At the 13th Ministerial Conference, WTO members reaffirmed their commitment to restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. By the end of the year, some progress had been made, but an agreement remains elusive. The re-election of Donald Trump as US President adds further uncertainty to these efforts. Against this background, this article re-examines the proposal for the General Council to appoint Appellate Body members through majority voting. It argues that customary rules of interpretation applicable to the constituent instruments of international organizations justify the legality of a vote in the General Council to support the effective functioning of the WTO. To address WTO members' concerns about the negative impact on consensus-based decision-making and the loss of leverage for reforms, this article suggests a General Council decision to appoint fewer than seven Appellate Body members. While not addressing all challenges facing the dispute settlement system, the proposal would bring more certainty to the early recovery of the system.

This research note contributes to moving the scholarly field of international investment law beyond its dominant focus in recent decades on issues of post-admission investment protection and investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS). Specifically, it maps a future research agenda focusing on issues of investment facilitation and investment liberalization. This research note analyses several common and important themes that arise in relation to treaty-based investment facilitation and investment liberalization commitments. These include the value-added of international legally binding obligations, the impact of international commitments on States' applied policies, and a notable shift away from investor–State arbitration towards State–State dispute settlement only and mechanisms for ongoing cooperation between the treaty parties. These themes raise challenging questions, which often call for future empirical research employing methods other than traditional legal analysis. Nevertheless, this research note suggests that the scholarly field of international investment law has much to gain from shifting some of its focus away from well-versed issues of investment protection and ISDS towards under-researched questions concerning investment facilitation and investment liberalization commitments.

Amid a new era of disruption spawned by looming climate threats and significant geopolitical tensions, an increasing number of countries have favored a more robust green industrial policy (GIP) to reduce carbon emissions and achieve other economic, political, and geostrategic objectives. The use of multi-purpose GIPs not only raises questions regarding the policies' compatibility with the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules but also, more broadly, profoundly implicates the interface between energy, trade, and the environment. This article selects China, the United States, and the European Union as case studies and provides a thorough analysis of the specific text and context of their GIPs to identify the new trends that deviate from past practices in order to capture the policy transformation. It highlights the disruptively adverse implications of the multi-purpose GIPs on the multilateral trading system. However, the WTO has an opportunity to mitigate such disruptions and avoid a seemingly unavoidable clash by facilitating international cooperation and coordination in the design and implementation of multi-purpose GIPs, particularly among major clean energy producer countries. In doing so, the WTO can strengthen its credibility and stability while also minimizing the misalignment of the diverse objectives and ensuring the decarbonization efforts will not undermined.

With the recent passage of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the free allocation of emission permits under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) that currently acts as a safeguard against emissions leakage and industrial relocation will progressively be phased out. Because the CBAM only covers imports, however, European goods exported into global markets stand to become more vulnerable to emissions leakage. Different policy options have been discussed to counter such export-related leakage, but they variously face concerns regarding their environmental, political, and legal implications. We describe and evaluate the three most important policy options based on their potential to reduce export-related leakage, support the net-zero transformation in Europe as well as globally, ensure conformity with international trade law, secure administrative feasibility, and foster political acceptance by affected trade partners. While no single option outperforms its alternatives on all criteria, our analysis identifies targeted innovation support as a promising option because it minimizes legal and political risks while also offering climate benefits beyond leakage protection for European industry. We then discuss the sectors that are most likely to require innovation support, the policy instruments that could serve to operationalize such support, and potential funding sources. We conclude with guiding principles for technology support measures, reflecting on the implications of the current surge in industrial policy within Europe and beyond.

The exercise of environmental ‘leverage’ via trade-related measures and trade in environmental goods offers opportunities to tackle the climate crisis and advance transnational decarbonization. Inward-looking, adversarial, and short-term national security-centred approaches, however, are disrupting the trade and climate change mitigation linkage. This article employs the race for critical raw materials and US and EU strategies to promote the net-zero transition at the domestic level as case studies to illustrate the environmental pitfalls of the ‘securitization’ of the trade and climate change mitigation nexus. The article demonstrates that the pursuit of strategic dominance in key net-zero sectors, attempts to exclude systemic rivals and reshore supply chains, opportunistic forms of friendshoring and loose agreement on regulatory means jeopardize recourse to environmental ‘leverage’ and undermine decarbonization at both national and transnational levels. This analysis casts a light on the inherent tension between national security and climate change mitigation. Taking stock of these findings, the article advocates a radically different approach to the governance of the trade and climate change mitigation nexus.

‘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.

The urgency to tackle climate change has placed sustainable development at the centre of recent trade related debates. An emerging consensus is that trade should be considered and can be used as means to achieve sustainable development goals. As the circumstances are changing, one issue to be addressed is how to adjust trade negotiations which used to be the main approach to pursuing market opening and liberalization with the support of the theory of comparative advantage. In this context, this paper examines trade negotiations on environmental services by focusing on developing countries' participation. Environmental services and related trade play a critical role in achieving environmental and sustainable development goals. Nevertheless, developing countries' participation in environmental services trade negotiations has been limited. By analysing the reasons behind such limited participation and assessing some new approaches, this paper attempts to explore how environmental services trade negotiations could be adapted to better engage developing countries and serve Sustainable Development Goals.

In the face of ongoing disruptions to the multilateral trade regime, from deadlock at the WTO to the rise in unilateralism, this contribution examines the role that free trade agreements (FTAs) can play in supporting the adoption of common standards for sustainable development. It does this in three moves: first, it reframes the role of FTAs from sources of obligation and mechanisms of compliance to sites of economic diplomacy where governments can shape international standards through FTA structures; second, it unpacks the relationship between regulation and standards through three case studies (dolphin-safe labelling, automotive standards, and nutrient profiling), identifying means through which FTAs can be leveraged by trade policy actors; third, it draws on these lessons to examine how FTAs can support the uptake of key new standards and quasi-standards for sustainability, in this case, the ISO Net Zero Guidelines. Finally, this contribution reflects on the implications of reappraising the development of world trade law as part of the practice of economic diplomacy.

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.

The article explores how the COVID-19 pandemic revived discussions on the importance of local pharmaceutical production for promoting health security and resilient health systems. It examines the World Health Organization's hub and spoke mRNA vaccine production model (mRNA hub), a global initiative that aims to establish sustainable, local mRNA manufacturing capabilities in low- and middle-income countries in response to the inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines and the trade disruptions during the pandemic. Using the mRNA hub as case study, the paper discusses how the tectonic shift towards local production implicates supply and license agreements, and thus IPRs. The paper maps the intellectual property challenges that might impact the mRNA hub's sustainability and provides recommendations on how to enhance the initiative's chances of success and foster a more equitable pharmaceutical sector in the future.

This article critically examines the evolution and potential of domestic trade barrier procedures in the US, EU, and China. Emblematic of this mechanism is US Section 301. Aimed at facilitating market access, these procedures function as tools of unilateralism and strategic leverage. Employing qualitative and comparative methods, the analysis explores their use in handling private complaints and combating adverse trade practices, highlighting a trend of ‘normative realignment’ in the deployment of these procedures. Once focused on resolving private grievances, such procedures are now increasingly playing a role in securing national interests. This shift marks a departure from traditional international cooperation, reflecting a recalibration of trade policies. Against the backgroup of growing encystment of unilateralism, the article argues that domestic trade barrier procedures could be adapted to address the demands of the current global economic environment. The article posits that, if executed properly, domestic trade barrier procedures may serve as a buffer mechanism vis-a-vis the tectonic shifts in economic order. In doing so, the article envisions a new generation of domestic trade barrier procedural frameworks.