Behind techniques, the politics: the consequences of the EU global governance in environmental matters

For several years now, the European Union has sought to be an international leader in environmental matters. While at international level this action has largely focused on the fight against climate change, it now covers all environmental issues (protection of species, fight against illegal logging, protection of human health, etc.). The enforcement of this international action, especially in environmental matters, is an opportunity for the European Union to promote certain standards related to the functioning of the State, whose compliance is often a condition for access to the European market. The legitimacy of the European Union imposing such standards has been widely discussed, mainly concerning the consequences of such an approach for partner states. A less explored issue is the impact of free trade agreements on the European environmental standards. In recent years, the European Union has entered into an increasing number of such agreements (with Canada, Mercosur, Japan, New Zealand, etc.). Although these agreements are primarily trade agreements, signed and ratified on the ground of the common commercial policy, their environmental dimension remains significant. Access to the European market is conditional on compliance with a certain number of environmental standards, without however guaranteeing a perfect match with existing European legislation. The question of compatibility is determined by ad hoc technical bodies provided for in the free-trade agreements. Limited attention is paid to this process. Considered a technical matter, it is overseen by the Commission, whose role is central. Yet its political dimension cannot be ignored. Indeed, this assessment is often closely linked to the prevention and precautionary principles, which have a strong political dimension, as they determine in particular the level of risk acceptable to the society. In addition, this process raises many questions from the public, who do not understand the discrepancy between certain standards applicable to imported products and products produced in the European Union. In addition, the significant role of the Commission means that political control is sidelined, which may contribute to an increasing level of mistrust in the legitimacy of the European Union's free trade policy. The aim of this paper is therefore to examine the effects of increased politicisation of these processes, and the ways in which this might be addressed, both in terms of participation and control. Could increased intervention by the European Parliament be considered sufficient? Should the level of involvement at national level be strengthened? More original players seem to be entering the game. These include the Court of Justice, which is consulted when free trade agreements are ratified, and which is therefore called upon to arbitrate between the existing options.