This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the European Commission’s trade and sustainable development discourse from 1993 to 2022. By employing a discursive institutionalist framework and examining a comprehensive corpus of over 1,400 press documents, this study traces the discursive process that has created both significant changes to, and persistent elements in, the Commission’s trade-sustainability agenda. The analysis reveals noteworthy shifts within the discourse, notably a transition from a primary concern with labour and human rights during the 1990s to an increased focus on economic development and poverty reduction in the early 2000s. This was followed by a discernible move towards more stringent differentiation among developing countries and an amplified emphasis on reciprocity. In recent years, we are witnessing a strong focus on environmental and climate protection, labour rights, and enforceability. The findings underscore the enduring presence of trade-sustainability ideas within EU trade policy and their gradual evolution over time, while contributing to the literature on the role of ideas in shaping the Union’s external policies.

As the world crosses the midpoint of the 15 year-period envisaged to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, troubling figures are coming to light. The global pursuit of the SDGs is significantly off course, with a mere 15 percent of the 140 targets on track to be achieved by 2030 (United Nations 2023). This backdrop sets the stage for this PhD dissertation, which delves into the nexus between international trade policy and the sustainable development agenda, known as trade and sustainable development, or TSD for short.This article-based dissertation looks at sustainability provisions in the European Union’s (EU) preferential trade agreements, embodied in so-called Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters. These chapters concentrate on two aspects of the SDGs: social/labour rights and environmental protection. The overall research question guiding this dissertation is: What are the opportunities and limitations of using EU preferential trade agreements for advancing environmental and social objectives? The PhD dissertation was written between October 2020 and November 2023 and consists of a dissertation frame and five research articles.

Since 2019, a commitment has been included in the European Union’s (EU) preferential trade agreements to effectively implement the Paris Agreement, which now exists in nine ratified or pending trade agreements. Yet, research on the legal nature and institutional implications of this linkage between the Paris Agreement and EU trade agreements remains scant. Relying on the framework of governance stringency, we explore the evolution of this commitment across EU trade agreements, highlighting its transition from a statement of shared intent into a legally binding obligation. We argue that the EU’s latest trade agreements 1) increase the cost of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and bolster the Paris Agreement’s obligations of conduct, namely 2) parties’ procedural duties, 3) the expectation of progressively more ambitious climate pledges, and 4) the commitment of all parties to realise these to the best of their efforts. Finally, we suggest that the implementation and enforcement mechanisms available through EU trade agreements, in the context of the Paris Agreement, may prove pivotal in realising its objectives.

The EU has since 2019 integrated a commitment to effectively implement the Paris Agreement into its preferential trade agreements (PTAs), reflecting its dedication to aligning trade policy with the climate agenda. This commitment has in recent years evolved into a legally binding obligation. However, it is simultaneously characterised by a high degree of imprecision; lacking interpretive guidance. This paper argues that the design of the Paris-PTA provision is intentionally crafted to ensure ‘strategic ambiguity’, which allows the European Commission to accomplish multiple objectives at once. The paper suggests that the design of the EU’s Paris-PTA commitment has been informed by four main factors: (1) societal-political demands; (2) institutional fit; (3) market access considerations; and (4) reciprocal enforcement mechanisms. The research highlights the complexity of navigating the trade-climate nexus and questions the EU’s proclaimed role as an open, sustainable, and assertive trade power, asking whether this trifecta is attainable.

The EU’s recent trade agreement with New Zealand (2023) marks a prominent shift in its trade policy by introducing sanctions to ensure compliance with trade and sustainable development (TSD) commitments, moving away from its prior cooperative, non-coercive enforcement approach. This development has revived a decades-old debate of whether sanctions serve to foster social and environmental objectives or as protectionist instruments. This study delves into this complex issue by examining the driving forces behind linking TSD commitments with sanctions through mapping of European civil societal actors' positions on the issue. Employing discourse network analysis, the study finds that actors’ motivations for pushing for sanctions are multifaceted and interwoven, however, ethical and protectionist considerations are most prominent. The findings counter existing approaches that treat the EU as either an ethical, normative, regulatory, or neoliberal power, instead, we suggest the EU’s new TSD sanctions-tool is partly driven by ethical ideas; partly by regulatory objectives; and partly by protectionist interests. This confluence of diverse motivations invites scrutiny of the EU’s credibility from the perspective of trading partners and the legitimacy of its wider trade-sustainability agenda (co-authored with Ana Carolina Soares)

Sustainability standards within the European Union’s (EU) preferential trade agreements are typically attributed to the EU, with the role of trade partners often underestimated, or even ignored. This article challenges these conventional perspectives by ‘reversing the gaze’, examining how EU trade partners imagine and socially (re)construct the trade-sustainability nexus alongside the EU. Drawing on 58 expert interviews, we investigate these parties’ perceptions and practices in regard to the sustainability commitments in their shared trade agreements. Our findings reveal that the EU generally categorises its trade partners into an in-group or out-group based on perceived economic ‘level’ (developed/developing) and sustainability performance (leading/laggard), applying a distinct governance logic to each group. With in-group partners, horizontal cooperation, with various objectives, is the main goal, while out-group partners encounter a hierarchical, compliance-focused EU. Our results raise important questions about the EU’s ability for self-reflection and mutuality; that is, its openness to learn from others (co-authored with Simon Happersberger)

This paper proposes a new conceptual framework for analyzing the European Union's (EU) trade and sustainable development policies, which draws on decentring and postcolonial scholarship. In doing so, it reflects on the guiding principles that should steer the EU’s trade and sustainable development agenda, arguing that a reconceptualization is essential to ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of this agenda against the backdrop of a deteriorating global environment. The PPE framework proposes three key criteria for assessing the EU’s TSD policy: (1) during negotiations, whether the EU is open-minded and self-reflexive, mindful of its historical legacies; (2) in the implementation phase, whether the EU promotes mutuality and avoids creating a knowledge-based hierarchy (teacher-student); and (3) in dispute settlement, whether remedies focus on alleviating the challenges at hand rather than reinforcing a compliance-based dichotomy (enforcer-transgressor).

The EU has launched an avalanche of autonomous trade-sustainability policies and, in response, numerous trade partners have expressed concerns, some signalling outright opposition. The implications of these new policies for other trade subsystems (bilateral and multilateral) and governance systems (UNFCCC) remain underexplored.This paper seeks to investigate the cross-domain effects of the EU’s new array of autonomous trade-sustainability instruments by investigating how these are perceived by the EU’s trade partners across i) bilateral free trade agreements, ii) multilateral trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization, and iii) meetings under the climate change regime (UNFCCC). The study highlights the contentious nature of the EU’s unilateral policies, shedding light on the cross-domain objections and arguments raised by trade partners.

In assessing the external costs of the EU’s new unilateral trade-sustainability policies, the European Commission has compiled a list of trade partners expected to be most economically affected by these policies. Intriguingly, these are not the same as the countries most vocally opposed to the policies, presenting a puzzling discrepancy: the strongest political opposition comes from trade partners, who are not the most economically impacted by these autonomous measures. Why, then, are these countries, particularly those in the Global South, so strongly opposed? That is, what are the key arguments underpinning their objections? This article delves into the underlying causes of this resistance, moving beyond surface-level economic analysis to explore the political and strategic factors at play.

Citation: Bertram (2024) ‘EU’s handelspolitik er blevet global klimapolitik’, Magtudredningen 2.0.

Citation: Bertram, Brosseau, Fassiaux, Haubner, van der Meulen, Oakes, Oimann, Ricau, and Salenius (2023) ‘Empowered: A Matchmaking Platform Unleashing the Potential of Renewable Energy Communities’, SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4775024.

Citation: Bertram (2021) ‘Derfor er handelsaftalen mellem EU og Sydkorea så uhyre vigtig’, Politiken.

Citation: Bertram, Caroline (2023) ‘Press Data (Speeches and Press Releases) frm the European Commission, DG Trade, 1989-2022, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WA0 XG3, Harvard Dataverse, V1.