Russia’s Ukraine policy. Post-Soviet Affairs, 31(4), 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  99. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Wæver, O. (2005). European integration and security: Analysing French and German discourses on state, nation, and Europe. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 33–67). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  101. Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing national interests. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Weldes, J., et al. (1999). Cultures of insecurity: States, communities, and the production of danger. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  103. Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. White, S., & Feklyunina, V. (2014). Identities and foreign policies in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus: The other Europes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  108. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  109. Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in international relations: The politics of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukáš Tichý
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of International RelationsPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations