In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the EU and most other advanced economies imposed extensive sanctions on Russia, intending to harm its production capabilities and hinder its economic activities by restricting its access to international trade and financial markets. This paper develops an empirical framework based on the synthetic control method to assess the impact of the war and the following sanctions on bilateral and sectoral exports to Russia almost in real time. The war and the following sanctions reduced aggregate exports to Russia by a third between March and December 2022, with the effects being stronger for sanctioning countries than for non-sanctioning ones, albeit with substantial country-level heterogeneity within each group. Exports to Russia in high-tech sectors – relatively more targeted by trade sanctions – have been disproportionately affected.

Our paper sheds light on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) cooperation among trading countries. We contribute to the existing literature a data-driven analysis on the effectiveness of various forms (in monetary value, duration, and diversification) of SPS related technical assistance received by 33 countries from 1993 to 2015. The World Trade Organization's (WTO's) SPS Agreement encourages biosecurity for countries through technical assistance, to safeguard human health and productivity from contamination by biological hazards (pests, pathogens, or invasive species). Our panel model finds that WTO's SPS program encourages simultaneously agricultural trade and biosecurity. We implement a Multiple Indicator Solution (MIS) to correct bias from the endogenous technical assistance. The effectiveness of technical assistance depends on geography and the level of development among the heterogeneous countries referred to in our data. This investment in biosecurity benefits both donors and recipients of technical assistance. Based on our results donors should be encouraged to invest in countries with below average resources and abilities.

The WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) does not legally define what entities should be covered by the Agreement. However, its member Parties list their ‘covered entities’ in a series of schedules. The list approach has complicated accession negotiations and discourages Parties from providing a ‘wider’ range of entity coverage. Moreover, the list approach raises some tensions and a lack of legal certainty, especially concerning those that are not strictly ‘government entities’, such as State-owned enterprises (SOEs). This problem is exacerbated in the case of modern SOEs in developing countries, many of which can bear both public and private features. Given these conditions, the author proposes a definition of ‘covered entities’ to facilitate accession negotiations and the future expansion of the GPA. The proposal is based on a comparative study of the GPA and the EU public procurement regulations. It develops a framework by which all publicly controlled entities are presumably covered by the GPA. Nevertheless, Parties can rebut GPA obligations by proving that an entity competes with other commercial entities under normal market conditions.

Two scholarly communities work on global trade and investment governance yet communicate little with each other. On the one hand, classic trade and investment scholarship focuses on states' foreign economic policies, trade and investment treaty programs, and participation in the World Trade Organisation. On the other hand, scholars of private and commercial law study how businesses draft and enforce the international contracts of a private law nature that ultimately constitute international trade and investment transactions. This research note seeks to raise awareness for this bifurcation of research on global trade and investment, develops a conceptual framework to better understand the role of private law in shaping trade and investment flows, and proposes a research agenda anchored in economics, political economy, and political science to advance our understanding of the role of private law in global trade and investment transactions and governance.

This article examines shifts towards onshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing, a response to the vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic in global supply chains. It delves into how globalization, public policy, and geopolitical tensions have shaped pharmaceutical markets, compelling nations to seek solutions that ensure reliable medicine access and reduce dependency on foreign supplies. The study highlights disparities in regulatory oversight and geographic concentration of production, which contribute to frequent shortages, particularly of generic medicines. The pandemic intensified these issues, prompting increased state interventions and heightening concerns over geopolitical risks. As a result, onshoring efforts, often encapsulated in local content measures, have expanded, and are now driven by both economic motives and imperatives of national security and public health.

China has initiated three antidumping (AD) investigations against US feed products since 2010, despite clear mutual benefits from such exports from the US to China. This article provides a close examination of these investigations, what prompted them, how they were resolved, and the costs they imposed on importers and exporters. The article also describes the political economy around these investigations and how China's antidumping laws provide it with flexibility to manage these investigations. The article concludes that this flexibility makes China well-positioned to continue using AD investigations against some trade partners in the future, particularly if AD use continues to rise globally.