International trade disagreements: Beyond Trump
The trade war between the United States and China is not only due to Donald Trump’s impulsiveness. Its roots are in fact profound and follow three structural changes in the multilateral trading system: the reversal of comparative advantages, the now central role of certain developing countries, and the re-balancing of power that makes coordination between states difficult. In this context, the future of world trade has yet to be written.
International trade relations are in a state of tension that has not been seen since the Second World War and that is characterized by major increases in unilateral sanctions, reprisals, and threats, against a backdrop of profound and paralyzing challenges to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The ostensible cause is the Trump administration’s trade policy. Quite apart from the sums involved, the destabilizing nature of this policy is related to the nature of the instruments used and the rhetoric accompanying them. The policy represents a major break from the norms upon which the multilateral trading system is based, and of which the United States has historically been both architect and leader. Protectionist measures, obviously motivated by economic concerns, have been justified by the argument of national security, which places them de facto outside the remit of the multilateral trading system. Donald Trump repeatedly blames all imaginable ills on the WTO, an organization that is directed by its members and that cannot function unless they respect its legitimacy.
While it is necessary to study the Trump administration’s policy in order to understand the current state of international trade relations and their possible future development, this is only a starting point. The causes of the tensions observed go beyond the whims of an unpredictable president; international trade has changed profoundly over the last twenty-five years, and this has presented its institutional foundation with three structural problems: the reversal of comparative advantages in a context in which trade agreements cover goods much more effectively than services or investment; the major emerging economies’ status as latecomers to the trading system, which creates an asymmetry of commitment compared to countries that have long been full members; and multipolarity, which leaves the system without a dominant power able to play the role of constructive leader.
These problems present challenges to the stability and relevance of the multilateral trading system, which is why the political dimension is currently coming to the fore in structuring exchanges. This perspective suggests that the shift in the way the US treats these issues is likely to continue and presents challenges of both a political and economic nature. Nevertheless, the constraints of the globalized economy are strong and place clear limits on what is likely to develop in the future. […]
OUTLINE
- What is Trump’s protectionism saying “no” to?
- International trade: what has changed
- The three phenomena destabilizing the multilateral trading system
- The reversal of comparative advantages
- The problem of the “latecomers” at the negotiating table
- Multipolarity - The burden of legacy
- The future of world trade
Sébastien Jean is Professor of Economics, Jean-Baptiste Say Chair, Conservatoire national des arts et métiers (CNAM, France).
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
International trade disagreements: Beyond Trump
Iran: Anatomy of a Power at War
The elimination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials at the outset of the 2026 American-Israeli operation did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime. The regime had prepared for such a scenario, notably by decentralizing its structures. Moreover, it continues to adapt to war. The power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is growing at the expense of the Shiite clergy. The security apparatus defends the country’s sovereignty and justifies its actions in the name of raison d’état.
“Remodeling” the Middle East?
Chaos continues to spread, seemingly without end, across the Middle East. The Israeli-American attack on Iran has resulted in a clear military and diplomatic failure, but it is paving the way for a regional realignment, the consequences of which remain uncertain. New regional groupings are taking shape, either centered around Israel or built on the prospect of coexistence with Tehran, alongside a decline in American influence and the marginalization of Europe, while China maintains a low-key presence.
Silicon Valley and War: Lessons from Ukraine
Over the course of international conflicts, and particularly in Ukraine, major tech companies have emerged as central actors. Initially subject to wartime maneuvering, they have since become decisive actors in their own right, privatizing a significant share of wartime exchanges, shaping the information flows of societies, and presenting themselves as providers of security. This situation raises important questions about states’ autonomy in making decisions and taking action.
Does Artificial Intelligence Change the Nature of War?
From Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, current conflicts are being shaped by the arrival of artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield. The changes under way are so profound that humans risk rapidly losing control over entire aspects of the conduct of military operations. While these technological developments are altering the character of war, their impact on the very nature of war itself remains a matter of debate.