Multifaceted geopolitical conflicts have led to disruptions in the trade regime and multilateral negotiations. As a paradigm shift, green regionalism has emerged as a new normative process for regional economic frameworks to integrate and operationalize environmental sustainability. The article offers the first interdisciplinary analysis of green regionalism in world trade law. It argues that green regionalism, which has evolved amid various waves of global regionalism, constructs the normative foundation for ‘Trade and Sustainability 2.0’. The article employs the concept of recognition in international relations to unveil the motivations and actions of major states in catalyzing green regionalism. Legal and political challenges confronting the Environmental Goods Agreement of the World Trade Organization, environmental agreements, and mega-trade agreements are also examined. Second, the article explores the multipolar frameworks for implementing green regionalism. Case studies involving recent developments of US and EU trade pacts, as well as of new Asia-Pacific green economy agreements, shed light on the trade-sustainability nexus. Hence, the theoretical and empirical implications of the research are valuable for devising trade law approaches to advancing Sustainable Development Goals.

‘De-risking’ is the latest buzzword in the China strategy of the United States and its allies. It means limiting dependence on and engagement with China in select strategic sectors. One of such sectors concerns critical minerals (CMs) which are essential for the ongoing green economic transition. To secure access to CMs and reduce reliance on China, the US and its allies have been developing networks for ally-shoring supply chains. A major problem with the ‘de-risking’ strategy in this regard is that it treats China as the risk and hence excludes China from the discussions and collaboration on global supply chain issues. In this paper, we argue that this strategy fails to consider China's strategies and policies regarding CMs. We therefore offer a detailed analysis of China's policies which shows that they have been primarily aimed at addressing internal challenges and policy priorities in China rather than dominating, weaponizing, or causing disruptions in global supply chains. To address supply chain risks most effectively, international collaborative frameworks should engage with, rather than exclude, China. Confrontational strategies with ‘China being the risk’ at the core might themselves be a risk by undermining rational policymaking and leading to disruptive policies.