KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / ESAM Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

AB SINIRDA KARBON DÜZENLEME MEKANİZMASININ (SKDM) ULUSLARARASI TİCARETE ETKİLERİ ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ

A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE EFFECTS OF THE EU CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM (CBAM) ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Rahmi Çetin

Sayfa
1–21
Yayın Tarihi
2026-05-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği’nin Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizmasının (SKDM) uluslararası ticaret üzerindeki etkilerinin akademik literatürde nasıl değerlendirildiğini incelemektedir. Çalışmada, sistematik literatür incelemesi (SLR) yöntemi kullanılarak, Ocak 2020–Temmuz 2024 döneminde yayımlanan 32 hakemli akademik makale ve kurumsal raporun bulguları sentezlenmiştir. İnceleme, literatürde belirgin bir asimetri bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Az sayıda çalışma SKDM’yi karbon kaçağını önlemek ve Avrupa Birliği’nin iklim hedeflerini korumak için gerekli bir araç olarak sunarken, literatürün baskın bölümü mekanizmanın önemli ekonomik, hukuki ve dağıtımsal riskler barındırdığını belirtmektedir. Bu riskler arasında potansiyel küresel refah kayıpları, ticaret ihtilafları ve misilleme risklerinin artması, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) kurallarıyla uyumluluğa ilişkin hukuki belirsizlikler ile tarihsel sera gazı emisyonlarına katkısı sınırlı olmasına rağmen gelişmekte olan, az gelişmiş ve küçük ada ekonomileri üzerindeki orantısız yükler yer almaktadır. Disiplinler arası literatürde, SKDM’nin tek taraflı tasarımının, uluslararası iklim yönetişiminin iş birliğine dayalı temelleriyle çelişmesi nedeniyle meşruiyet ve hakkaniyet sorunlarının olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. Genel olarak literatür, mevcut hâliyle SKDM’nin etkili bir küresel iklim çözümünden ziyade, çevresel katkısı sınırlı bir ticaret düzenleme aracı olarak işlev görme ihtimalinin daha yüksek olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu nedenle inceleme; farklılaşma, gelir geri dönüşümü, iklim finansmanı ve teknoloji transferini içeren daha iş birliğine dayalı ve kapsayıcı iklim–ticaret çerçevelerine duyulan ihtiyacı ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, SKDM’nin düzenleyici tasarımdan tam uygulamaya geçiş sürecinde ortaya çıkan temel politika çıkarımları ve araştırma boşluklarını ortaya koyarak sonuçlandırılmaktadır.

Abstract

This study examines how the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is assessed in the academic literature with respect to its implications for international trade. Employing a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology the study synthesises findings from 32 peer-reviewed journal articles and institutional reports published between January 2020 and July 2024. The review reveals a pronounced asymmetry in the literature. While a limited number of studies frame CBAM as a necessary instrument to prevent carbon leakage and safeguard the EU’s climate ambition, the dominant body of research identifies significant economic, legal, and distributive risks. These include potential global welfare losses, heightened risks of trade disputes and retaliation, legal uncertainty regarding compatibility with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and disproportionate burdens on developing, least developed, and small island economies despite their minimal contribution to historical greenhouse gas emissions. Across disciplinary perspectives, scholars frequently emphasise that CBAM’s unilateral design constitutes a central source of legitimacy and equity concerns, as it conflicts with the cooperative foundations of international climate governance. Overall, the literature suggests that, in its current form, CBAM is more likely to operate as a trade-regulating instrument with limited environmental additionality rather than as an effective global climate solution. The review therefore highlights the need for more cooperative and inclusive climate–trade frameworks that incorporate differentiation, revenue recycling, climate finance, and technology transfer. The study concludes by outlining key policy implications and research gaps as CBAM moves from regulatory design toward full implementation.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Çetin, R. (2026). AB SINIRDA KARBON DÜZENLEME MEKANİZMASININ (SKDM) ULUSLARARASI TİCARETE ETKİLERİ ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ. ESAM Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.53662/esamdergisi.1811863

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

↗Yeni Sekme

PDF belgesi yükleniyor...

Kaynakça (43)

  1. Allevi, E., Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., & Rocco, M. (2017). Evaluating the carbon leakage effect on the cement sector under different climate policies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.072
  2. Balogh, J. M., & Jámbor, A. (2020). The environmental impacts of agricultural trade: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(3), 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031152
  3. Balogh, J. M., & Mizik, T. (2021). Trade–climate nexus: A systematic review of the literature. Economies, 9(3), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9030099
  4. Banga, R. (2022). Trade and environment: Can international trading rules help? Development, 65(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-022-00332-5
  5. Banks, G. D., & Fitzgerald, T. (2020). A sectoral approach allows an artful merger of climate and trade policy. Climatic Change, 162(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02822-2
  6. Barrie, J., & Schröder, P. (2022). Circular economy and international trade: A systematic literature review. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00150-8
  7. Barros, L., & Martínez-Zarzoso, I. (2022). Trade liberalization and sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 921–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.012
  8. Bayer, P., & Aklin, M. (2020). The European Union emissions trading system reduced CO₂ emissions despite low prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(16), 8804–8812. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918128117
  9. Beaufils, T., Ward, H., Jakob, M., & Wenz, L. (2023). Assessing different European carbon border adjustment mechanism implementations and their impact on trade partners. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00764-0
  10. Bellora, C., & Fontagné, L. (2023). EU in search of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Economics, 123, 106673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106673
  11. Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2010). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 24(51), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2010.08.24.51.47.c7943
  12. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K. E., & Rutherford, T. F. (2022). Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01250-y
  13. Boute, A. (2024). Accounting for carbon pricing in third countries under the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. World Trade Review, 23(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745624000107
  14. Casarano, A., & Villalta Puig, G. (2024). The World Trade Organization and the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism: Free trade or environmental protection? George Washington International Law Review, 55(1), 47–71.
  15. Clora, F., Yu, W. S., & Corong, E. (2023). Alternative carbon border adjustment mechanisms in the European Union and international responses: Aggregate and within-coalition results. Energy Policy, 174, 113454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113454
  16. Condon, M., & Ignaciuk, A. (2013). Border carbon adjustment and international trade: A literature review. OECD Publishing.
  17. Copeland, B., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). International trade and the environment: A framework for analysis. American Economic Review, 91(4), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.3386/w8540
  18. Curran, L., & Carrasco-Farré, C. (2024). Leveraging natural language processing techniques to explore the potential impact of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. Journal of International Business Policy, 7(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-024-00185-4
  19. Durán, G. M. (2023). Securing compatibility of carbon border adjustments with the multilateral climate and trade regimes. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 72(1), 73–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000501
  20. Eicke, L., Weko, S., Apergi, M., & Marian, A. (2021). Pulling up the carbon ladder? Decarbonisation, dependence, and third-country risks from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102240
  21. Heydenreich, T. (2024). Trade and decoupling of fossil fuel use embedded in EU consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 464, 142702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142702
  22. Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., Hogan, M., & Kim, J. (2022). EU carbon border adjustment mechanism faces many challenges (Policy Brief No. 22-14). Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4262951
  23. Korpar, N., Larch, M., & Stöllinger, R. (2023). The European carbon border adjustment mechanism: A small step in the right direction. International Economics and Economic Policy, 20(1), 95–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-022-00550-9
  24. Krenek, A. (2020). How to implement a WTO-compatible full border carbon adjustment as an important part of the European Green Deal (Policy Brief No. 02/2020). Austrian Society for European Policy.
  25. Leal-Arcas, R., Faktaufon, M., & Kyprianou, A. (2022). A legal exploration of the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 31(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.54648/EELR2022016
  26. Leonelli, G. C. (2022). Export rebates and the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism: WTO law and environmental objections. Journal of World Trade, 56(6), 963–984. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2022040
  27. Lim, B., Hong, K., Yoon, J., Chang, J.-I., & Cheong, I. (2021). Pitfalls of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energies, 14(21), 7303. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217303
  28. Mehling, M., & Jakob, M. (2024). Subsidy-related aspects of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. Journal of World Trade, 58(3), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2024023
  29. Mehling, M., & Ritz, R. A. (2020). Going beyond default intensities in an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Policy, 137, 111137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111137
  30. Olasehinde-Williams, G., & Akadiri, S. S. (2025). Environmental policy stringency and carbon leakages: A case for carbon border adjustment mechanism in the European Union. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(2), 30817–30838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04941-7
  31. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  32. Perdana, S., & Vielle, M. (2022). Making the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism acceptable and climate-friendly for least developed countries. Energy Policy, 170, 113245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113245
  33. Quick, R. (2021). Carbon border adjustment: A dissenting view on its alleged GATT compatibility. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien, 23(4), 549–597. https://doi.org/10.5771/1435-439X-2020-4-597
  34. Römer, D., Schwarz, M., & Liem, E. (2021). The EU’s carbon border adjustment: A trade barrier or an opportunity for global climate action. KfW Research.
  35. Sasmal, S., Zhang, D. Z., Lydgate, E., & Winters, L. A. (2024). Exempting least developed countries from border carbon adjustments: Simple economically but complex legally. World Trade Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745624000132
  36. Sato, S. Y. (2022). EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism: Will it achieve its objectives? Journal of World Trade, 56(3), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2022015
  37. Steinhauser, D., Kittová, Z., & Khúlová, L. (2024). Relationship between CO₂ emissions and trade: The case of the EU. Intereconomics, 59(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/ie-2024-0009
  38. Sun, X., Mi, Z., Cheng, L., Coffman, D. M., & Liu, Y. (2024). The carbon border adjustment mechanism is inefficient in addressing carbon leakage and results in unfair welfare losses. Fundamental Research, 4(3), 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2023.02.026
  39. Szulecki, K., Overland, I., & Smith, I. D. (2022). The European Union’s CBAM as a de facto climate club: The governance challenges. Frontiers in Climate, 4, 942583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.942583
  40. White, L. V., Aisbett, E., Pearce, O., & Cheng, W. (2025). Principles for embedded emissions accounting to support trade-related climate policy. Climate Policy, 25(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2356803
  41. Williams, M. (1993). International trade and the environment: Issues, perspectives and challenges. Environmental Politics, 2(4), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019308414103
  42. Yamano, N., & Guilhoto, J. (2020). CO₂ emissions embodied in international trade and domestic final demand: Methodology and results using the OECD Inter-Country Input-Output Database (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers No. 2020/11). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8f2963b8-en
  43. Zhong, J., & Pei, J. (2024). Carbon border adjustment mechanism: A systematic literature review of the latest developments. Climate Policy, 24(2), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2190074