Litigating Across Borders: Subnational Actors and Supranational Governance in the Turów Dispute

The Turów lignite mine dispute is an unprecedented conflict between two EU neighbors. Sparked by a flawed Polish environmental impact assessment and a Czech complaint to the Court of Justice of the European Union in February 2021, it was resolved nearly a year later through an intergovernmental agreement in February 2022. Unlike conventional coal-related disputes confined to national jurisdictions, this case escalated to the European level, involving actors from subnational to supranational levels. This exemplifies the evolving nature of transboundary environmental conflicts within a multi-level governance framework. Using discourse network analysis, this study of the politics of environmental networks examines (a) whether and under what conditions the Turów dispute exhibits a meaningful dispersion of authority, and (b) the extent to which bargaining dynamics tracked de facto rather than de jure competencies. We map how governance-level interactions unfold, what positions actors articulate, and what alliances they form. The results indicate that the governance of the issue resembled a polycentric structure at the beginning of the conflict. Over time, it gradually shifted into a more hierarchical structure, where the regional and national governments concentrated power, sidelining other actors from the issue resolution. This complicates multi-level governance’s polycentric/hierarchical distinction, showing that both types can coexist within a single case. The recentralization of authority was likely enabled by framing the issue as groundwater depletion rather than climate threat. While this raised the problem to the national agenda, it may have narrowed the solution space to technical fixes in subsequent Czech–Polish negotiations, favoring national-level solutions.