Energy Policy Integration Through Transport Diplomacy: Türkiye-Eu Perspective

Abstract

This study examines how transport diplomacy can serve as a mechanism for energy policy convergence between Türkiye and the European Union. Specifically, it investigates the following research question: To what extent and under which conditions can transport infrastructure projects function as instruments of transport diplomacy to promote regulatory alignment, enhance energy security, and facilitate decarbonized energy cooperation between Türkiye and the EU? The study employs a qualitative comparative case-study design grounded in George and Bennett’s (2005) structured-focused comparison. Two cases were selected using a "most-similar systems" approach, emphasizing shared features such as direct physical linkages to EU markets, the need for multilateral coordination, and post-2021 operational relevance: the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) within the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) and the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars (BTK) railway as the land backbone of the Middle Corridor (TITR). Drawing on process-tracing and thematic content analysis, the research analyzes primary sources including intergovernmental agreements, EU–Türkiye High-Level Dialogue communiqués (2022–2025), European Commission regulations on PCI/PMI lists and TEN-E/TEN-T guidelines, and official project reports, supplemented by secondary sources from the IEA, World Bank, OECD, and EBRD (2022–2025). The findings reveal that transport diplomacy has enabled partial regulatory convergence and improved supply diversification, but its impact is limited by geopolitical tensions and incomplete market liberalization. This contributes to the literature by refining transport diplomacy as a tool for selective policy integration in non-accession contexts, offering empirical insights into Türkiye-EU energy relations and actionable strategies for sustainable cooperation amid decarbonization challenges.

Keywords

• Transport Diplomacy
• Türkiye-EU Relations
• SGC
• TEN-T
• TANAP
• BTK
• REPowerEU

Supporting Institution

none

Ethical Statement

none

Thanks

none

Ulaştırma Diplomasisi Yoluyla Enerji Politikası Entegrasyonu: Türkiye-AB Perspektifi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, ulaştırma diplomasisinin Türkiye ile Avrupa Birliği arasındaki enerji politikası yakınsaması için nasıl bir mekanizma olarak işlev görebileceğini incelemektedir. Özellikle çalışma şu araştırma sorusuna odaklanmaktadır: Ulaştırma altyapı projeleri hangi ölçüde ve hangi koşullar altında düzenleyici uyumu teşvik etmek, enerji arz güvenliğini artırmak ve Türkiye ile AB arasında karbonsuzlaştırılmış enerji iş birliğini kolaylaştırmak amacıyla ulaştırma diplomasisinin araçları olarak işlev görebilir? Araştırma, Alexander L. George ve Andrew Bennett’in (2005) yapılandırılmış–odaklı karşılaştırma yaklaşımına dayanan nitel karşılaştırmalı bir vaka incelemesi tasarımını benimsemektedir. İki vaka, AB pazarlarıyla doğrudan fiziksel bağlantılar, çok taraflı koordinasyon gereksinimi ve 2021 sonrası dönemde operasyonel önem gibi ortak özellikleri vurgulayan “en benzer sistemler” yaklaşımı kullanılarak seçilmiştir. Bu vakalar, Güney Gaz Koridoru (SGC) kapsamında yer alan Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) ile Orta Koridor’un (TITR) kara omurgasını oluşturan Baku–Tbilisi–Kars Railway (BTK) demiryolu hattıdır. Süreç izleme (process-tracing) ve tematik içerik analizi yöntemlerinden yararlanan çalışma; hükümetler arası anlaşmalar, AB–Türkiye Yüksek Düzeyli Diyalog bildirileri (2022–2025), Avrupa Komisyonu’nun PCI/PMI listeleri ile TEN-E/TEN-T yönergelerine ilişkin düzenlemeleri ve resmi proje raporları gibi birincil kaynakları analiz etmektedir. Bu analiz, ayrıca International Energy Agency, World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ve European Bank for Reconstruction and Development tarafından yayımlanan ikincil kaynaklarla desteklenmiştir (2022–2025). Bulgular, ulaştırma diplomasisinin kısmi bir düzenleyici yakınsama sağladığını ve arz çeşitlendirmesini iyileştirdiğini, ancak etkisinin jeopolitik gerilimler ve enerji piyasalarında tamamlanmamış liberalleşme nedeniyle sınırlı kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, ulaştırma diplomasisini katılım süreci dışındaki bağlamlarda seçici politika entegrasyonu için bir araç olarak yeniden kavramsallaştırarak literatüre katkı sunmakta; Türkiye–AB enerji ilişkilerine ilişkin ampirik içgörüler ve karbonsuzlaşma sürecindeki zorluklar karşısında sürdürülebilir iş birliği için uygulanabilir stratejiler önermektedir.

Keywords

• Ulaştırma Diplomasisi
• Türkiye-AB İlişkileri
• SGC
• TEN-T
• TANAP
• BTK
• REPowerEU

Supporting Institution

Yoktur

Ethical Statement

none

Thanks

yoktur

References

1. Açıkgöz, B. (2020). Public-Private Partnership—The Case of Turkey. In: Kıral, H., Akdemir, T. (eds) Public Financial Management Reforms in Turkey: Progress and Challenges, Volume 1. Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1914-7_6
2. Advisian / EBRD. (2025). Low carbon hydrogen economy in Türkiye. https://www.ebrd.com/content/dam/ebrd_dxp/assets/pdfs/green-economy-transition/Low%20Carbon%20Hydrogen%20Economy%20in%20Turkiye.pdf
3. Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). (2021+ updates). Reviews on hydrogen infrastructure repurposing feasibility and costs.
4. Aliiev, M. (2022). The EU-Azerbaijan Relations in the Gas Transporting Sector. Language, Culture, Politics. International Journal, 1(7), 205-218.
5. Altunışık, M. (2026). Türkiye as a Cusp State: Conceptualization and Implementation. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 15(1), 28-43. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1872950
6. Ashworth, L. M. (2013). A new politics for a global age: David Mitrany's A Working Peace System. In Classics of International Relations (pp. 59-68). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203761472
7. Austvik, O. G., & Rzayeva, G. (2017). Turkey in the geopolitics of energy. Energy Policy, 107, 539-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.008
8. Avatkov, V., & Klimenko, D. (2024). Turkey-EU Energy Cooperation in the Context of Geopolitical Challenges of the 21st Century. Russia and the Moslem World, 4 (326), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.31249/rmw/2024.04.05

9. Azerbaijan Ministry of Energy. (2026, January 12). Azerbaijan extracted 51.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2025. https://minenergy.gov.az/az/xeberler-arxivi/00710
10. Azerbaijan Ministry of Energy. (2026). 2025 Natural Gas Production and Export Report. Baku.
11. Baş, E. E., Emeç, Ş., & Yiğit, V. (2025a). A roadmap for the utilization of renewable energy sources for the sustainable development of Turkey's electricity energy system. International Journal of Energy Studies, 10(1), 1159-1183. https://doi.org/10.58559/ijes.1623909
12. Baş, E.E., Emeç, Ş., & Yiğit, V. (2025b). Simulation of Renewable Energy Systems with Alternative Energy Scenarios in Turkey’s Electrical Energy Planning. Sustainability, 17(6), 2665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062665
13. Batmaz, A., & Şişman-Aydın, G. (2025). Türkiye’s Alignment with the Paris Agreement: A Comparative Policy Analysis with Germany and Spain. Sustainability, 17(9), 3899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093899
14. Beach, D. (2018). Process tracing methods. In Handbuch methoden der politikwissenschaft (pp. 1-21). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
15. Béres, R., Nijs, W., Boldrini, A., & van den Broek, M. (2024). Will hydrogen and synthetic fuels energize our future? Their role in
16. BOTAS. (2026). Natural Gas Import and Consumption Statistics 2025. Ankara: BOTAS. https://www.botas.gov.tr/Sayfa/dogal-gaz-ithalat-ve-ihracat-miktarlari/284. (Access Date: 08.03.2025).
17. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing the energy security of European Union countries from two perspectives – A new integrated approach based on MCDM methods. Applied Energy, 347, 121443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443.
18. Europe's climate-neutral energy system and power system dynamics. Applied Energy, 375, 124053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124053
19. Bilginan, Y. (2025). Policy Inaction in Türkiye: The Impact of EU Pre-Accession Assistance Projects on Women's Employment Policies (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University).
20. Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD). (2023). Energy and Climate Security Risk Index. Sofia: CSD. Retrieved from https://ces.csd.eu/. (Access Date: 03.04.2025).
21. Chatzipanagi, A., Kakoulaki, G., Szabó, S., & Jäger-Waldau, A. (2024). Overview and Perspective of Integrated Photovoltaics with a Focus on the European Union. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10628. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210628
22. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1041 of 28 November 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest and projects of mutual interest (OJ L 2024/1041).
23. Corbeau, A. (2025). Europe's Long Journey to Renewable Hydrogen. In The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 19-35). The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
24. Council of the European Union. (2025). Where does the EU's gas come from? Infographic. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/
25. Çalıkoğlu, U., & Köksal, M. A. (2023). A pathway to achieve the net zero emissions target for the public electricity and heat production sector: A case study for Türkiye. Energy Policy, 179, 113653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113653
26. DNV. (Ongoing). Repurposing onshore pipelines for hydrogen: Guiding operators. https://www.dnv.com/focus-areas/hydrogen/repurposing-pipelines-for-hydrogen-guiding-operators-through-the-re-evaluation-process
27. Dönmezçelik, O., Koçak, E., & Örkcü, H. H. (2023). Towards Net Zero Emissions Target: Energy Modeling of the Transportation Sector in Türkiye (2025-2055). Available at SSRN 4226378.
28. Ember. (2025). Türkiye Electricity Review 2025. https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2025/03/Turkiye-Electricity-Review-2025_11032025.pdf
29. Ember. (2026). Türkiye Electricity Review 2026. London: Ember. https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2026/03/Turkiye-Electricity-Review-2026.pdf
30. Energy Community Secretariat. (2023). Annual Implementation Report 2023: Türkiye Observer Section. Vienna: Energy Community. https://www.energy-community.org/implementation/report/2023.html. (Access Date: 05.04.2025).
31. Energy Community Secretariat. (2024). Annual Implementation Report 2024. https://www.energy-community.org/dam/jcr:fb71f39e-204f-44c0-9a58-0731e1554690/EnC_IR2024_1112.pdf
32. Energy Community Secretariat. (2025). Annual Implementation Report 2025. https://www.energy-community.org/dam/jcr:ee52fae5-11ae-49f5-b731-3f82f9178e73/ECS_IR2025.pdf. (Access Date: 12.04.2025).
33. Energy Institute. (2025). Statistical Review of World Energy 2025. London: Energy Institute.
34. Energy Institute. (2026). Statistical Review of World Energy 2026. London: Energy Institute. https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
35. Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK). (2025). Doğal Gaz Piyasası 2024 Yılı Sektör Raporu. Ankara: EPDK.
36. Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK). (2026). Doğal Gaz Piyasası 2025 Yılı Sektör Raporu [Natural Gas Market 2025 Annual Sector Report]. Ankara: EPDK. https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/3-0-94/dogal-gazaylik-sektor-raporu (Access Date: 09.06.2025).
37. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). (2024). Türkiye country strategy 2024–2029. https://www.ebrd.com/content/dam/ebrd_dxp/assets/pdfs/country-strategies/t%C3%BCrkiye/turkiye-country-strategy.pdf
38. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). (2025). The EBRD in Türkiye: 2025 results snapshot. https://www.ebrd.com/home/news-and-events/news/2026/ebrd-invested-a-record--2-7-billion-in-tuerkiye-in-2025.html
39. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) & Advisian. (2025). Low carbon hydrogen economy in Türkiye: Executive summary. https://www.ebrd.com/content/dam/ebrd_dxp/assets/pdfs/green-economy-transition/Low%20Carbon%20Hydrogen%20Economy%20in%20Turkiye.pdf
40. Eurostat. (2025a). EU trade with Russia – latest developments. Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_trade_with_Russia_-_latest_developments
41. Eurostat. (2025b). EU imports of energy products – latest developments. Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_latest_developments
42. European Commission. (2015). A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. COM(2015) 80 final. Brussels.
43. European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final. Brussels.
44. European Commission. (2020). Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future. COM(2020) 789 final. Brussels.
45. European Commission. (2022). REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy. COM(2022) 108 final. Brussels.
46. European Commission. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/869 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (TEN-E). Official Journal L 152.
47. European Commission. (2024a). Türkiye 2024 Report. Brussels: European Commission. https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/turkiye-report-2024_en. (Access Date: 25.05.2025).
48. European Commission. (2024b). Indicative Extension to Neighbouring Countries: Eastern Partnership (Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgia) [map, covering Middle Corridor]. TEN-T Map Library. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/
49. European Commission. (2025a). Joint Statement on EU-Türkiye High-Level Economic Dialogue. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/statement_25_969. (Access Date: 23.04.2025).
50. European Commission. (2025b). Second Union list of Projects of Common Interest and Projects of Mutual Interest (adopted 1 December 2025).
51. European Commission. (2025c). EU and Türkiye Hold High-Level Dialogue on Climate. Brussels: European Commission. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-other-reads/news/eu-and-turkiye-hold-high-level-dialogue-climate-2025-10-02_en (Access Date: 11.05.2025).
52. European Commission. (2025d). Quarterly Report on European Gas Markets – Q4 2025. Brussels: DG Energy.
53. European Commission. (2025e). REPowerEU – 3 years on: Commission takes stock of progress to phase out Russian fossil fuels. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/repowereu-3-years-commission-takes-stock-progress-phase-out-russian-fossil-fuels-2025-05-16_en
54. European Hydrogen Backbone (EHB). (Various, e.g., 2023–2025 updates). Vision for a European hydrogen infrastructure. https://ehb.eu/
55. Eurostat. (2025a). EU trade with Russia – latest developments. Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_trade_with_Russia_-_latest_developments
56. Eurostat. (2025b). EU imports of energy products – latest developments. Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_latest_developments
57. Fetting, C. (2020). The European green deal. ESDN Report, December, 2(9), 53.
58. Gaens, B., Sinkkonen, V., & Ruokamo, A. (2023). Introduction to the Special Issue: Theory and Practice of Connectivity in the Indo-Pacific—Spheres, Logics, and Regional Dynamics. East Asia, 40(3), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-023-09411-x
59. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
60. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
61. Gkoumas, K., Marques dos Santos, F. L., Stepniak, M., & Pekár, F. (2021). Research and innovation supporting the European sustainable and smart mobility strategy: A technology perspective from recent European Union projects. Applied Sciences, 11(24), 11981. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411981
62. Goldthau, A., & Sitter, N. (2015). A liberal actor in a realist world: The European Union regulatory state and the global political economy of energy. OUP Oxford.
63. Grgić, G., Kolar, Đ., & Bašić, M. (2023). Infrastructure diplomacy and strategic signalling within the Three Seas Initiative. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 23(2), 229-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2022.2111803
64. Griffiths, S. (2019). Energy diplomacy in a time of energy transition. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100386
65. Haas, E. B. (2020). Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950-1957. University of Notre Dame Press.
66. Hochdorfer, M., Jobst, S., Krahl, D., Merz, N., & Schulze, C. (2024). EU Accession as a Foreign Policy Instrument. In Conf. Proc. Int'l Conf. Dev. Pub. Admin. (p. 1168).
67. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2025). Turkey Energy Profile. Paris: IEA.
68. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2026). Turkey Energy Profile 2025 Update. Paris: IEA. https://www.iea.org/countries/turkey
69. Institute for Diplomacy and Economy. (2025). Geopolitical Constraints of Turkey’s Energy Hub Ambitions. Istanbul.
70. Iordache, I. (2024). Trans-European Transport Networks: Pillars of Economic Cohesion and Mobility in the European Union. Annals of the Constantin Brancusi University of Targu Jiu-Letters & Social Sciences Series, 2, 47–53. https://alss.utgjiu.ro/mdocs-posts/06-ionut-iordache-trans-european-transport-networks-pillars-of-economic-cohesion-and-mobility-in-the-european-union/
71. Kazakhstan Ministry of Transport. (2024, December). Cargo transport via Middle Corridor surges to 4.1 million tons in 11 months [Press release]. https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/transport/press/news/details/904094
72. Keohane, R. O. (2005). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
73. Khalova, G. N. O., Sopilko, N. Y., & Illeritsky, N. I. (2019). Republic of Turkey gas complex development: Problems and prospects. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(1), 237-243.
74. Kocakuşak, A. (2021). The evaluation of urban transport master plans in Turkish cities from the perspective of climate change mitigation (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University (Turkey)).
75. Korkmaz, D. (2021). European Energy Security and Turkey. In: Turkey and the EU in an Energy Security Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45774-7_3
76. Kunytska, O., Persia, L., Gruenwald, N., Datsenko, D., & Zakrzewska, M. (2022, June). The sustainable and smart mobility strategy: Country comparative overview. In International Conference on Smart Technologies in Urban Engineering (pp. 656-668). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20141-7_59
77. Kuzemko, C., Blondeel, M., Bradshaw, M., Bridge, G., Faigen, E., & Fletcher, L. (2025). Rethinking energy geopolitics: Towards a geopolitical economy of global energy transformation. Geopolitics, 30(2), 531-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2024.2351075
78. Kuzemko, C., Keating, M. F., & Goldthau, A. (2017). The global energy challenge. Bloomsbury Publishing.
79. Melikoğlu, M. (2017). Geothermal energy in Turkey and around the World: A review of the literature and an analysis based on Turkey's Vision 2023 energy targets. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 485-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.082
80. Mohr, L. M. (2025). The Energy Community. In European Electricity Market Coupling (pp. 279-301). Springer, Cham.
81. Moravcsik, A. (2013). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Routledge.
82. Novikau, A., & Muhasilović, J. (2023). Turkey's quest to become a regional energy hub: Challenges and opportunities. Heliyon, 9(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21535.
83. Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs, 193.
84. Obanor, E. I., Mogbolu, N. I., Olumide, G. E., & Oyeniyi, O. O. (2026). Energy diplomacy and its influence on renewable energy adoption and global energy transition. Discover Energy. 6(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43937-026-00124-9
85. OECD. (2023). Realising the potential of the Middle Corridor. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/ oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/12/realising-the-potential-of-the-middle-corridor_c458041c/635ad854-en.pdf
86. OECD. (2025). Enhancing the Competitiveness of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor in Central Asia. OECD Publishing.
87. Offshore Technology. (2025). Sakarya Gas Field Development, Black Sea, Turkey.https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/sakarya-gas-field-development-black-sea-turkey/
88. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). Realising the potential of the Middle Corridor. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/12/realising-the-potential-of-the-middle-corridor_c458041c/635ad854-en.pdf (Baseline ~50,000 TEU in 2022 surge context; pre-2022 low figures align with <10k in 2019.)
89. Overland, I. (2019). The geopolitics of renewable energy: Debunking four emerging myths. Energy Research & Social Science, 49, 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.018
90. Pehlivanzade, G. G., & Zaimoğlu, Z. (2023). Analysis of Environmental and Energy Policies in Turkey, the European Union and the United States. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 13(12), 297-308.
91. Petrariu, R. I., Năstase, M., Croitoru, G., Florea, N. V., Cristache, N., & Ibinceanu, M. C. O. (2023). Analysis of Responsible Energy Consumer's Behaviour in the Context of REPowerEU Plan. Amfiteatru Economic, 25(64), 743-759. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2023/64/743
92. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley-Interscience.
93. Purtaş, F. (2025). Türkiye and the Organization of Turkic States. Insight Turkey, 27(1), 113-13. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2025271.8
94. PwC. (Various, e.g., 2023–2025 updates). Green hydrogen cost projections. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/green-hydrogen-cost.html
95. Regulation (EU) 2022/869 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2009, (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2019/943 and Directives 2009/73/EC and (EU) 2019/944, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 (OJ L 152, 3.6.2022, p. 1).
96. Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1).
97. Republic of Türkiye. (2024). Long-Term Climate Strategy (2053 Net Zero). Submitted to UNFCCC.
98. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). (2022). Türkiye National Energy Plan (2023–2035). Ankara: MENR. https://enerji.gov.tr/Media/Dizin/EIGM/tr/Raporlar/TUEP/T%C3%BCrkiye_National_Energy_Plan.pdf
99. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). (2023). Türkiye Hydrogen Technologies Strategy and Roadmap. https://enerji.gov.tr/Media/Dizin/SGB/en/HSP_en/ETKB_Hydrogen_T_Strategies.pdf
100. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). (2025). Electricity Installed Capacity and Generation Data – December 2025. Ankara: MENR. https://enerji.gov.tr/infobank-energy-electricity#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%20December, geothermal%20and%202.1%25%20other%20sources.
101. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). (2026). Electricity Installed Capacity and Generation Data – December 2025 Update. Ankara: MENR. https://enerji.gov.tr/infobank-energy-electricity.
102. Reuters. (2025). “Turkey eyes regional energy expansion as Black Sea gas output rises”, 21 April. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/turkey-eyes-regional-energy-expansion-black-sea-gas-output-rises-2025-04-21/
103. Rodrigue, J. P. (2020). The geography of transport systems. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346323
104. Rumelili, B. (2008). Negotiating Europe: EU-Turkey relations from an identity perspective. Insight Turkey, 10(1), 97-110.
105. Sartori, N. (2021). EU–Turkey energy dialogue: Moving beyond the accession negotiations framework. In EU-Turkey Relations: Theories, Institutions, and Policies (pp. 373-393). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70890-0_15
106. Schlacke, S., Wentzien, H., Thierjung, E. M., & Köster, M. (2022). Implementing the EU Climate Law via the ‘Fit for 55’package. Oxford Open Energy, 1, oiab002. https://doi.org/10.1093/ooenergy/oiab002
107. Sivrioğlu, U. T., & Yılmaz, M. E. (2017). Diplomacy in First-Age Civilizations. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 10(2), 179-224.
108. Sotiriou, S. A. (2025). When tension borders aggression: Turkey, the European Union, and the politics of interdependence. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2025.2494371
109. Stoilova, S., Munier, N., Kendra, M., & Skrúcaný, T. (2020). Multi-criteria evaluation of railway network performance in countries of the TEN-T orient–east med corridor. Sustainability, 12(4), 1482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041482
110. Szulecki, K., Fischer, S., Gullberg, A. T., & Sartor, O. (2016). Shaping the ‘Energy Union': between national positions and governance innovation in EU energy and climate policy. Climate Policy, 16(5), 548-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1135100
111. Szumska, E. M. (2023). Electric vehicle charging infrastructure along highways in the EU. Energies, 16(2), 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020895
112. Şenol, C., & Erbilen, S. Ü. (2022). Analysis of the Impact of the Middle Corridor on Turkiye in Terms of Geopolitics and Economy in the OBOR Initiative. Coğrafya Dergisi, (45), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2022-1159338
113. Şükür, F. Z., Akgün, K., & Özkaya, B. (2025). AHP-driven analysis of hydrogen production technologies and their role in Türkiye's energy trilemma index. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 144 (2025), 773-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.03.260
114. Tagliapietra, S., Tagliapietra, S., & Weis. (2016). Energy relations in the Euro-Mediterranean. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
115. TANAP. (2023/2024). Natural Gas Transmission Company. Sustainability Report. https://www.tanap.com
116. TANAP. (2024). Sustainability Report 2023. Ankara/Istanbul: TANAP Natural Gas Transmission Company.
117. TITR International Association (Middle Corridor). (2025). Trans-Caspian International Transport Route: Cargo transportation report January–November 2024. https://middlecorridor.com/en
118. Tosovic-Stevanovic, A., & Ristanovic, V. (2016). Regional Development in the Western Balkans through the support of EU projects. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 46.
119. Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG (TAP AG). (2025a, September 1). TAP delivers 50 billion cubic metres of natural gas to Europe [Press release]. https://www.tap-ag.com/news/news-stories/tap-delivers-50-billion-cubic-metres-of-natural-gas-to-europe
120. Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG (TAP AG). (2025b/2026). Various operational updates and capacity reports https://www.tap-ag.com/
121. September. https://www.tap-ag.com/news/news-stories/tap-delivers-50-billion-cubic-metres-of-natural-gas-to-europe
122. Trend News Agency. (2025). “TAP receives results of first tests on pipeline materials for hydrogen transportation (Exclusive)”. 8 January. https://www.trend.az/business/energy/3995599.html
123. Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation (TEİAŞ). (2026). Electricity Statistics 2025. Ankara: TEİAŞ. https://www.teias.gov.tr/tr-TR/elektrik-istatistikleri. (Access Date: 03.04.2025).
124. Turkish-German Energy Partnership. (2025). Options for transporting green hydrogen from Türkiye to Germany. https://climateandenergypartnerships.org/fileadmin/global/publications_docs/251008_EP_PolicyPaper_H2_Transport_Options_final__1_.pdf
125. Vezzoni, R. (2023). Green growth for whom, how and why? The REPowerEU Plan and the inconsistencies of European Union energy policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 101, 103134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103134
126. Wallin, S. (2018). Gender mainstreaming at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In Handbook on the International Political Economy of Gender (pp. 323-334). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783478842.00031
127. Winter, T. (2020). Silk road diplomacy: Geopolitics and histories of connectivity. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(7), 898-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1765164.
128. World Bank. (2023). Middle Trade and Transport Corridor. World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ 6248f697aed4be0f770d319dcaa4ca52-0080062023/original/Middle-Trade-and-Transport-Corridor-World-Bank-FINAL.pdf
129. World Bank. (2023). Middle Trade and Transport Corridor: Policies and investments to triple freight volumes and halve travel time by 2030. World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/6248f697aed4be0f770d319dcaa4ca52-0080062023/original/Middle-Trade-and-Transport-Corridor-World-Bank-FINAL.pdf
130. Yorucu, V., & Özay, M. (2018). The southern energy corridor: Turkey's role in European energy security (pp. 66-67). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63636-8_4
131. Zeybek, H., Roy, S., & Mitra, S. (2023). Transport as a driver of sustainable urban growth: evidence from Ankara, Turkey and Kolkata, India. In Urban Environment and Smart Cities in Asian Countries: Insights for Social, Ecological, and Technological Sustainability (pp. 477-497). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25914-2_20