OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021)
1
SECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES:
INSIGHTS FROM ALSACE-LORRAINE FOR CYPRUS ISLAND
RAHMAN DAG
rahman.dag@gmail.com
Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) at Exeter University, Master of Arts at the School of Orient and
African Studies, Eurocenters Academic English Course in London.
Assistant Professor at Adiyaman University, in the Department of Public Management (Turkey).
Managing Editor of The Rest Journal: Politics of Politics and Development (Journal of Global
Analysis). Director of Cesran Turkey Desk
MEHMET FERHAT FIRAT
mehmetfirat@adiyaman.edu.tr
Adiyaman Üniversitesi (Turkey). Ph.D. Candidate in International Relations, Kadir Has University.
M.A. in International Relations, Macquarie University, Sydney. B.A, Public Administration, Selcuk
University
Abstract
Energy resources since the industrial revolution have been paramount for both developing
and developed countries. Therefore, the urgent need for and control over energy resources in
order to have an advantage against rivalries have become a significant part of national
security. From the late 18
th
century to early 20
th
century, coal and gasoline were major energy
resources to make machines operational but they have been gradually replaced by the fossil
fuels, oil and gas. While transformation is happening, dependency on energy resources in the
fields ranging from housewarming to jet fuels dramatically increased. Having adequate energy
resources, in this sense, provides industrially and economically strategic advantages for a
country, so military or political struggles over energy resources have been a salient issue in
international relations. This paper seeks to examine the struggle over energy resources under
the light of Alsace-Lorraine case and to compare the results with the Cyprus case. In doing
so, securitization studies facilitate theoretical ground on how energy resources are securitized,
which leads to a country to take extreme cautions, including armed conflict and on how energy
resources are de-securitized, which leads to changes in foreign policies from conflict to
cooperation.
Keywords
Securitization, De-securitization, Energy Resources, Alsace-Lorraine, Cyprus Issue, Germany-
France, Turkey-Greece
How to cite this article
Dag, Rahman; Firat, Mehmet Ferhat (2020). "Securing and desecuritisation of energy
resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus island". In Janus.net, e-journal of
international relations. Vol. 11, No. 2 Consulted [online] at date of last visit, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.11.2.1
Article received on November 17, 2019 and accepted for publication on September 3,
2020
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
2
SECURITIZATION AND DESECURITIZATION OF ENERGY
RESOURCES: INSIGHTS FROM ALSACE-LORRAINE FOR CYPRUS
ISLAND
RAHMAN DAG
MEHMET FERHAT FIRAT
Introduction
Increasing energy demand and diversification of energy sources have led to natural gas
gaining importance and priority in the last decades. The recent discoveries of a significant
amount of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean have diversified the source country
options in the international gas market; three large fields have been discovered by
offshore Israel and Cyprus between 2009 and 2011. These recent developments have
raised discussions about the relationship between regional geopolitics and energy. Many
analysts have expressed hopes that the Eastern Mediterranean might become a gas
exporting region (Christou and Adamides, 2016). Moreover, this newly discovered gas
sources could pave the way for a new era of cooperation which has the potential to solve
conflicts in the region. However, history shows that disagreements over the sharing of
energy resources more prone to conflict. The disagreements on Alsace-Lorraine can be
taken as a striking example. Although there were amply reasons bringing the world at
the edge of World War II, the disagreements between Germany and France about the
sharing of energy resources in the region brought a global dimension to the conflict
(Garloch, 1946: 268). Post-war political and military conditions enforced historical
rivalries, German and France, to co-operate in terms of sharing energy resources,
especially in Alsace-Loraine. It is a fact that the energy resources in Cyprus and the
Eastern Mediterranean have the same potential both for conflict and cooperation.
Therefore, a comparison between the Cyprus Island and the Alsace-Lorraine regions can
be important examples for the analysis of the conflict and cooperation potentials of
energy resources.
An analytical framework of the paper bases on the securitization of the energy resources
in the Alsace-Lorraine during both the First and the Second World Wars and
desecuritization of energy resources after the Second World War. In case of Cyprus issue,
this paper argues that securitization of the energy resources is now getting stronger and
suggests that resemblances between the Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyprus issue might be
taken as lessons before securitization of the energy resources leads to conflict. In order
to do that, desecuritization process of Alsace-Lorraine case between Germany and France
after WWII should be examined.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
3
Such a huge argument has to be dealt with eloquently because of current disagreements
in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea are getting furious. In order to subsidies the potential
of energy resources bringing conflict (securitization) or cooperation (desecuritization) in
the EMS region, the resemblances between the Alsace-Lorraine and Cyprus have to be
presented. These two cases should be compared in order to increase the robustness of
the main argument.
Following a section of the paper explains why these two cases are comparable. The next
section provides a theoretical framework to comprehend how energy resources could
lead to conflict and then cooperation in Alsace-Lorraine. Right after that, the paper
depicts the case of Cyprus issue on which securitization process is in operation. In the
concluding section, desecuritization process of the Alsace-Lorraine region is taken as a
ground for the Cyprus issue.
What makes the Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyprus Issue Comparable?
The Alsace Lorraine region possessing coal mines and iron ores have had a strategic place
during both World Wars. This is because in the early 20th-century coal and iron were
important energy sources that were used in the wide range of sectors, including the war
industry. On the other hand, hydrocarbon reserves recently discovered by the offshore
of Cyprus have made the Island the center of energy conflict between the guarantor
states: Turkey and Greece. The analogy between Alsace-Lorraine and Cyprus issues
allows us to analyze the conflict and cooperation potentials of energy sources. It is going
to be a bold argument that the Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyprus issue are similar to
analyze and thus causes and results of both cases would be similar. Not to crash under
such a huge burden, it is better to list similarities between the two cases. In this way,
analyzing the Alsace-Lorraine case with securitization theory would make much more
sense. Similarities are going to be categorized under three subtitles: historical
background of remaining in-between two main actors, ethnic, language and cultural
arguments of the actors claiming sovereignty over the regions, and possessing rich
natural resources.
Historical Background: Changing Sovereignties between Two Main Actors over the Years
The Alsace-Lorraine region, attached to France in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia, was
subsequently annexed by Germany in 1871 at the end of the Franco-Prussian War and
returned to France after the First World War, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. Excluding
the de facto annexation of 1940-45, it had been French territory once again (Glenn,
1974). On the other hand, Cyprus Island was conquered by the Ottomans in the 16
th
century and became a center of sea trade. It stared under the Ottoman rule for almost
four centuries, and Turkish residents settled there and lived together with the native
Cypriots. The British Empire took sovereignty in the 19th century. After the decay of the
Ottoman Empire, Island remained under the rule of the British Empire as a mandate.
With the annexation of Island by the British Empire, the “Cyprus Dispute” was identified
as the conflict between the people of Cyprus and Britain regarding the Cypriots’ demand
for self-determination. Several campaigns against Britain were organized by EOKA
(Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston). In 1950 as a result of the propaganda of Greece,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
4
the Greek Cypriot went for a referendum in which around 97% of the population voted
for the ‘enosis’ (Union with Greece) (Yalçın, 2018). The referendum result was utilized
by Greece to get international support for unification. Greece put the referendum results
(around 97% vote for ENOSİS) to use for getting international support for unification. So
that the international propaganda started to work, Turkey decided to support Turkish
Cypriots claim of Taksim (partition of the Island between Greeks and Turks). As Greeks
in Cyprus led by the EOKA attacked the British presence, started to organize attacks on
the Turkish Cypriots. On these events, the Cyprus dispute shifted from a colonial to an
ethnic dispute between the Turkish and the Greek Islanders (Erkem, 2016).
Decolonization process changed the sovereignty of the region, and the Island became an
independent country with the agreement among the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece
which are still acting as guarantor states (Karakasis, 2017: 8). For Turkey, the
significance of Cyprus increased during the cold war because of its geographical location
along energy routes. Moreover, the recent discovery of hydrocarbon resources off the
southern shores of Cyprus increased the strategic importance of the Island for Turkey
and other parties (Soysal, 2004). Both regions have staged in the center of political and
economic quarrels among the actors having national interests over the regions. While
Germany and France were claiming their sovereignty over Alsace-Lorraine, Turkey and
Greece are now main actors over the Cyprus question.
Both territories have historically been changing hands between two major actors.
Therefore, whenever the control of the region changed, then the defeated party
articulated linguistic, cultural and ethnic arguments in their efforts for taking it back.
Ethnic, Language and Cultural Arguments of the Actors over both Regions
The boundary between France and Germany was contested from the Middle Ages until
the end of WWII. Much of this contestation involved the Alsace-Lorraine region which is
located on the French side of the Rhine River and extends north-westward to the
boundary between France and Luxembourg. Its population divided among French and
German speakers. Alsace and Lorraine were subject to more intrusive assimilation
attempts by first the German and then the French central governments. It took until the
1950s for tensions to calm down. With the returning of the region to France, the use of
German dialects was suppressed, and people were mandated the use of French in schools
and for government business (Glenn, 1974). At this point, it is necessary to address the
distinctive approaches to the concept of the nation by Germany and France. It is because
of that the differences in perception of the concept of nation reveal the way of how both
actors affiliate their relations to the region and people living over there. As an initial
example of nationalism in Europe, France took the path for a state-centred and territorial
nationalism that includes assimilation of people living in the land under the French
authority or claimed to be under French authority. In contrast, Germany mostly focuses
on ethnocultural understanding in which linguistic and ethnic origin are key determinants
(Brubaker, 2010). As a result, France tried to re-formulize the mind of people living in
Alsace Lorraine for that they are French and Germans emphasized Deutsche speaking
people lignin in the region.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
5
For Cyprus, as a divided Island into two parts since 1974 similarly to Alsace-Lorraine it
has long been viewed largely through the prism of the two ethnic communities, Greek
and Turkish. With the decolonization process, the creation of the Republic of Cyprus and
the acquisition of independence from Britain did not establish the peace and stability, but
instead, the conflict escalated, and acts of violence in the 1960s put an end to the newly
formed bi-communal state. The main issues of the dispute were; the organization of the
army, proportional public procurement, tax law, and separate municipalities (Erkem,
2016). The emergence of both Greek and then Turkish nation-state and also the process
of modernization had a great impact on traditionally co-existent Muslim and Christian
societies. It is now a political reality that the era of modernity and nationalism in Cyprus
has transformed pre-modern traditional communities into two separate political
communities (Kızılyürek, 2002:223). The authority of the Republic of Cyprus extends
over the Greek part in the south, whereas the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus rules
over the Turkish part in the north, which is consisted of 36.2 per cent of the Island. As
guarantor states, Greece and Turkey, their ethnic, linguistic, cultural and sometimes
religious ties have been instrumentalized to claim their historical bounds, which serves
their interests.
Rich Natural Resources Capacity of the Regions
The Alsace-Lorraine region was an interception point between France and Germany and
is consequently of major strategic importance; it was also important because of its
valuable resources. The region had important forests and valuable minerals. The salt
deposits had been mined since the ancient times and between two wars, it was the basis
for the important chemical industry. The Alsace-Lorraine region contained 46 per cent of
the valuable iron ore reserves of Europe. Coal and Steel had provided both military
capacity for occupation, as well as a cause for German and French territorial acquisition.
The Alsace-Lorraine and its coal and iron ore deposit changed hands between France and
Germany in 1871, 1918, 1940 and 1945. The iron deposits of Alsace-Lorraine were the
second-largest discovered deposits in the world in 1918. During the First World War,
Germany had 2,800 million tons of iron ore. Lorraine alone accounted for 2,000 million
of these tons. After the dephosphorization process was discovered before the First World
War, the value of these ore deposits became abundantly clear for both Germany and
France. For the Rhine Basin, where Alsace, Lorraine and the German Saarland lay, there
were iron and coal deposits that were critical strategic resources for the industry in the
industrial era (as they were the basic requirements of steel production). Even today,
Alsace and Lorraine are among the wealthiest regions of France, not a small part because
of the steel and automotive industries involved in this area
1
.
Around the mines have grown-up important industrial centres specializing in the
production of iron and crude steel. Another mineral wealth of the region consists of potash
mines and coal mines. Especially the potash mines were the second largest deposits of
1
https://www.cvce.eu/en/recherche/unit-content/-/unit/5cc6b004-33b7-4e44-b6db-
f5f9e6c01023/ee53b53d-cdfa-4b9f-a760-6339c851af9d/Resources#d27b6708-a15d-448a-891b-
1158bafe023a_en&overlay.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
6
this mineral in the World (Garloch, 1946). The exploitation of petroleum on a commercial
scale began in Alsace, which led to large-scale modern industries in the region.
The recent discovery of natural gas off the southern shores of Cyprus has added a new
dimension to the debates on the “value” of the country. According to preliminary findings,
the amount of natural gas found in the Glaucus-1 well (Cyprus’ 10th block) is estimated
to be between 5 trillion and 8 trillion cubic meters, meaning it could meet the Island's
energy needs for up to 200 years. The discovery is the largest amount ever found in the
Exclusive Economic Zone claimed by Cyprus. The discoveries have attracted the interest
of European countries and Turkey, as well as energy companies, who are looking for
supply alternatives outside of Russia (Özekin, 2020). Therefore, the geopolitical and
economic importance of Cyprus radically changes and this inevitably impacts on the
conflict as well as the terms of its resolution; it may deepen the divide, or it might become
a factor pushing toward cooperation. It can be claimed that the strategic significance of
Cyprus is redefined in different historical periods.
To sum up, the initial point of the paper begins with the historical experience both regions
have gone through. They have been under the sovereignty of different actors overtimes,
and by swapping between them, these regions have been under different political, social,
and cultural dominance. This interchange of sovereignties turned out to be paramount
due to the natural resources they had/have. For instance, at the beginning of the 20th
century due to the strategically important coal mines that Alsace-Lorraine contained, the
region had been a problem zone that triggered conflicts between the two neighbouring
countries: France and Germany. On the other hand, by the early years of the 21st
century, Cyprus has the potential to be Alsace-Lorraine of Turkey and Greece in the
Eastern Mediterranean region because of the recent discovery of hydrocarbon reserves.
These two critical similarities self-reflect another point which is that these regions are
directly or indirectly claimed by the two main actors struggling to share the natural
resources they had/have. The resemblance of being compressed between the two main
actors also leads to another one. The main actors (France and Germany over Alsace
Lorraine and Greece and Turkey over Cyprus) substantiate their claims over ethnic,
linguistic, and cultural arguments which they had/have established over the centuries.
In general, the Alsace-Lorraine region and the Cyprus Island reflect quite similarities,
which can be claimed that they can be compared in terms of energy capacities. The
Alsace-Lorraine region changed the course of events then and the Cyprus issue might
change now. To see that, the importance of Alsace-Lorraine during the two world wars
as conflicting issues over energy resources and also during the formation of European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) as compromising issue over energy should be taken
under close examinations in the light of securitization and desecuritization theories.
Theoretical Framework: Securitization and Desecuritization of the
Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyprus Issues
The concept of security has been redefined by B. Buzan, as one of the founding members
of the Copenhagen School of security studies in the 1990s. According to the school of
thought, “security” is not considered to be a direct consequence of the threat but is rather
defined as the result of the political interpretation of the threat, a process called
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
7
securitization. The authors of this school point out the need to construct a
conceptualization of security that means something much more specific than just any
threat or problem. Therefore, security is defined as a non-linear reaction to the threat.
After the seminal work of Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde (1998), titled as
‘Security: A New Framework for Analysis’, securitization theory itself and its fundamental
concepts have enormously been studied to criticize and so develop new dimensions. Most
of the studies basically emphasize underdevelopedness of the securitization theory and
thus in order to make the securitization theory more explanatory of current international
issues, so they suggest developing basic concepts of the securitization theory (Stritzel,
2007; Wæver, 2011 and 2015, Vuori, 2008; Balzacq, Léonardo, and Ruzicka, 2015).
Despite massive salient efforts to meet the deficit of the theory, this paper does not
intend to delve into the weakness or strength of it. It is thought that the basic assumption
of how an issue is securitized would provide a suitable ground to understand the cases
of the Alsace-Lorraine region and the Cyprus issue.
The core argument of the securitization theory is that “it is by labelling something a
security issue that it becomes one” (Wæver, 2004: 13). In this way, every possible issue
or subject can be turned into a security issue and there will be no limitation. To avoid
such endless securitization, the theory suggests three steps which are defining threats,
emergently required actions, and effects on inter-unit relations (Taureck, 2006: 55).
Regarding the first step, an issue has to be explained by the security keywords. The
utterances, including these security key words, prioritize a given issue and aim to present
vital importance of it. This first step is actually called a speech act performed by
politicians or those who are influential in the decision-making process (Shipoli, 2018:
72). The function of the speech act is to raise awareness of a critical issue which has to
be dealt with immediately and extra-ordinary means.
To Buzan and Wæver (2003), for securitization, a speech act is essential, “through which
an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat
something as an existential threat to a valued referent object and to enable a call for
urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat” (491). This definition of
securitization theory opens the door for more debates on whether the security is objective
(real threats) or (inter)-subjective (constructed) (Balzacq, 2019; Baele and Thomson,
2017; Stritzel, 2007), democratic and non-democratic regimes (Vuori, 2008; Wæver,
2011), and the concept of security itself (Šulović, 2010; Aradau, 2018; Baele and
Thomson, 2017).
As this paper does not have an intention to test the theory’s weakness and strength but
focus on the case study of compering securitization of energy resources between the
Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyprus issues, fundamental assumptions of the theory will be
applied both cases examined in the paper. In the securitization process, starting with the
speech act, there has to be a securitizer and the audience whose approval is required.
Once the equilibrium is reached among them, then extraordinary moves and policies can
be applied for dealing with a securitized issue. Approval by the audience is also another
debatable issue in the securitization theory literature as authority to act and to follow a
certain policy is still at the hands of politicians or military officers who can try eliminated
what is considered to be an existential security threat to the state or society (Mcdonald,
2008: 564; Roe, 2008: 632). This critic of securitization theory actually fits political
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
8
conditions during the two world wars, while France was not a fully-fledged democracy
and Germany was ruled with a constitutional monarchy and then fascist regime led by
Adolf Hitler. Therefore, the consent of the audience does not seem imperative for a
successful securitization process.
Besides, the basic concepts of securitization (speech act, securitizer and audience), the
context (Mcdonald, 2008: 564) or framework (Shipoli, 2018: 76) in which a securitizing
speech act is delivered is also quite significant for securitization process. Both Mcdonald
and Shipoli have emphasized, in separate works, the significance of the conditions in and
momentum from which securitization process makes much more sense without
mentioning referent object together with the security word. In both cases which the paper
focuses on, there has been historical, social and cultural symbolism strengthening the
securitization process. Thus, context or framework can be facilitator factors to reach a
consensus between a securitizer and an audience. Agreeing with their critics, it is better
to depict the context in which both cases was\has been securitized. In this way, a speech
act employed by a securitizer would make more sense of the process of securitization.
Securitization Contexts of the Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyprus Issue
The need to maintain coal supplies (a primary energy source) had figured in both world
wars. As well as energy supply, coal became a very political issue. Until the mid-1950s
coal was still the world's foremost fuel, but after this time oil and gas quickly took over.
It has been argued that energy is the key “to the advance of civilization,” that the
evolution of human capability is dependent on the conversion of energy for human use.
Therefore, energy plays a fundamental role in shaping state relations.
A country’s ability to access energy supplies and how it uses that energy determines the
state of its economy, society and national security. A country’s production mechanism,
international affairs and lifestyle are all determined by fossil fuels. The energy that is so
important for countries inevitably causes problems. In international law, many borders
were delimited through treaties; however, upon the discovery of new energy sources
closer to the border, that border becomes disputed. On the other hand, states have the
right to extract resources within their territories. However, when a resource basin
stretches across multiple countries’ borders, it becomes difficult for a single country to
assert its sovereignty over the field (Yergin, 2006).
Taking the theory as a ground point, the need to find, secure and diversified energy
supplies have been construed as a leading security concern for actors or entities who see
energy security as their national interests. By having a succinct critical framework for
analysis, we are better able to understand the actions, reactions, and needs of states
who consider their energy security to be threatened. By using cases of Alsace Lorraine
and Cyprus, it has been found that certain regions where natural resources buried
underneath have been a significant part of national interests. To secure national
interests, regardless of constructed by audiences or securitizers, international actors
determine a policy to deal with any issues. The importance of any possible issue within
the national security framework reveals the level of securitization of the issue. The
natural resources have been vital for survival and the development of a country. That is
why coal and iron ore in Alsace Lorraine were subjected to the great struggle between
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
9
France and German. Relying on similarities between Alsace Lorraine region and Cyprus
Island, this paper would argue that the Cyprus issue has a significant potential for being
subjected to a great struggle through securitization. As the German and French
securitized the issue of being in control over the natural resources, Greece and Turkey
would seem to consider Cyprus issue as a security matter via securitizing energy
recourses in the offshores of the Island. Under these circumstances, securitization of
energy resources opens up a new window for grasping the relations between Greece and
Turkey towards energy resources in Cyprus Island.
Securitizers’ Securitization of the Alsace-Lorraine and the Cyrus Issue
through the Speech Act
The Alsace-Lorraine Case
Securitizing actors, to the Copenhagen School, are not limited to politicians but include
intellectuals and officers and international actors (Stritzel, 2007). This section of the
paper, there should have had archival research for obtaining both French and German
documents and statements. Though the paper length is limited, secondary resources
describing securitizing actors’ understanding and statements seem adequate. To start
with,
“As early as the autumn of 1914, members of the French government were
defining war aims as the destruction of German industrial power through the
occupation and even annexation of the Rhineland's coal regions. The Saar
would be suitable for annexation, while the lower Rhine region of the Ruhr
would be put under international protection administered by France, with
troops present if need be. France could at one stroke destroy Germany
economic and military hegemony while reestablishing itself as the greatest
continental power. One French minister even suggested the removal of "the
population of the Palatinate, who hate France, so as to create a vast area of
expansion for the Latin race" (Henze, 2005).
2
A prominent historian, Georges-Henri Soutou, who undertook various official positions in
the French government suggested that in the First World War, France’s major aim to
destroy the industrial capacity of German to win the war and also stressed the
significance of the Alsace- Lorraine’s coal and iron ore resources for heavy industries. In
this way, Germans’ both economic and military capacities would be eliminated. This
statement and the aim of the paper do not imply that the WWI was erupted because of
struggle over energy resources but having, keeping, and controlling energy resources
were\have been quite a survival in an anarchic world order to protect national interests.
In the German side, Baron von Kiihlmann, the German Foreign Secretary, said in the
Reichstag, October 9, 1917:
2
https://mandalaprojects.com/ice/ice-cases/saar.htm.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
10
"After a very thorough investigation of the whole situation, according to
information derived from the most diverse sources, I am convinced that the
great question around which the struggle of the nations centres, and for which
they are shedding their blood, is not, in the first instance, the Belgian
question. The question for which Europe is being turned more and more into
a heap of ruins is the question of the future of Alsace-Lorraine" (Hazen, 1919:
154).
At the beginning of the First World War, the securitization level of the Alsace-Lorraine
containing both coal and iron ores, which were paramount for the economy, military and
industry, was also regarded as vital because of that Baron von Kiihlmann, the German
Foreign Secretary, matched political and military struggles among European powers with
the question of the Alsace-Lorraine. The keywords in his statement of ‘more diverse
sources’ and ‘the struggle of the nations’ indicate the securitization level of energy
resources in the region and thus the Germans were ready to dispose everything they had
in order to get control of the region or prevent any other European states from controlling
the region. Karl Marx also articulates another securitizing speech act by saying that “If
Alsace and Lorraine are taken, then France will later make war on Germany in conjunction
with Russia. It is unnecessary to go into the unholy consequences” (Marx, 2019:862).
His expectation of France to go war against Germany in lining with another European
power (Russia) indicates that securitization of energy resources was not constrained with
the two rival states (France and Germany) but also include other European states.
Seeking control over energy resources between the two world wars was securitized by
almost all states that were involved in the wars. By speech acts, each one of them
stressed the importance of Alsace-Loraine, if not the only reason but one of the significant
factors which were critical to determining the results of the wars. At this level of
securitization, as the theory suggests, all democratic norms could be left behind and
taken extraordinary measure to achieve the control of the referent object, in this case,
energy resources. Securitizing moves to get what the states wanted during the wars can
be listed in too many pages, but wars itself show securitization level.
The Cyprus Case
As explained above, the energy dimension of the Cyprus question has been on the agenda
of the parties since the early 2000s. Since the Island gained independence from the
United Kingdom and emerged as a separate state as the Republic of Cyprus, the
guarantor status of Greece and Turkey has given them the right to say something at the
national and international level. In light of the fact that Greece and Turkey are directly
or indirectly involved in the Cyprus question, the energy issue cannot be understood and
analysed separately from the chronic problems of the Island. Sovereignty disputes, which
Greece and Turkey have historically claimed on both Island and in the Eastern
Mediterranean, have taken on a new dimension with natural gas discoveries.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
11
Although the Cyprus question has many historical dimensions, the date of 2011 -in which
parties began to raise dispute aloud with the discovery of natural gas- is taken to make
a wholesome comparison with the Alsace-Lorraine region. This is because, in both,
disagreements over energy sources have been centred on the conflict. As French and
German acted in Alsace-Lorraine, today Turkish and Greek have made the energy a
subject of sovereignty, in other words, a referent object in accordance with the
securitization theory. In turn, this brings difficulties in solving the question and raising
tension is proceeding. Due to the recent discovery of natural gas offshores of the Cyprus
Island, the geopolitical and economic importance of Cyprus is radically changing and this
inevitably impacts on the conflict potential as much as on the terms of its resolution. In
other words, the recent discovery of natural gas can deepen the conflict or can enforce
the parties toward cooperation.
Such massive discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean raised the appetite of the Greek
Cypriots to search for energy resource in its economic zone. Thus, it decided to join these
exploration activities. In this first period, although they have been negotiating with many
US-based energy companies, they did not achieve starting exploration activities as a
result of Turkey’s pressure until the second half of the first decade of the 21
st
century.
Greek Cyprus later was able to sign an agreement with Egypt, Lebanon and Israel,
regarding the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Turkey claims that Cyprus has obtained
unfair interests by ignoring the basic rules of maritime law through bilateral agreements.
Cyprus first signed an agreement for delimitation of EEZ with Egypt on 17 February 2003
and reported the coordinates of the agreed region to the UN. Turkey declared that the
agreement signed between Cyprus and Egypt was not made with the participation of all
countries bordering the Eastern Mediterranean, that it would not be appropriate for Egypt
to enter into an EEZ agreement with Cyprus without a limitation agreement with Turkey
on the basis of the middle line, and that did not accept the disregard of the TRNC (Yaycı,
2012). Despite Turkey's objections to these agreements, Cyprus immediately declared
13 oil exploration license sites in the Eastern Mediterranean in 2007 to explore for
hydrocarbon resources. However, 8 of these 13 announced sites coincide with the TRNC
and 5 with the Turkish continental shelf.
In this way, they have delineated the parcels in the Eastern Mediterranean so that they
would be in control of the entire energy resources in the offshore of the Island.
Unilaterally signing contracts with international drilling and oil companies by the Republic
of Cyprus is reacted by Turkey with signing a “Continental Shelf limitation agreement”
with TRNC on September 21, 2011, and granting exploration licenses to TPAO (Turkish
Petroleum Corporation) in its own economic region in the Eastern Mediterranean and the
north and east of Northern Cyprus (Karakasis, 2017: 11). By agreement in the case that
the hydrocarbon reserve is found in the region it will be shared between Turkey and the
TRNC.
The commencement of the securitization point starts here since the Economic Exclusive
Zone is an extension of national sovereignty. Violation of state sovereignty, regardless
of the mainland or the sea is seen as modus operandi leading to conflict. The Greek side
of the Island has been acting on behalf of the entire Island while signing agreements with
the international companies and the other states and thus excluding Turkey and Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). In summary, Turkish Cyprus’s argument is that
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
12
Greek side is not the sole representative of the whole Island and Turkey argues that
some of the parcels in which drilling activities are in operation fall into Turkey’s Economic
Exclusive Zones, which is around the north-west of the Island. In this case, the referent
object is the same as the Alsace-Lorraine case, energy resources.
The most recent speech acts of both sides performed by the politicians and decision-
makers provide securitization connotations in their statements. For instance, Turkey’s
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan articulated that “as we made the terrorists in Syria pay,
we will not leave the scene to the bandits of the sea” (4 November 2018, The Guardian).
3
He, by constructing similarities between terrorists in Syria and the drilling companies and
the Greek Cyprus unilateral initiatives, emphasizes the importance of sharing energy
resources in the region. Turkey’s securitizing move has been military intervention into
terrorist hedges in Syria implies that Turkey is ready for military involvement in case of
any movements excluding Turkey or what is considered as survival in the region. In the
same statement, he also stressed that there would be no resolution without excluding
Turkey from the regional dynamics by saying that “Those who thought they could take
steps in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Aegean in defiance of Turkey have now begun
to understand what a big mistake they were making. It is absolutely unacceptable to
usurp the natural resources of the eastern Mediterranean while excluding Turkey and the
TRNC” (4 November 2018, The Guardian). In this regard, Turkey’s policy over the energy
resources in the offshores of the Island indicates securitization level and Turkey might
thus take any precautions to keep its interests intact. Securitizing moves of Turkey is
self-reflective for the securitization of the energy resources. Turkey has not only sent its
own two drilling ships (named Fatih and Yavuz who were the Ottoman Sultans) but also,
they have been accompanied by the warships, named with Barbaros Hayrettin Pasha who
was a great admiral in the Ottoman Empire, to prevent possible interference by the third
parties (Adamides and Christou, 2016: 90). Even once, one of the warships blocked
Saipem 12000 which belonged to Italian International Drilling Company (ENI) from the
parcels the Greek Cyprus declared.
4
After Turkey's intervention, the Italian company
halted its drilling activities; Greek Cyprus signed a deal with the US Company ExxonMobil
and the Qatar Petroleum. After this agreement, the United States lifted the arms embargo
it had imposed on Cyprus since 1974. Turkey argues that lifting the embargo would have
a negative impact on efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue. So much so that the historic
“Cyprus problem,” which existed because of long-standing disputes between Turkey and
Greece and Greek Cyprus, has been recharged to extend beyond the borders of the Island
to a large area of sea. In fact, the consequences of this dispute directly affected other
regional actors, such as Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria were also concerned
with the political benefits of global actors such as Russia, the European Union (EU) and
the United States. In just the same way as Alsace Lorraine, disagreements over Cyprus
Island have moved away from being a regional problem and become a global problem.
On the other hand, Greece’s argument on the Cyprus issue is mostly affiliated with the
legal violations of Turkey and mostly complained Turkey to the international
organizations, especially the EU and the UN and also NATO. As referent object remains
the same, securitization of energy resources by Greece and the Greek side of Cyprus did
3
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/04/turkey-warns-oil-companies-against-drilling-near-
cyprus
4
https://www.energy-reporters.com/opinion/turkeys-first-drilling-vessel-heads-to-mediterranean/
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
13
not seem to be as much as Turkey at the beginning. By standing international law while
articulating their argument implies that they considered the issue within the political
realm and that did not suggest they would take military actions toward to the issue. One
of the -statement of the Greek side, articulated by Foreign Ministry of Greece, criticized
Turkey for violating sovereign rights of Cyprus by arguing that “a slew of violations”
against the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Cyprus, international law and the
European acquis and is in defiance of the calls by the EU and the international community
to respect the rights of Cyprus and defuse tensions” (4 October 2019, Ekathimerini).
5
However, as of late Greece and the Republic of Cyprus’s participation into several joint
military exercises with the states such as Israel
6
and Egypt
7
in the region might be
considered as securitizing move because they might imply and represent a regional
coalition against Turkey. Although later than Turkey, Greece has now begun to articulate
military options. In this context, Greece has armed 18 Islands in the Aegean Sea since
the beginning of 2020 in violation of the Lausanne and Paris Agreements. Greece and
Cyprus’s operating military exercises with France and signing air defence agreements
could be considered as a securitizing move. Likewise, France's arrangement of joint
military exercises with the Greek Cypriot Administration and the deployment of military
aircraft on the Island in violation of the 1959-60 agreements indicate that the problem
is heading towards internationalization and securitization of energy resources has
increased by Greek sides as in the case of Turkish sides.
In general, the Cyprus issue is already securitized by Turkey and Greece. Not to fall into
anachronism trap, it has to be admitted that socio-political conditions of the time periods
when Alsace-Lorraine was securitized and two major rivals ended up with two subsequent
great wars in the world history. In the equivalent of this in the Cyprus case, extraordinary
moves which are above politics were not highly likely because of that Greek side -did not
totally securitize the issue earlier. However, securitization of an issue by one side, energy
resources, in this case, might accelerate the process of securitization of the referent
object by the rival side. In practical terms, Turkey seems convinced to take military action
to protect its sovereignty claims, with the last developments Greece and Greek Cyprus
have begun to go down the same path. In order to avoid possible future conflicts over
the energy resources, desecuritization process is urgently needed. After dramatically
destructive wars, France and Germany agreed to share energy resources in their common
benefits rather than fighting for full control over it. In other words, securitization and
desecuritization of the Alsace-Lorraine case for the energy resources present both conflict
and cooperation potentials, respectively.
Desecuritization of the Alsace-Lorraine and Its Implications for the
Cyprus Case
Ole Wæver (1993: 53-54) brought securitization and securitization process under the
light through providing four case studies and suggested that for desecuritization, security
issues should be “normalized” by politicians and intellectuals via the speech act. As in
5
http://www.ekathimerini.com/245180/article/ekathimerini/news/greece-turkeys-drilling-plan-in-cyprus-
eez-contrary-to-any-notion-of-legality
6
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-Air-Force-in-Greece-as-part-of-Iniohos-2019-585993
7
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/38302
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
14
the securitization process, the speech act is not just words but connotates vital
importance of referent objects, in desecuritization process, the speech act can be
instrumentalized to reduce tensions on a specific issue. In this way, the securitization
issue is leveled down to the political realm. This means that solving a given issue does
not require extraordinary precautions and can be sorted out within democratic
mechanisms. In other words, “Desecuritization political relations not only allow for
collaboration but also increase the likelihood that energy-related developments will
enhance their desecuritized status… They [the hydrocarbon and oil] are also used as
political tools to enhance political foreign policy influence and empower the political
position of state vis-à-vis adversaries, either by forming dependency relations or through
alliance formation” (Adamides and Christou, 2016: 87).
In the case of Alsace-Lorraine, there are three striking points which have to be paid
attention. That is the fact, the first one, that securitization brought Europe in massive
devastation and then de-securitization was followed. It is because the major rival powers,
France and Germany, disposed of all their power in the war. Therefore, it was imperative
to agree for cooperation in terms of sharing energy resources. Secondly, there was
external power enforcing cooperation in exchange for foreign aids, political and economic
supports, the US. Thirdly, intellectuals and politicians are encouraging cooperation rather
than revanchists policies between the two rivals.
In association with the first point, almost all European powers destroyed their rivals’
infrastructure, which had to be rebuilt. To do that, they were all in need of energy
resources to process raw materials such as iron and steel. In this regard, reasonable
share from the natural resources was essential for all parties to revitalize their own
infrastructures and industries. The second point is about external factors. The US needed
a revitalized Europe as a market for American exports, and European continental security
was also paramount for the post-war international system against the Soviet Union. It
was also quite important for France and German to receive foreign aids under the
Marshall Plan, initiated in 1948 by the United States (Petzina, Stolper and Hudson, 1981).
Regarding to third point, attempts of intellectuals and politicians to convince both rivals
that their national interest laid down in sharing the mines and energy resources. For
instance, the French government overcame opposition from revanchists and proposed
what is known as the Schuman Declaration on 9 May 1950. The Declaration was proposed
by French foreign minister Robert Schuman, based on a plan developed by the French
reconstruction planning minister Jean Monnet. Robert Schuman himself was from the
disputed territory of Alsace-Lorraine. He fought in the German army in 1914-18, had
German as his rst language and became a French citizen in 1919. His plan offered a
specific answer to the struggle for control of coal and iron: the formation of a
supranational commission to regulate trade in the two vital war-making resources.
Besides, steel was the major element in states’ post-war economic reconstruction
(needed for railways, buildings, ships, vehicles, machinery, etc.). These three points
assisted in coming to an end to a struggle between Germany and France over Alsace-
Lorraine and tuned out to be guarantors for stability and prosperity in Europe.
In the light of all these postwar developments, Robert Schuman’s plan for the
comprehensive organization of the “totality of Franco-German coal and steel productions
under a common High Authority” led to establishing the ECSC. It was formally established
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
15
in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, and West Germany (Spierenburg and Poidevin, 1993). Via this ECSC,
development and trade of coal and iron/steel would be determined by the market rather
than the national interests (Gillingham, 1991). This would increase efficiency in an
industry which was vital to Europe's reconstruction while defusing the tensions created
by competition for control of the resources. The precedent of the ECSC can be considered
as an example of how practical cooperation in the field of energy can address mutual
needs, as well as building confidence and trade between neighbouring states (even
adversaries) (Hassan and Duncan, 1994).
The ECSC was the outcome of the practical consideration of how to achieve security
through economic cooperation. The transformation in Franco-German relations from
conflict over natural resources to cooperative trade of coal and steel reflects a parallel
transformation in the way natural resources were viewed. Sharing of natural resources
as a cause of the war was replaced by the security of interdependent trade of these
resources. While one of the primary causes of both world wars was a conflict between
France and Germany over the Alsace-Lorraine, the solution lays in resolving the issue of
controlling natural resources. The ECSC was thus the first step into a new world.
The experience of the French and German particularly in Alsace-Lorraine case cannot
provide outright answers or an exact blueprint for the resolution or prevention of future
conflicts, but it does provide insights what securitization of energy resources caused and
how desecuritization of it could be achieved, of course, without launching a war.
Final Remarks and Conclusion
The fundamental aims of the paper are to restrain from the first point which is considered
to be the reason of desecuritization process of energy resource in Alsace-Lorraine and to
make salient the other two points for desecuritization of the energy resources in the
Cyprus issue. As the case of Alsace-Lorraine, disputes over energy resources between
two rivals gathered third parties involved in the war in accordance with their national
interests. In this way, alliances were established and so turned out to be global level
wars. The Cyprus case resembles the Alsace-Lorraine case because both actors, Greece
and Turkey are in the process of making allies for how to use and deliver energy resources
in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. In this way, possible conflict between the two main
actors might extend and cause at least a regional level conflict, if not global level.
The second point of the Alsace-Lorraine case, enforcement of external power to comprise,
seems crucial for desecuritization process. Power relations among the external power,
encouraging an agreement between the two rivals is quite detrimental. In this way, an
idea of transnational cooperation emerged, and this gave rise to the ECSC. Such an
attempt was actually tried by the Turkish side, but the proposal was rejected by the
Greek side.
8
However, the proposal cannot be counted as made by external force because
those who proposed it was actually part of the issue. The EU should be the first one
coming to mind, but Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, which represents the whole
Island are a full member of the organization and Turkey is still in adjustment process as
8
https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/07/16/party-leaders-reject-akinci-proposal-in-joint-statement/
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
16
a candidate. The EU’s possible role as external power forcing two sides to make an
agreement for sharing energy resources might be possible in case of that Turkey is
granted with full membership. Otherwise, securitization of energy resources around the
Island transcends the borders and might turn into the EU versus Turkey rivalry. Based
on the recent developments, there is another option regarding the involvement of third
parties into possible conflict as an external mediator, NATO. Both Greece and Turkey are
the equal partner of this international organization might lead to a path for compromise,
and it seems better working than the EU in which Greece and Turkey have a different
status.
For the last point, having politicians and intellectuals, easing security level of energy
issue in Cyprus among the both sides, is another absence for the de-securitization
process. Especially in Turkish side, the sovereignty rights are taken as red-lines and do
not open for discussion as it is mostly affiliated with national territorial integrity. The
Greek side, including Greece and Greek Cyprus, developed a regional alliance with Egypt
and Israel
9
and now obtained military privileges from the United States and France. If it
is argued that the politicians and intellectuals could get an opportunity to raise their
voices is only possible after a destructive war, this third point might have been invalid.
However, in order to prevent such a destructive war, politicians and intellectuals
normalizing the issue and taking the issue back into the political realm (Zikos, Sorman,
and Lau, 2015: 311) should take the ground and be influential in the decision-making
process. That would be exact lessons should be taken from the Alsace-Lorraine case for
the Cyprus issue.
References
Adamides, C. & Christou, O. (2016). Can Resolving Cyprus Hold the Key to Regional
Energy Cooperation?. Turkish Policy Quarterly. 15(2): 87.
Aradau, C. (2018). From Securitization Theory to Critical Approaches to (in) Security.
European Journal of International Security. 3(3): 300-305.
Baele, S. J., & Thomson, C. P. (2017). An Experimental Agenda for Securitization Theory.
International Studies Review. 19(4): 646-666.
Balzacq, T., Léonard, S., & Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’ Revisited: Theory and
Cases. International Relations. 30(4): 494-531.
Balzacq, T. (2019). Securitization Theory: Past, Present, and Future. Polity, 51(2): 331-
348.
Brubaker, R. (2010). Immigration, Citizenship, and the Nation-State in France and
Germany: A Comparative Historical Analysis. International Sociology 5(4).
Buzan, B. and O. Wæver. (2003). Regions and Powers: A Guide to the Global Security
Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyprus-turkey-ship/cyprus-greece-egypt-call-on-turkey-to-end-
provocative-actions-idUSKBN1WN1R0
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
17
Buzan, B., O. Wæver and J.d. Wilde. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Erkem, P. (2016). Ethnic Nationalism and Consociational Democracy in Cyprus. BUJJS.
9(2): 99-115.
Garloch, LA. (1946). Alsace-Lorraine: A Border Problem. Journal of Geography. 45(7):
268-279.
Gillingham, J. (1991). Jean Monnet and the European Coal and Steel Community: A
Preliminary Appraisal. In Jean Monnet (pp. 129-162). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Glenn, HP. (1974). The Local Law of Alsace-Lorraine: A Half Century of Survival. The
International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 23(4): 769-790.
Hassan, J. A., & Duncan, A. (1994). Integrating Energy: The Problems of Developing an
Energy Policy in the European Communities, 1945-1980. Journal of European Economic
History, 23(1): 159.
Hazen, CD. (1919). Review of Alsace-Lorraine: Past, Present, and Future. by Coleman
Phillipson. Political Science Quarterly. 34(1): 151-156.
Henze, S (2005). France, Germany and the Struggle for the War-making Natural
Resources of the Rhineland. Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE),
Template[online]. 158, 2005. [10 August 2019]. Available at
https://mandalaprojects.com/ice/ice-cases/saar.htm.
Karakasis, V. P. (2017). The Impact of “Policy Paradigms” on Energy Security Issues in
Protracted Conflict Environments: The Case of Cyprus. SocioEconomic Challenges.1(2):
5-18.
Kızılyürek, N. (2002). Modernity, Nationalism and the Perspectives of a Cypriot Union.
Cahiers d'Études sur la Méditerranée Orientale et le monde Turco-Iranien. 34: 211-232.
Marx, K. (2019). Political Writings. Verso.
McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal
of International Relations. 14(4): 563-587.
Petzina, D., Stolper, W. F., & Hudson, M. (1981). The Origin of the European Coal and
Steel Community: Economic Forces and Political Interests. Journal of Institutional and
Theoretical Economics (H. 3): 450-468.
Roe, P. (2008). Actor, Audience (s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the
UK's Decision to Invade Iraq. Security Dialogue. 39(6): 615-635.
Shipoli, E. A. (2018). The Securitization Theory. in Islam, Securitization, and US Foreign
Policy. Washington: Palgrave.
Soysal, M. (2004). The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy. in L. Martin and D. Keridis (eds),
The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy, pp.3846. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Spierenburg, D. & Poidevin, R. (1993). The History of the High Authority of the European
Coal and Steel Community. Weidenfeld & N.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 11, Nº. 2 (November 2020-April 2021), pp. 1-18
Securitization and desecuritization of energy resources: insights from Alsace-Lorraine for Cyprus Island
Rahman Dag, Mehmet Ferhat Firat
18
Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards A Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond.
European journal of international relations.13(3): 357-383.
Šulović, V. (2010). Meaning of Security and Theory of Securitization. Belgrade: Belgrade
Centre for Security Policy. 1-7.
Taureck, R. (2006). Securitization Theory and Securitization Studies. Journal of
International relations and Development. 9(1): 53-61.
Özekin M. K. (2020). Changing Energy Geopolitics in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Turkey. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi. 16(33): 1-51.
Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory
of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders. European Journal of
International Relations. 14(1): 65-99.
Wæver, O. (2011). Politics, Security, Theory. Security Dialogue. 42(4-5): 465-480.
Wæver, O. (2004) Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New Schools in Security Theory and
Their Origins between Core and Periphery, Montreal: ISA Conference.
Wæver, O. (2015). The Theory Act: Responsibility and Exactitude as Seen from
Securitization, International Relations. 29(1): 12135.
Yaycı, C. (2012) “Doğu Akdeniz’de Deniz Yetki Alanlarının Paylaşılması Sorunu ve
Türkiye”, Bilge Strateji Dergisi, 4 (6): 1-70.
Yalçın, R. (2018). The Cyprus Dispute: What is the Cause for an Unachievable
Reunification? Avrasya Etüdleri.53 (1): 39-61.
Yergin, D. (2006). Ensuring Energy Security. Foreign Affairs. 85(2): 6982.
Zikos, D., Sorman, A. H., & Lau, M. (2015). Beyond Water Security: Asecuritisation and
Identity in Cyprus. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and
Economics, 15(3): 309-326.