Imagine a global marketplace built on agreed rules and fairness. Recently, the US moved away from this playbook, imposing additional tariffs on trade partners in what many now call a protectionist power play.
On April 13, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce of the Chinese mainland described Washingtonâs latest exemptions on "reciprocal tariffs" as only a small step toward reversing its broader pattern of unilateral measures. Critics warn these actions violate core World Trade Organization commitments, including tariff concessions and the Most-Favored-Nation principle.
Under WTO case law, any trade restriction that breaches its rules can only be justified if: (1) the objective is legitimate, and (2) the means are appropriate. In the landmark US Section 301 tariff dispute (DS543), the WTO panel found that using tariffs for "economic pressure" falls outside permitted exceptions. Measures must directly address genuine public morals concernsâlike alleged intellectual property infringementsâto be defensible.
Todayâs debate raises big questions: When major economies turn to unilateral tools, how can emerging markets and global brands navigate uncertainty? Businesses and policymakers worldwide will be watching future WTO rulings closely, hoping for clarity on what counts as fair playâand what crosses the line into economic coercion.
One thing is clear: in a hyperâconnected world, breaking the rules carries risks far beyond any single market. Multilateral solutions and transparent dispute settlement remain vital to keeping global trade open, predictable, andâand cruciallyâfair.
Reference(s):
cgtn.com
