Tom Casier is Reader in International Relations and holds a Jean Monnet Chair. He was Academic Director of the Brussels School of International Studies from 2014 to 2017. He is Deputy Director of the University of Kent's Global Europe Centre and Visiting Professor at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven).
Tom Casier obtained his PhD in Political Science from the KU Leuven. Before joining BSIS he was affiliated with KU Leuven, (as PhD Fellow of the National Fund for Scientific Research and Post-doctoral Researcher), EIPA (European Institute of Public Administration), EHSAL and the University of Maastricht.
His research interests are in Russian foreign policy and EU-Russia relations, including energy (see research section for details).
Tom Casier is on study leave during the academic year 2017-18.
Tom Casier’s research deals with EU-Russia relations (including energy), Russian foreign policy, European Neighbourhood Policy / Eastern Partnership and Europe and global change. He has a particular interest in issues of identity, perception and power within this field, as well as in theoretical perspectives from Social Psychology. Recent articles have appeared in Geopolitics, Cooperation and Conflict, Contemporary Politics and Europe-Asia Studies. A book ‘EU-Russia relations in crisis’, co-edited with Joan DeBardeleben, is forthcoming with Routledge.
Tom Casier has regularly contributed policy advice to diverse institutions, including the European Parliament and the House of Lords. An extended policy reports ‘EU-Russia relation: which way forward?’ was published with fellow Jean Monnet Chairs in 2016 ( https://www.kent.ac.uk/brussels/documents/JM%20Policy%20report.pdf )
Externally funded research:
- UPTAKE (Horizon 2020, with University of Tartu and Uppsala University), partner: http://www.uptake.ut.ee/
- ANTERO (Erasmus+, with UCD, ARENA, Maastricht, LSE, KULeuven, Tampere, UACES), partner: http://www.eufp.eu/antero
- Jean Monnet Chair, Europe and Global Change, 2012-2015: https://www.kent.ac.uk/brussels/studying/research/projects/jeanmonnetchair.html
- Jean Monnet Multilateral Research Group, ‘EU-Russia Relations: Developing a Transnational Perspective’, 2013-2016 (with Carleton University, St. Petersburg State University and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), principal investigator: https://www.kent.ac.uk/brussels/studying/research/projects/jeanmonnet.html
Research links: BSIS Research theme:
Russia, the EU and the Neighbourhood: http://www.kent.ac.uk/brussels/studying/research/projects/eu-russia.html 
Global Europe Centre: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/ 
TeachingAt BSIS Tom Casier teaches courses in the fields of Russian Foreign Policy, International Relations and European Studies. He is on study leave in the academic year 2017-18.
SupervisionTom Casier supervises PhD students in the fields of International Relations and European Foreign Policy. He welcomes in particular doctoral students in the following fields: EU-Russia relations, Russian foreign policy, European Neighbourhood Policy / Eastern Partnership the interaction between the policies of the EU and Russia in the neighbourhood, as well as theoretical perspectives from Social Psychology. Current PhD students: Irina Zarin, Tomislava Penkova, Carlotta Fagioli, Susanne Szkola and Camille Callesen. PhD students who have completed: Bojan Savic, John Kotsopoulos, Olga Burlyuk, Nur Daut, Erol Kalkan, Moritz Pieper, Natalie Brandenburg.
Also view these in the Kent Academic Repository
Casier, T. (2019). The Unintended Consequences of a European Neighbourhood Policy without Russia. The International Spectator [Online] 54:78-88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2019.1555224.After Russia's retreat from the European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU's policy towards its eastern neighbours was split up. The internal unintended consequence of the EU's choice to leave its policy unaltered was a tension between the objective of privileged relations with ENP countries and a promise to recognise the interests of Russia as an equal partner. Externally the unintended outcome was that this fostered two opposing strategic environments: a cooperative one for the EaP and a competitive one with Russia. In terms of the management of unintended consequences, the EU has actively sought to reinforce its normative hegemony towards EaP countries, while at the same time mitigating certain negative unintended effects.
Casier, T. (2018). Gorbachev's 'Common European Home' and its relevance for Russian foreign policy today. Debater a Europa [Online] 2018:17-34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-6336_18_2.At the end of the 1980s the Soviet Union's last leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, launched the idea of a 'Common European Home'. It was part of his campaign for New Political Thinking in foreign policy, which aimed to deideologise the Soviet approach to international affairs, and positioned the country firmly within a European political community and civilisation. While the concept Common European Home has faded away with the Soviet Union, many of its supporting ideas resonate in Russia's foreign policy discourse under Putin. Four similarities stand out: the preference for a multipolar Europe without dividing lines, indivisible and collective pan-European security, free trade from Lisbon to Vladivostok and intra-European relations founded on international law. But some fundamental characteristics have changed. First, the context of Russian-European relations has altered substantially and many ideas are now used in an antagonistic context, to reject Euro-Atlantic hegemony. Even if the wording often remains similar, the emphasis is now on Russia's sovereign and independent path. Secondly, the core idea of a unified European civilisation has been replaced by the notion of competition between civilisations. Hereby Russia claims to represent genuine European values, giving the latter a strongly conservative interpretation. Finally, the Eurasian turn in Russian foreign policy has undermined the centrality of Europe in its discourse. Rather than envisaging a collaborative Europe, Russian and EU integration initiatives are seen as rivalling. This evolution of Russia's vision on Europe did not change abruptly with Putin's ascent to power but built up gradually in the decade before the Ukraine crisis, against a background of escalating tensions and growing distrust.
Casier, T. (2017). The different faces of power in EU-Russia relations. Cooperation and Conflict [Online] 53:101-117. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010836717729179.This article applies Barnett and Duvall's taxonomy of power to EU-Russia relations aiming to understand power in its complexity and without a priori theoretical assumptions. Four different types of power – compulsory, institutional, structural and productive - feature simultaneously. It is argued that non-compulsory forms of power are key to understand the logic of competition in EU-Russia relations in the decade preceding the 2014 Ukraine crisis, despite receiving limited scholarly attention. First, a struggle over institutional power, the capacity to control the conditions of the other actor indirectly, appeared from rivalling integration projects and competing norm diffusion. Secondly, power relations were strongly characterised by constitutive forms of power - structural and productive -, in particular the capacity to produce and recognise identities, such as Europeanness. In both fields the EU held a hegemonic position, which Russia increasingly challenged. The geopolitical reading of the regime change in Ukraine in 2014 prompted Moscow to a radical change of strategy, shifting the emphasis in the confrontation to compulsory power. Attempts at direct control, from annexation to sanctions, now dominate relations. Whereas Russia seeks to prevent the Euro-Atlantic community from gaining effective control over Ukraine through destabilisation, this can be labelled 'negative' compulsory power.
Casier, T. (2016). Great game or great confusion? The geopolitical understanding of EU-Russia energy relations. Geopolitics [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2016.1185607.
Casier, T. (2016). From logic of competition to conflict: understanding the dynamics of EU-Russia relations. Contemporary Politics [Online] 22:376-394. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2016.1201311.To understand the gradual worsening of EU–Russia relations in the decade preceding the Ukraine crisis, it is essential to understand the dynamics of their interaction. This article divides EU–Russia relations into three stages on the basis of changing intergroup dynamics: asymmetrical cooperation (1992–2003), pragmatic but increasing competition (2004–2013) and conflict (2013–present). It draws on the concept of 'attributional bias' to explain the escalating logic of competition during the second stage. The EU and Russia started to attribute each other negative geopolitical intentions up to the point where these images became so dominant that they interpreted each other's behaviour almost exclusively in terms of these images, rather than on the basis of their actual behaviour. With the Ukraine crisis, EU–Russia relations changed from competition over institutional arrangements in the neighbourhood and over normative hegemony to conflict over direct control.
Casier, T. (2015). ????????? ????????? ? ????????????? ??????????????? ????????????? ? ?????????? ???????????? ????? ? ?????? [Attributional bias and the geopoliticisation of EU-Russia relations]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta (Series Politics and International Relations) 6:56-64.
Casier, T. (2018). From logic of competition to conflict: understanding the dynamics of EU–Russia relations. in: Götz, E. ed. Russia, the West and the Ukraine crisis. Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Russia-the-West-and-the-Ukraine-Crisis/Gotz/p/book/9781138040243.
Casier, T. (2017). The EU and Russia in a multilateral setting. in: Casier, T. and DeBardeleben, J. eds. EU-Russia relations in crisis: understanding diverging perceptions. Routledge, pp. 201-218. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/EU-Russia-Relations-in-Crisis-Understanding-Diverging-Perceptions/Casier-Debardeleben/p/book/9781138215061.
Casier, T. and DeBardeleben, J. (2017). Conclusion. in: Casier, T. and DeBardeleben, J. eds. EU-Russia relations in crisis: understanding diverging perceptions. Routledge, pp. 238-243. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/EU-Russia-Relations-in-Crisis-Understanding-Diverging-Perceptions/Casier-Debardeleben/p/book/9781138215061.
Casier, T. (2017). EU-Russia relations in crisis : the dynamics of a breakup. in: Casier, T. and DeBardeleben, J. eds. EU-Russia relations in crisis: understanding diverging perceptions. Routledge, pp. 13-29. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/EU-Russia-Relations-in-Crisis-Understanding-Diverging-Perceptions/Casier-Debardeleben/p/book/9781138215061.
Casier, T. (2016). Identities and images of competition in the shared neighbourhood: how EU and Russian foreign policies interact. in: Simao, L. and Piet, R. eds. Security in Shared Neighbourhoods. Foreign policies of Turkey, Russia and the EU. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13-34. Available at: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/security-in-shared-neighbourhoods-r%C3%A9mi-piet/?sf1=barcode&st1=9781137499097.
Casier, T. (2015). The geopolitics of the EU's decarbonisation strategy: a bird's eye perspective. in: Dupont, C. and Oberthür, S. eds. Decarbonization in the European Union. Internal Policies and External Strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 159-179. Available at: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/decarbonization-in-the-european-union-claire-dupont/?K=9781137406828.
Casier, T. (2015). The EU and Russia. From a marriage of convenience to confrontation. in: Smith, M., Keukeleire, S. and Vanhoonacker, S. eds. The Diplomatic System of the European Union: Evolution, Change and Challenges. Routledge, pp. 129-145. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415732284.
Casier, T. (2015). National Level: How the EU and Russia Manage Their Unintended Impact on Their Common Neighbours. in: Obydenkova, A. and Libman, A. eds. Autocratic and Democratic External Influences in Post-Soviet Eurasia. Ashgate, pp. 89-108. Available at: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781472441249.
Casier, T. (2013). Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. in: David, M., Gower, J. and Haukkala, H. eds. National Perspectives on Russia. European Foreign Policy in the Making? Routledge, pp. 118-131.
Korosteleva, E., Casier, T. and Whitman, R. (2014). Building a Stronger Eastern Partnership: Towards an EaP 2.0. Global Europe Centre, University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/index.html?tab=policy-papers.The European Union has been working to deepen the economic and political relationship with its Eastern neighbouring countries over the recent years. A set of formal agreements are intended for signature between the EU and Ukraine, Moldova and the South Caucasus states at the Eastern Partnership (EaP) summit scheduled for 28-29 November 2013. These agreements have provoked a response from the Russian Federation which is seeking to offer an alternative set of economic relationship to the exclusion of the EU. In the first Policy Paper to be published, the recently created Global Europe Centre (GEC) sets out a reform agenda that the EU needs to adopt towards the EaP states to enable a more binding relationship. The paper argues that the EU needs to define a 'next generation' objective for the EaPas it enters the implementation phase of the current set of Association Agreements (AAs). The proposal is that the EU should set a European Partnership Community (EPC) statusas a bilateral and multilateral goal for the EaP. The paper contends that there is urgency for the EU to think more strategically vis-à-vis its neighbourhood, and create a more clear-cut place for Russia to avoid the current situation of divisive competition. Further, the EU needs to reform aspects of its current EaP policy. The EU needs to define a clearer, and measureable set of objectives for its role in the resolution of the 'frozen' conflicts of its Eastern neighbourhood; refresh its policy towards Belarus; speed up visa liberalisation to ease travel for citizens of the EU's neighbouring states; and deepen and broaden civil society engagement by investing more in deep democracy, linkage and people-to-people contacts.
Casier, T. (2014). Written evidence for inquiry into the EU and Russia, House of Lords (UK), EU External Affairs EU Sub-Committee. House of Lords. Available at: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-sub-c-external-affairs-committee/eu-and-russia/written/14748.html.
Casier, T. and DeBardeleben, J. eds. (2017). EU-Russia relations in crisis : understanding diverging perceptions. [Online]. Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/EU-Russia-Relations-in-Crisis-Understanding-Diverging-Perceptions/Casier-Debardeleben/p/book/9781138215061.Relations between the EU and Russia have been traditionally and predominantly studied from a one-sided power perspective, in which interests and capabilities are taken for granted. This book presents a new approach to EU–Russia relations by focusing on the role of images and perceptions, which can be major obstacles to the enhancement of relations between both actors. By looking at how these images feature on both sides (EU and Russia), on different levels (bilateral, regional, multilateral) and in different policy fields (energy, human rights, regional integration, multilateral institutions), the book seeks to reintroduce a degree of sophistication into EU–Russia studies and provide a more complete overview of different dimensions of EU–Russia relations than any book has done to date. Taking social constructivist and transnational approaches, interests and power are not seen as objectively given, but as socially mediated and imbued by identities. This text will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners of European Foreign Policy, Eastern Partnership, Russian Foreign Policy and more broadly to European and EU Politics/Studies, Russian Studies, and International Relations.
Research report (external)
Casier, T. (2016). Why the EU-Russia Strategic Partnership could not prevent a confrontation over Ukraine. [Online]. LSE / Dahrendorf Forum. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/LSE-IDEAS-Avoiding-a-New-Cold-War.pdf.
Casier, T. and Vanhoonacker, S. (2016). Europe and the World.Redefining Europe's Role in a Changing world. Palgrave Macmillan.