To mark the end of her time as the first Early Career Researcher at the AIA NRW, Boyhun Kim presented the key arguments of her doctoral thesis, which she has just submitted to Ghent University in Belgium. She used the colloquium as an opportunity to practise her thesis defence in front of the fellows. Her project on European and international climate governance centred on the question of how the frequently postulated global leadership role of the European Union (EU) should be assessed from the perspective of those actors who follow European norms and standards. Drawing on the relationship between the EU and South Korea in climate and energy policy, she proposed a shift in perspective that moves the focus from the leading to the following side. The starting point was the observation that the EU is frequently portrayed in academia and politics as a global climate leader. Boyhun Kim argued, however, that leadership is not a quality automatically conferred upon an actor. Rather, leadership must be recognised and actively supported by other actors. This gave rise to the central research question: Why does South Korea align itself with European climate norms and standards, even though the country would be technologically and economically capable of pursuing its own path? The answer was that South Korea does not follow the EU out of dependence or weakness. Instead, the country strategically utilises European standards to achieve its own economic, industrial policy and geopolitical objectives. She described this approach as the “Strategic Climate Followership Agency” (SCFA). Here, “followership” is not understood as the passive adoption of guidelines, but as an active form of political action.

Two case studies were presented to illustrate this. The first dealt with the adoption of the European taxonomy for sustainable economic activities. The analysis showed that South Korea does not adopt European standards unchanged, but rather adapts them specifically to national interests. This was particularly evident in the case of nuclear energy. European decisions served here as a means of legitimising a South Korean policy that supports the expansion of nuclear energy. In this context, the speaker referred to an “anti-normative effect”, as European standards were being used in a different sense than originally intended. The second case study examined the hydrogen policies of the EU and South Korea. Whilst the EU relies more heavily on regulation and supranational coordination, South Korea pursues an approach more strongly influenced by industrial policy. Despite these differences, the speaker concluded that both actors face similar challenges. Geopolitical rivalry, issues of technological sovereignty and economic competitiveness have led to industrial and security policy objectives increasingly taking precedence over comprehensive approaches to climate and social policy transformation.

The subsequent discussion focused in particular on the theoretical implications of the SCFA concept and the question of the extent to which the strategic adaptation of European standards relativises the notion of a European leadership role. It was also discussed whether the active appropriation and reinterpretation of standards should be understood more as an expression of European influence or as evidence of the agency of the adopting actors.