The Institutions of Energy Governance in China
International collaboration, in any form, requires trust, and such trust is built on understanding. In the case of collaboration in the field of energy, potential partners need to have an appreciation of frameworks for energy governance in each others’ countries. Only then can they accurately interpret the data, the statements and the declared commitments provided by other parties. Nowhere is this ignorance of greater relevance to today’s challenges than the case of China.
The size and rate of growth of China’s economy, of its energy demand, of its energy imports and of its atmospheric emissions of various types make this country an essential major partner in any regional or global discussions relating to the production and consumption of energy. Yet such is the size, diversity, complexity and lack of transparency characterising China’s energy sector that external parties find it very difficult to interpret the information emerging from the country and the actions and statements of the government. No shortage of information exists. Indeed it might be argued that there is too much information on China’s energy sector: too much information and not enough understanding. The premise of this paper is that an improved understanding of the institutions of governance of China’s energy sector will allow us to better appreciate current structures and policies, past policy decisions and outcomes, and the possible trajectories for future policies and policy outcomes. In short, it should provide us with valuable insights into events, trends and behaviours.
Available in:
Regions and themes
ISBN / ISSN
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
The Institutions of Energy Governance in China
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
China and Trade in Critical Raw Materials (CRMs)
Critical raw materials (CRMs) have become central features of a new dynamic in global power politics, with China now wielding considerable leverage. Amid rising regional and global uncertainty, resource security is back in the spotlight as a key determinant of sovereignty and national security for Europe, its allies and its partners. The very survival of key, even vital industries, from automotive to aerospace to health to energy to defense, is at stake.
Japan’s Energy Policy after Hormuz. Security, Competitiveness, and Decarbonization
The 2026 Hormuz crisis has strengthened rather than weakened the rationale for Japan’s decarbonization strategy, contrary to what might have been expected. Rather than energy policy supplanting climate policy, the two should actually be viewed as inseparable.
Japan and Nuclear Weapons: Between Extended Deterrence and Normative Dilemmas
Since the late 1950s, Japan’s nuclear weapons policy has been based on the coexistence of two competing normative rationales: the rejection of nuclear weapons, rooted in the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the recognition of the central role of US extended nuclear deterrence for Japan’s security.
