试论俄罗斯与乌兹别克斯坦的能源合作

新世纪开始,在世界能源形势对能源出口国有利的大背景下,俄罗斯新领导人开始重视实施积极的对外能源战略,以获取地缘经济和地缘政治的双重利益。位于中亚中心的乌兹别克斯坦因拥有丰富的天然气资源、欧亚大陆重要的能源过境国地位、对俄罗斯南部安全有着特殊意义而成为俄罗斯能源外交的优先对象。而乌兹别克斯坦也从发展国家经济、维护政权安全的角度,需要与俄罗斯开展能源合作。于是,从2004年开始,以勘探、开采、采购、运输、管道维修与建设为主要内容的俄乌能源合作迅速展开,并在短短几年里取得显著成效。俄罗斯成为对乌兹别克斯坦能源领域投资最多的国家,并垄断了乌兹别克斯坦的天然气出口。然而随着全球金融危机的发生,世界能源形势出现的新变化对俄乌能源合作产生了深远影响。展望俄乌能源合作的未来,俄罗斯将失去对乌兹别克斯坦天然气采购和运输方面的优势地位,但在乌兹别克斯坦油气投资领域的优势将会继续保持;乌兹别克斯坦也会在增加国内天然气出口量方面对俄罗斯能源企业有所倚重。俄罗斯仍将是乌兹别克斯坦最重要的能源合作伙伴。     

俄格冲突:地缘政治框架下的分析

2008年8月爆发的俄格冲突是相关各方地缘政治博弈背景下的产物,它反映了俄罗斯与格鲁吉亚、俄罗斯与美国以及欧亚地区三个层次的地缘政治冲突的现实.冲突也相应地在三个层次上产生了反映地缘政治冲突的力量格局和平衡的现实结果.俄格冲突也在地缘政治层面对今后国际局势产生了重要影响,其中包括对当前美国主导的国际秩序的冲击,对北约未来发展的冲击以及对国际能源局势的冲击.     

俄罗斯能源政策的范式转变与东北亚能源关系

有关俄罗斯与东北亚能源关系演变的研究,不仅涉及俄罗斯国内政治层面的国家—企业关系演进,而且还包括由全球能源体系变革和地缘政治冲击引发的俄罗斯在不同地区能源市场维度上的角色互动。我们在此试图构建俄罗斯与东北亚能源关系演变的"双层博弈"框架,即在强调俄罗斯国内政治行为对地区能源关系影响的同时,考察东北亚能源市场上各方利益博弈对俄罗斯能源政策实施的作用。其中,全球能源体系变革和地缘政治危机对传统油气出口国的外部冲击,将被纳入对东北亚能源关系演变的动态分析。考虑到世界能源市场正在经历从卖方市场向买方市场的转变,俄罗斯对东北亚能源合作的需求程度将越来越大于后者对前者的进口依赖。俄罗斯从资源民族主义转向实施更加开放包容的能源政策,将实质性地推进其与东北亚能源关系的提升与深化。     

俄欧能源:冲突还是合作

俄欧之间的能源合作有其历史基础和现实需要,尽管俄罗斯同乌克兰、白俄罗斯之间发生油气争端,但并不意味俄罗斯试图放弃同欧洲的能源合作.乌白两国作为管道过境国,在俄欧能源对话中将扮演支点作用.俄罗斯的能源战略对此给予了高度重视.     

俄罗斯在全球能源安全中的战略地位

进入新世纪,俄罗斯改变了过去依靠和强调军事力量来确保地缘政治地位的方式,转而利用其经济资源特别是能源优势来发展与邻国的经济政治关系。俄罗斯所具有的能源实力和潜力成为其与美国抗衡、与欧洲国家加强联系以及恢复在亚洲地区影响力的重要砝码和有力武器。中国和亚洲市场在俄罗斯未来全球能源战略方面具有重要的平衡作用。     

乌克兰危机下国际能源供应链断裂重组及其战略影响

乌克兰危机不仅对冷战后欧洲安全秩序造成了剧烈冲击,也给国际能源体系带来了重大影响。冲突爆发以来,美欧对俄罗斯实施了全方位能源禁运和能源限价,欧洲在经受价格高企等暂时性困难的同时,正加速将俄罗斯排除在其能源供应体系之外,摆脱对俄能源依赖。西方的制裁使俄罗斯失去了从美欧获取大规模能源投资和先进能源技术的可能,能源出口市场相应萎缩。乌克兰危机背景下,对安全、价值观等“高位政治”的关注正迅速压倒对经济联系、市场供应等“低位政治”的考量,国际能源供应链的断裂重组将在全球政治、经济、社会各层面产生复杂深刻的影响。     

俄罗斯天然气外交浅析

自2001年包括石油和天然气在内的国际能源价格大幅上涨以来,在俄罗斯学术界和政界关于建立能源帝国,开展能源外交的声音就不绝于耳。2006年之初的俄乌天然气之争更使得俄罗斯的能源外交成为各方关注的焦点。     

俄罗斯东部能源发展战略评析

东西伯利亚和远东对于俄罗斯的整体发展具有十分重要的地缘政治和社会经济意义。2009年11月13日,俄联邦政府通过的《2030年前俄罗斯能源战略》对其东部地区给予了特别关注,俄能源部门发展的5个战略性倡议中有4项直接涉及东部能源产业的长远发展问题。作为世界经济增长速度最快的区域,亚太地区是最值得俄罗斯期待的能源出口市场,...     

俄罗斯的南部安全问题

俄罗斯的南部分为二个层次。第一层次是原苏联的高加索三个加盟共和国(亚美尼亚、阿塞拜疆和格鲁吉亚)和中亚五个加盟共和园(土库曼、乌兹别克、塔吉克、吉尔吉斯和哈萨克)。第二层次是土耳其、伊拉克、伊朗和阿富汗等西南亚国家。二个层次加上南亚诸国在俄罗斯南部构成一个伊斯兰弧形地带。这一地区处于欧亚交界处,与欧洲、波斯湾、     

民族主义与俄罗斯东亚能源外交战略论析

俄罗斯东亚能源外交战略不是为了遏制中日韩等东亚国家的发展,而是为了利用能源优势实现经济利益的最大化,提升国际地位,服务于俄国家总体发展战略.具体来说,俄罗斯东亚能源外交的战略考虑建立在四大权衡和三大选择的基础上,即俄与中国和日本的关系、政治利益与经济利益、欧洲市场与亚洲市场、大陆方向与海洋方向的权衡,俄能源输出是战略主旨还是策略考量,东亚国家对俄而言是伙伴还是对手,俄追求单赢还是共赢等选择.俄在与东亚国家能源合作问题上的表现变数较大,具有不确定性.俄罗斯油气民族主义的特点表现为实用主义.     

东北亚“核威慑效应弱化”及其应对思考

东北亚地区呈现的"核威慑效应弱化",对地区安全构成消极影响。东北亚以及美国的核威慑投入在持续,美对韩日核保护,韩日谈论核武器,朝鲜发展核武器,同时萨德部署与《中导条约》失效降低了中俄的核威慑能力,核传统的遏止功能、保护能力与可信性降低,核扩散趋势增强,核威慑悖论现象显现。"核安全保护不完全"、核拥有国数量增加,是探讨"核威慑效应弱化"成因的有益路径。建立新时代的核理论,揭示并审慎研究核武器化与民用化并存风险,建立核民用合作机制并推进建立涵盖核的武器与民用的合作机制,以核问题的处理为契机在国家层面上构建东北亚命运共同体,以及在地方与个人层面推进核文化教育与核防护演练合作,都是应对"核威慑效应弱化"的有益思考。     

20世纪初韩国的和平思想——日本的“东洋和平论”批判和韩中日间合作的探索

20世纪初期,在日本帝国主义进行侵略和扩张的过程中,伊藤博文政府为了建立"东洋和平"和西方势力抗衡,主张在韩中日之间开展合作。但事实上这种主张不过是把当时以日本为中心的东北亚地区秩序合法化的说辞。针对这一点,安重根、安昌浩、申采浩等韩国独立运动家指出国家正处于丧失国权的危机之中,在对日本主张的"东洋和平"进行批判的同时,强调只有在韩国等周边国家的独立得到保障的情况下才有可能实现真正意义上的"东洋和平"。1910年日本帝国主义强行合并韩国以后,申采浩、朴殷植等韩国独立运动家在指出日本合并韩国的非法性的同时,还强调韩中日等东北亚地区国家间建立在信任基础上的交流和合作的重要性,主张韩国的独立有利于"东洋和平与世界和平"。尤其值得一提的是,柳麟锡在强调韩中关系在东北亚的重要性及中国作用的同时,还提出了韩中日三国在相互信任的基础上朝着共生关系发展的构想。     

Energy cooperation problems in Northeast Asia: Unfolding the reality

It is a truism that Northeast Asian states could benefit very much if they were to cooperate in the energy security realm. However, to many, especially economists, their behaviour to this common sense solution has been bewildering: there has been simply no progress towards this end and it still remains a puzzle, even to many energy specialists. This article attempts to answer a simple question: Why do the Northeast Asian states, namely China, Japan, Korea, and Russia, not cooperate? For its analysis, the author of the article relies on content analysis of recently released official governmental long-term energy policy and strategy documents of these states, and notes that cooperation for energy security reasons at the regional level is conspicuously absent, which possibly implies a lack of desire and willingness to do so amongst themselves. The article, however, deliberately omits from its study Korea, simply because no such long-term energy policy exists today. It attributes the major cause to the strong propensity by energy specialists to interchangeably use the concepts of ‘energy cooperation’ and ‘energy security’ in their analysis.     

Russia's energy governance transitions and implications for enhanced cooperation with China,Japan, and South Korea

A Tokyo-based economist and a noted western economic geographer, both specializing in the hydrocarbon resources of Russia, apply the framework of governance studies in an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the recent changes in the country's energy policy-making. The authors argue that, unlike the international relations paradigm prevailing in studies of Russia's energy policy, the country's multiple roles in the international energy arena (as producer, consumer, exporter, importer, and transit state) warrant a more nuanced approach, reflecting Russian energy policy's flexibility over time and diversity across space. This paper endeavors, therefore, to apply a political economy and governance perspective to an understanding of the significant changes in Russia's energy policy-making regarding its dynamic energy relations with the Northeast Asia (NEA; China, Japan, and South Korea). In exploring the complex interactions between Russia's internal energy policy-making and its emerging energy relations in NEA, the authors addresses three key questions, namely: (1) how Russia's Asian energy policy corresponds to its domestic needs, (2) how much coherence in energy governance and cooperation exists between Russia and the Northeast Asian states at the institutional and organizational levels, and (3) the extent to which Russia's expectations for increased energy cooperation with the Northeast Asian states are likely to materialize.     

Russia and the United States: Still cold in Northeast Asia?

The US has been reluctant to acknowledge Russia's relevance to the Asia‐Pacific, the author says, because “too little time has passed since the interests of these two former adversaries collided in the region.” Russia has the longest Pacific coastline and borders with China, Japan, Korea and Mongolia. Despite the end of the Cold War, however, Russia is still not an integrated participant in Northeast Asian economic cooperation. Vladimir Ivanov is a Visiting Fellow at the Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia in Niigata. He argues that Russia has made a clear choice between “guns and growth,” and that the country should be allowed to come in from the cold and join this region's development.     

Energy in Northeast Asia: Resources for Conflict or Cooperation? An Introduction

Although Northeast Asia typically is seen as an arena for conflict over energy supplies, complementary economic relationships would seem to make the region ripe for energy cooperation: Russia possesses major oil and gas resources, while China, Japan, South and North Korea all depend on imported energy. The four papers in this issue raise a number of important and, at times, neglected issues about the prospects for energy cooperation in Northeast Asia. While focusing on specific projects for energy supply and conservation, the authors implicitly raise broader theoretical questions about the prospects for and consequences of regional energy cooperation.

韩中关系与东北亚国际合作体制

东北亚国际合作机制的提出始于20世纪80年代,此后这一议题进入具体讨论的阶段。由于地缘冲突、安全困境等多种原因,目前东北亚地区还难以推行以国际机制或国家理性选择为基础的国际合作机制。从政治外交、经济、人文等合作机制的发展状况来看,目前韩中关系正朝着更高的合作方向发展,这可以说是东北亚国际合作机制建设的重要基础和参照。不过,这其中的一些困扰因素仍然不可小觑。本文主要从经济、政治外交、社会文化三个方面讨论韩中关系的发展,由此分析韩中关系对构建东北亚国际合作机制的重要意义,探讨韩中两国尚未解决或难以妥协的矛盾分歧对东北亚国际合作机制的构建及其发展的重要影响。     

From distrust to mutual interests?: Emerging cooperation in Northeast Asia

In Northeast Asia, historical legacies, a lack of common identity and great power politics impeded political cooperation and economic integration. However, China, Japan and South Korea have exhibited a growing interest in political and economic cooperation since the late 1990s. This article examines how the three Northeast Asian countries have developed political and economic cooperation by using the concept of ‘multilayered intergovernmentalism’. It argues that despite political tensions between China and Japan, regional cooperation among China, Japan and South Korea has been promoted by talks and bargains among the heads of state and government who strengthened incentives for closer cooperation. Moreover, multilayered frameworks formed at the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) level, through the Track II mechanisms, and in issue-specific areas have provided valuable input into advancing regional cooperation initiatives. Whereas the APT framework offered incentives and opportunities to exchange views and information for closer trilateral cooperation, the outcomes of the research at the Track II were incorporated into the leaders' cooperative initiatives. The existence of issue-specific frameworks stirred talks and negotiations at the summit level.     

China and Northeast Asian regional security cooperation

Northeast Asia is a particularly complex area in the world, especially in terms of security. China advocates a new concept of security based on equality, mutual benefits, consultation and cooperation. China is making great efforts to reduce regional hot issues and lower regional tensions under the conditions that a regional security framework has not been completely established. In recent years, China has actively participated in regional security cooperation and promoted the construction of a security institution. The Six-Party Talks are of great significance not only for resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, but also for forming a relatively formal framework of security organization. Among the various East Asian security cooperative relationships, that of China–Japan–Korea is critical with regard to East Asian stability. At the same time, however, China should face and deal with some problems concerning the promotion of Northeast Asian security cooperation such as how to regard the presence of US–Japan and US–Korean military alliance, let Korea play the dominating role in Northeast Asian security cooperation and eliminate the Cold War mentality.     

中俄、中澳能源合作比较研究——合理性、有效性、可持续性探析

为了减少对中东能源的依赖,中国实施了能源进口多元化、拓展海外能源产地的战略,加强了与俄罗斯、澳大利亚等国的能源合作。俄、澳两国作为中国的重点合作对象,在能源结构、国内制度、与中国合作的模式等方面有着各自的特点。从合理性、有效性、可持续性三个视角对中俄、中澳能源合作进行比较分析,有助于我们探寻两种合作模式的成功经验以及如何克服不利因素的影响。