With the USA-China-EU triangle as a critical framework, this article examines how the USA influences EU-China relations on their general strategy and policy vis-à-vis each other on climate governance, a global challenge of common concern. Regarding Trump’s controversial actions during his first mandate, like the “America first” ideology and the hostility to multilateralism (namely the withdrawal from the “Paris Agreement), how would and should China and the EU deal with the American influence on their relationship with Trump coming back to the White House?

Recent US actions and the reactions received, including on trade sanctions, decoupling efforts, and a retreat from multilateral agreements during the Trump administration, have complicated EU-China engagement in climate governance—understood here as both multilateral climate diplomacy and the politics of green technologies such as renewable energy and NEVs. Under the USA-China antagonism, the EU seems to be aligning with US actions in areas such as regulating and de-risking Chinese green technology, while approaching China on climate diplomacy with the USA’s inconstant position on multilateralism. This creates a delicate balance of alignment and divergence. This article will focus on their interaction in these areas to provide a concrete lens to explore the weakening and strengthening of EU-China climate relations under the American influence. Drawing on the analysis, future prospects of their interactions and impact on the global order will be made.

International climate law is facing a turning point. The drive for sustainability collides with the very different legal and political contexts of states. This paper compares two coal-dependent economies, India and Poland, as they attempt energy transition under contrasting frameworks. India’s approach rests on the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It frames decarbonization through climate justice, stressing historic responsibility and the right to development. For India, progress depends on climate finance and technology transfer, while a flexible, non-binding system is preferred to protect sovereignty over resources and shift part of the costs onto wealthier nations. Poland, by contrast, works within the European Union’s (EU) binding Green Deal. Legal obligations on emissions are strict and backed by deadlines. The EU also provides support through the Just Transition Mechanism, but Poland remains caught between supranational commitments and domestic concerns of energy security and economic stability. The EU model shows the strength of enforceability, yet also exposes fragmentation in how member states carry out obligations. The comparison highlights three tensions. First, different interpretations of equity strain global cooperation. Second, soft multilateralism and rigid regional integration each produce their own trade-offs in credibility and cost. Third, contrasting socio-political contexts, India’s development agenda versus the EU’s integration, shape rival ideas of what a “just” transition means. The study aims to inquire whether international climate law can balance legal certainty with ambitious climate goals, or whether fragmentation will remain the dominant outcome.

The European Union (EU) has actively engaged in mediating the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” advocating for a two-state solution as early as 1970. Recently, the EU has intensified its focus on climate change and environmental protection, viewing these issues as "threat multipliers" to international peace and security. This research investigates the EU’s role in shaping climate change practices within the complex context of Palestine, where its global leadership in climate action is frequently challenged by Israeli occupation. Which restricts Palestinian control over land and resources, thereby exacerbating their vulnerability to climate-related events.

This vulnerability is evident in the continuous Israeli demolitions of EU-funded projects. Many of these initiatives, are aimed at supporting climate change adaptation efforts such as water management and renewable energy, leading to the degradation of natural resources and loss of biodiversity. These disruptions highlight the urgent need for intensified climate justice efforts.

However, despite the EU’s commitment to climate justice, it has not been explicitly questioning Israel’s actions in Palestine. This challenge is deeply intertwined with the broader Palestinian quest for sovereignty and self-determination, positioning climate justice as an essential facet of political justice. By framing this relationship, this study offers an innovative perspective on the relationship between environmental degradation and settler colonialism, areas largely overlooked in current research.

Finally, the study aims to bridge the gap in the literature by examining how the Palestinian Authority (PA) are leveraging Israel’s climate narratives to reclaim sovereignty. By exploring the underlying power dynamics and narratives, the research aims to answer the following question:

Does the European Union try to shape climate change practices in Palestine’s challenging settler colonialism context? If so, how?

This article examines public participation in EU external energy and climate governance through the case of National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) in Energy Community countries. Building on democratic and participatory governance theory, it conceptualises public participation not merely as a procedural requirement but as a key condition for democratic legitimacy, policy quality, and governance effectiveness in complex and transformative policy domains such as energy transitions. The article situates participation within an asymmetrical governance context in which non-EU countries are expected (and obliged) to align with the EU climate and energy governance framework on public participation while lacking full political inclusion in EU decision-making.

Empirically, the article focuses on the preparation of NECPs in selected Energy Community countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Serbia, North Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Montenegro). While public participation in NECPs has been extensively analysed in EU Member States, it remains underexplored in externally governed contexts. The analysis therefore addresses how public participation and a multilevel dialogue are organised, which actors are included, at what stage of the policy process participation occurs, and whether participatory input is meaningfully integrated into policy outcomes. Particular attention is paid to the quality of participation and dialogue, understood along the dimensions of inclusiveness, integration into decision-making, but also of transparency and effectiveness.

Methodologically, the article employs a comparative qualitative analysis of NECPs submitted between 2022 and 2025, complemented by an assessment of the supportive and coordinating role of the Energy Community Secretariat in shaping participatory practices. The findings highlight significant variation across countries but also reveal structural constraints on meaningful participation linked to limited administrative capacity, late-stage consultations, narrow stakeholder inclusion, and externally driven governance framework. Overall, the article contributes to the literature on public participation by examining the Energy Community as a case of EU external differentiation and by highlighting the role of public participation in shaping EU energy and climate cooperation in its neighborhood.