http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9397-4514
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Combatting climate change and ensuring energy security require diversification of energy profiles through alternative resources, with nuclear energy being the most controversial one. Although the preferences among its members differ, the EU offers a specific legal and practical framework for nuclear energy. Turkey, on the other hand, emerges as a ‘newcomer’ in the nuclear energy field, revealing a need for policy learning for safe and secure nuclear energy generation. This research focuses on the Europeanization of Turkey’s nuclear policy to trace whether a strategic or social learning takes place within the nuclear energy framework. The analysis also questions to what extent the EU and Turkey’s framing of nuclear energy coincides or diverges with reference to the climate change.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Şuhnaz Yılmaz, Alexander Bürgin and Kai Oppermann for their helpful comments on the previous version of this article. I would like to also express my sincere gratitude to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and criticisms which were helpful in improving the article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
S. Duygu Sever is a PhD Candidate in International Relations and Political Science at Koç University. She is working as project assistant for ‘Energy and Climate Drivers’ in the Horizon 2020 Project: FEUTURE (The Future of EU-Turkey Relations: Mapping Dynamics and Testing Scenarios). Her research areas cover Energy Security, Energy Politics, Climate Change, Policy Transfer in Energy and Environment, Nuclear Energy, and Global Environmental Governance. She has several publications on energy security. She is currently working on her dissertation: ‘The Domestic and Global Context of Energy Preferences: Explaining the Choice for the Nuclear.’
ORCID
S. Duygu Sever http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9397-4514
Notes
1. IPCC, “Climate Change 2014, Synthesis report,” 2, 5.
2. UNFCCC, Adoption of the Paris Agreement.
3. For a detailed analysis of Turkey’s climate change policy in the context of its foreign policy please see Sever-Mehmetoğlu and Yılmaz, “Linking Foreign Policy and Energy Security,” 24–5.
4. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Climate Change Action Plan 2011–2023, 14.
5. UNFCCC, Republic of Turkey INDC.
6. Kubicek, “Political conditionality and European Union,” 922; Bürgin, “Why the EU still matters in Turkish Domestic Politics”; Aydın-Düzgit and Kaliber, “Encounters with Europe”; Aydın-Düzgit and Noutcheva, “Lost in Europeanisation”.
7. Yılmaz, “EU Conditionality is not the only game”.
8. Aydın-Düzgit, “De-Europeanisation”.
9. Ibid.
10. Yılmaz, “From Europeanization to De-Europeanization”.
11. Müftüler-Baç and Gürsoy, “Is there a Europeanization”; Düzgit and Tocci, “Transforming Turkish Foreign Policy”; Aydın-Düzgit and Noutcheva, “Lost in Europeanisation,” Öniş and Yılmaz, “Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism”.
12. Yavas, “Europeanization of the Aegean Dispute”.
13. Ulusoy, “Europeanization and political change”.
14. Güney and Tekin, The Europeanization of Turkish Public Policies.
15. For such examples in the literature please see: Kubicek, “Political conditionality and European Union”; Müftüler Baç, “Turkey’s Political Reforms”; Kaya, “Europeanization of civil society in Turkey”; Bürgin, “Why the EU still matters”.
16. Aygın-Düzgit and Kaliber, “Encounters with Europe”.
17. Kaliber, “De-Europeanisation of Civil Society and Public Debates in Turkey”.
18. Aygın-Düzgit and Kaliber, “Encounters with Europe”.
19. Ibid.
20. Yılmaz, “From Europeanization to De-Europeanization”.
21. Yılmaz, “EU Conditionality is not the Only Game”.
22. Boşnak, “Europeanisation and De-Europeanisation”.
23. Bürgin, “Why the EU Still Matters”.
24. Schneider and Hage, “Europeanization and the retreat of the state,” 6.
25. Grabbe, “Europeanization Goes East,” 3.
26. Börzel and Risse,”Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact.”
27. Risse, Cowles and Caporaso. “Europeanization and Domestic Change,” 3.
28. Börzel and Risse,”Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact,” 66–8.
29. Risse, Cowles and Caporaso “Europeanization and Domestic Change,” 12.
30. Kaliber, “Contextual and contested”; Kaliber, “Europeanization in Turkey”; Aygın-Düzgit and Kaliber, “Encounters with Europe”.
31. Kaliber, “Contextual and contested”; Kaliber, “Europeanization in Turkey”.
32. Kaliber, “Contextual and contested,” 57.
33. Ibid.
34. Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, 10.
35. Bürgin, “Strategic Learning,” 464; Checkel, “The Constructivist Turn”.
36. Bürgin, “Strategic Learning,” 464.
37. Checkel, “Social Construction and Integration,” 464.
38. Checkel, “Social Construction,” 548.
39. Bürgin, “Strategic Learning,” 461; Dolowitz and March, “Learning from Abroad”.
40. Checkel, “International Institutions and Socialization,” 802.
41. Checkel, “The Constructivist Turn”; Bürgin, “Strategic Learning.”
42. Yılmaz, “From Europeanization to De-Europeanization.”
43. Bürgin, “Why the EU still matters.”
44. Kaliber, “Contextual and Contested.”
45. Günay and İşeri, “Unexpected Persistence Amidst Enlargement Statis.”
46. Izci, “Europeanisation of Turkish Environmental Policy.”
47. Bilgin, “Energy Policy in Turkey”; Han, “Turkey’s Energy Strategy”; Bilgin, “Scenarios on European Energy Security”; Biresselioglu, “Turkey: Europe’s Emerging Energy Corridor”; Barysch, “Turkey’s Role in European Energy Security.”
48. Sever-Mehmetoğlu and Yılmaz, “Linking Foreign Policy and Energy Security.”
49. Williams, “Energy and Trans-European Networks-Energy,” 46–62.
50. Yildirim, Baysan and Ediger. “Europeanization under Membership Uncertainty.”
51. Yabancı, “The Future of EU-Turkey Relations.”
52. Colantoni et al. “Energy and Climate Strategies.”
53. Ibid. p. 42.
54. Colantoni, Sever and Yılmaz, “Energy and Climate Security Priorities.”
55. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the European Union.
56. Huenteler, Schmidt and Kanie, “Japan’s post-Fukushima Challenge.”
57. Radowitz and Hromadko, Germany Moves Forward.
58. Pointvogl, “Perceptions, realities, concessions.”
59. Sever, Tekin and Williams, “Evolution of EU Energy Policy.”
60. European Commission, An Energy Policy for Europe.
61. European Commission, Green Paper: Towards a European Strategy.
62. Ibid.
63. Kıyar and Wittneben, “Nuclear Energy in the European Union,” 10.
64. IEA, Policies Review: The European Union, 34.
65. Ibid.
66. European Commission, Overview of the secondary EU legislation.
67. European Commission, An Energy Policy for Europe, 15.
68. European Commission, A Strategy for Competitive, Sustainable and Secure Energy.
69. European Commission, Green Paper: Towards a European Strategy; Green Paper on Energy Efficiency; An External Energy Policy; Green Paper: A European Strategy.
70. European Commission, Green Paper: Towards a European Strategy, 2.
71. European Commission, An Energy Policy for Europe, 16.
72. IEA, Policies Review: The European Union, 10.
73. Kıyar and Wittneben, “Nuclear Energy in the European Union,” 10; Bradford, “The Nuclear Landscape,” 152; IEA, Policies Review: The European Union; Thomas, “What will the Fukushima disaster change,” 16.
74. European Commission, An Energy Policy for Europe; Eurostat, Energy, Transport and Environment Indicators, 4.
75. European Commission, 2030 Energy Strategy.
76. European Commission, An Energy Policy for Europe, 16.
77. European Commission’s words, An Energy Policy for Europe, 16.
78. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Strategic Plan 2015–2019, 19.
79. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Nükleer Santraller, 6.
80. Kibaroğlu, “Turkey’s Quest for Peaceful Nuclear.”
81. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Strategic Plan 2015–2019, 40.
82. Kılıç, “Importance and Necessity”; Uslu, “The Necessity of Nuclear-Based Energy.”
83. The fact that Akkuyu will be built by Russia creates criticism among the experts.
84. Erdurmaz, “Nuclear Energy in Turkey,” 238; World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Turkey.
85. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Strategic Plan 2015–2019, 40.
86. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Strategic Plan 2015–2019, 17.
87. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Nükleer Güç Santralleri ve Türkiye.
88. Öner, “Energy Status and Peaceful Usage,” 316.
89. For detailed information about Turkey’s regulations please see Atiyas and Sanin, “A Regulatory Authority for Nuclear Energy.”
90. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Turkey.
91. For a detailed list of nuclear developments in Turkey please see: Öner, “Energy Status and Peaceful Usage,” and Akçay, “The Case of Nuclear Energy.”
92. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Turkey.
93. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry, The Agreement.
94. Daily Sabah, “Turkey-China.”
95. For the details of the regulations to be aligned please see the Screening Report on Turkey available at: http://www.ab.gov.tr/index.php?p=38&l=2.
96. Available in the Progress Reports for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.
97. European Commission, Progress Report 2016.
98. Available in the Progress Reports for 2010, 2011,2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.
99. European Commission, Progress Report 2000.
100. Available in the Progress Reports for 2005, 2006, 2007,2008, 2009, 2014, 2016.
101. Available in the Progress Reports for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.
102. Available in the Progress Reports for 2010, 2011, 2012.
103. European Commission, Progress Report 2015, 48.
104. European Commission, Progress Report 2005, 88–9.
105. European Parliament, Parliament Resolution of 14 April 2016, 8.
106. Aydın-Düzgit and Noutcheva, “Lost in Europeanisation.”
107. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, Turkey’s National Programme 2007–2013, 221, 227–8.
108. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, National Programme 2008, 181–2.
109. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, National Programme 2003, 513.
110. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, National Programme 2001, 432.
111. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, National Action Plan 2016–2019, 124.
112. Ibid., 125–6.
113. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, National Programme 2003, 534.
114. Republic of Turkey Ministry for EU Affairs, National Programme 2001, 432.
115. Ibid., 590, 641–3.
116. Stulberg and Fuhrmann, The Nuclear Renaissance.
117. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development, Development Plans.
118. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development, Seventh Five Years Development Plan, 4, 192.
119. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development, Sixth Five Years Development Plan, 313.
120. Stein, Türkiye’nin Nükleer Enerjiye Dair Hedefleri.
121. Ibid., 3.
122. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development, Tenth Five Years Development Plan, 104.
123. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Climate Change Action Plan 2011–2023.
124. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Nükleer Santraller, 26; Global Relations Forum, Turkish Energy Strategy.
125. For a detailed analysis of the nuclear dimension in the bilateral relations with Russia see Sever-Mehmetoğlu and Yılmaz, “Linking Foreign Policy and Energy Security,” 16.
126. Erdurmaz, “Nuclear Energy in Turkey.”