Description
The European Union (EU) has recently introduced two unilateral trade-climate policies: the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR). While these instruments are presented as essential to prevent carbon leakage, they have sparked widespread contestation among the EU’s trade partners. In which a key paradox arises: the most vocal critics are not those most directly exposed economically. We argue that unilateral trade-environmental policies must be understood within broader dynamics of international norm contestation, shaped by power asymmetries, justice concerns, and competing visions of global governance. Within the wider field of norm theory in international relations, much attention has recently been given to the contestation of international norms. Norms are rarely accepted linearly; instead, they operate within contested normative environments. To increase our understanding of the contestation of unilateral trade-climate instruments, we draw on the distinction between disagreements over norm frames (the underlying justifications, principles and values) and norm claims (the specific instruments or types of actions prescribed by a given frame). This distinction makes it possible to classify outcomes of contestation: (1) norm clarification (agreement on both frames and claims), (2) norm recognition (agreement on frame, disagreement on claims), (3) norm (agreement on claims, disagreement on frame), and (4) impasse (disagreement on both). Applying this framework, we map the international contestation of the EU’s CBAM and EUDR to assess the implications for their legitimacy and robustness. We rely on a discourse analysis of over 300 meeting minutes from key World Trade Organization bodies between 2019 and 2025. Our coding scheme is grounded in a power/trade/justice typology, which enables us to identify both discursive frames and specific claims raised by WTO members. Overall, our paper suggests that the EU’s external trade-climate policies risk undermining the legitimacy of the trade-climate nexus and cooperation thereof.
