The European Green Deal (EGD), first published in 2019, represents a series of policy priorities and proposals charting a path to climate neutrality across the European Union (EU). The EGD has been heralded as a critical juncture in the Union’s response to climate change. With the high-level political support for the EGD and its push to integrate climate concerns into all areas of EU policymaking, it is logical to assume that this critical juncture would also extend to the EU’s foreign policy. The question thus arises how the EGD has transformed how the EU pushes for its climate policy objectives internationally, a responsibility traditionally held by a set of experts and officials within the European Commission, Council of the EU, and European External Action Service (EEAS). Yet, the multiplicity of actors and institutions involved, as well as the associated bureaucratic politics, present significant barriers to shifting how the EU conducts its climate diplomacy.

Building on original interviews with EU actors working on climate diplomacy across institutions between 2021 and 2022 this paper examines how EU actors have adapted their work in response to the EGD. It answers the following research questions: To what extent has the European Green Deal represented a critical juncture for the practice of climate diplomacy? What factors can explain this (lack of) change? In answering these questions, this paper examines how the European Green Deal has concretely shaped (or not) the EU’s foreign policy and sheds light on the adaptability of the EU’s diplomatic system to changing priorities. In doing so, it provides an updated assessment of the functioning of the EU climate diplomacy apparatus and its responsiveness to changing priorities in the midst of the climate crisis.

With the adoption of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) the European Union (EU) is essentially externalising its climate policies towards third countries. The primary aim of the CBAM is to advance the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries within the EU and prevent carbon leakage. At the same time, the externalisation of the EU’s carbon price will significantly affect economies exporting these emission-intensive goods to the EU. This carries the potential to drive mitigation efforts in affected industries beyond the EU. However, it also poses significant economic and political challenges to these countries, which might trigger political and policy responses to mitigate or circumvent the impact of the CBAM on domestic industries. This in turn raises questions regarding the legitimacy and equity of unilateral climate policies.

Against this backdrop, this paper analyses if and how the introduction of the EU CBAM has triggered the development of climate ambition and policy in non-EU countries. Building on the literature of the externalisation of EU regulation, causal mechanisms of the external effects of EU climate policies on third countries are conceptualised. Next these mechanisms are tested empirically through case studies on countries that will be highly impacted by the CBAM as they export a high share of emission-intensive goods to the EU, such as South Africa, the United States or Turkey. The analysis is based on policy documents and interviews with relevant policymakers from the EU and the countries studied.

The papers explore under which conditions the introduction of unilateral climate measures can impact climate policy development in third countries, but also what political and economic challenges this poses to affected countries. Finally, the paper discusses potential legitimacy and equity challenges that could arise through the CBAM and how the EU could potentially mitigate these.

Opportunity dances with those already on the floor, and the intricate choreography of external environmental governance involves a diverse ensemble of players; national governments, international organizations, and non-state entities wield significant influence over the domestic environmental agenda. The paper delves into the impact of the EU Green Deal on the EU accession negotiations as it represents a transformative agenda for achieving sustainability goals. it aims to analyze the interaction between external governance, civil society, and the adoption of EU environmental legislation in two EU candidate countries, Türkiye and Ukraine. A rare focus of comparative analysis, Turkiye and Ukraine are two candidate countries that share common environmental challenges related to the Black Sea ecosystem, but have varied historical legacies, diverse socioeconomic and environmetal challenges, and are at different stages of the EU accession process. Understanding the impact of the Green deal on green clusters in Türkiye and Ukraine within the context of their historical legacies provides insights into the broader implications of EU environmental policies. The research employs a qualitative approach, drawing upon a combination of literature review, document analysis, and interviews with key stakeholders within the environmental civil society organisations. It aims to address several potential research gaps in the existing literature, which suffers from limited focus on environmental civil society impact and the effect of the Green deal on the candidate countries approximation to the EU legislation. Comparing Türkiye and Ukraine allows for a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics between external governance, civil society, and environmental policies in the context of EU accession and the Green Deal with implications for both academic scholarship and policy-making.

Signed in 2017, the EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) did not incorporate the objectives of the EU’s multi-policy initiative of the European Green Deal (EGD) announced in 2019. However, due to its comprehensive nature and the “dynamic approximation” clause, CEPA has a potential to serve as a legal framework enabling the promotion and externalization of the EGD objectives through cooperation and development initiatives. The cooperation sectors under CEPA include inter alia energy, transport, environment and biodiversity, water and waste management, climate action, consumer protection, education, research and innovation, etc. In most of these sectors, Armenia undertakes to approximate its legislation to the EU’s relevant acquis. Further, the Agreement establishes joint institutions that can facilitate the promotion of the EGD agenda and the socialization of domestic actors and channels the EU’s substantial financial and expert support to domestic reforms. Nevertheless, over the past five years, only piecemeal changes related to the green agenda have been achieved in Armenia. Synergizing the methodologies of legal analysis and policy performance assessment, this paper aims to critically evaluate the performance of the EU-Armenia cooperation under CEPA as a tool of externalizing the EGD objectives, identify the major hindering factors and offer possible improvement strategies. It argues that, because of existing environmental and economic problems, the considerations of energy security and significant potential of local sources of alternative energy, the green transition is of high relevance to Armenia. However, there are methodological and institutional obstacles for achieving this goal (the lack of capacity in forward-looking, evidence-based cross-sectoral policymaking, weak interinstitutional cooperation, and lack of coordination mechanisms). The lack of coherence is further reinforced by the EU’s approach that is rather sectoral than comprehensive. Further, local contestation and geopolitical obstacles come into play (the monopolist domination of Russia as the energy supplier and related threats to (energy) security, as well as problematic relations with other regional actors, such Turkey and Iran). From the EU’s side, the intensification of relations with Azerbaijan and the newly concluded contract of fossil fuels supply amid the energy crisis provoked by the Russia’s war against Ukraine undermines the credibility of goals and values promoted by the EU. Finally, the paper delves into social-cultural obstacles with the specific focus on achievements and failures of the local education and scholarship (and relevant EU-funded projects) to contribute to the implementation of the EGD-related CEPA’s objectives. In the conclusion, EU-addressed policy recommendations are offered.