Global Trade at Crossroads – Need for an Overhaul

Recent News:

1 Jan, 2026

Global Trade at Crossroads – Need for an Overhaul

Abstract

The Rising Protectionism and Unilateral tariffs imposed by the sovereign nation states are undermining the authority and credibility. of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and creating a turmoil in the Global Trade Order. The non-operative status of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body ((DSB) is leading to a lot of uncertainty in the Global trade landscape. This paper examines the implications of nonfunctioning of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), rising protectionism, frequent Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle violations and the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements (RTA’s) on the post-world-war II multilateral global trade order. The paper deals with an analysis of the WTO agreements to suggest reforms to restore the WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism, to ensure impartiality of the global trade body. The paper highlights India’s diplomatic maneuvering to navigates the uncertainty and inconsistency in global trade norms and geopolitical shifts, balancing national interests and domestic priorities while pushing for reforms beneficial to the Global South.

This paper is divided into different parts, beginning with European trade diplomacy with peace of Westphalia, then identifying the efforts of the international community to establish a multilateral trade order with global trade norms under the GATT and WTO, moving to discussing the strategic shifts in trade relations amidst geopolitical tensions and suggesting measures to revive the WTO system and India’s diplomatic maneuvering to navigate the complex and changing global landscape.

Keywords

Multilateral Global Trade Order, Protectionism, Unilateralism, WTO, Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), Free Trade Agreements (FTA).

Introduction

In the contemporary world, Global Trade is in the midst of rapid transformations due to increased geopolitical and economic tensions. The rise of protectionism- fuelled by prioritising national interest, greater scrutiny of investment and economic sanctions, increased trade disputes between nation- states, all lead to a more restrictive trade environment and practices. Unilateralism, independent actions by many states - imposing reciprocal and punitive tariffs, has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the WTO, undermining WTO rules and multilateral cooperation.

Against this background, the paper proposes to examine the relevance of the multilateral trading system with the WTO as the pivot. The paper further addresses the challenges to the global rule-based trading system in the face of economic nationalism and protectionist policies adopted by major contracting parties. A part of the paper discusses India’s strategy to regain trade advantages, including measures adopted to offset the unilateral tariffs.

Beginning of Trade Diplomacy

For international lawyers and international Relations scholars, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) laid the foundation for the development of the modern Nation-State model of equal territorial sovereign states, as the primary focus of international relations, a model that exists to this day. The Peace of Westphalia ended the most hostile and conflicting period of European history ending both the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). These wars were fought for a variety of reasons, including religious, dynastic, political and territorial ambitions, and most importantly, commercial rivalries.

By establishing a system of mutually sovereign and equal states, the Peace of Westphalia, among other impactful results, significantly marked the beginning of Diplomacy including trade diplomacy, State -driven trade, with absolute supremacy of the ensuing Trade Negotiations and Contracts, free from all external imperial control.

The territorial states, who are equal sovereigns, were given internal supremacy and economic autonomy with the right to manage their economies and engage in foreign trade independently, including entering into treaties and trade agreements. In essence, the Peace of Westphalia facilitated a more stable European political order removing obstacles on access to trade routes within Europe, crucial for merchants and traders to operate without constant fear of conflict, which in turn fostered a more conducive environment for commerce to flourish1. This eventually resulted in shifting the focus of international relations and trade from religious or imperial authority to secular, state-driven (national interest) objectives.

The conduct of negotiations and signing of treaties between and among the independent and equal sovereign states fostered a new environment for building relationships and engaging in trade. The state-led trade started revolving around national interest- promoting, preserving and protecting national interest in trade. To this day, trade and commerce is viewed by many powerful states more as a zero-sum game that could enhance National power.

That is ironically the reality of today’s world, where the imposition of unilateral trade tariffs, often referred to as punitive tariffs, seems to be the order of the day. In August this year, the US President Donald Trump imposed an additional 25 per cent trade tariff on India, raising the overall levy to 50 per cent on goods coming from India. The additional 25 per cent tariff is a penalty for New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil and thus allegedly funding the Ukraine war2. The EU and the USA have imposed economic sanctions on Russia for the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. Interestingly, however, certain sectors - pharmaceuticals, electronics, and energy- are exempted from the above punitive tariffs, protecting India’s generic drug industry, which supplies nearly 50% of the US pharmaceutical market3. This act of the USA once again affirms the fact that Nation States manoeuvre trade negotiations keeping in mind the three “P” of National interest, i.e., Protection, Promotion and Preservation of National Interest.

On her part, India has decried the so-called punitive tariffs as unfair, unjustified and unreasonable and has continued keep sourcing Russian crude oil via alternative non sanctioned suppliers and shadow fleets. This decision is also driven by energy security needs and discounted oil prices offered by Russia, as well as a policy decision to maintain diplomatic relations with an old, trusted ally, sharing a friendship and partnership built during the soviet era. The commitment to maintain strategic energy ties also appears to be reciprocal. Reportedly, at the recently concluded Russia-India annual bilateral summit in New Delhi, the Russian President Putin has said famously,

“Russia is ready for uninterrupted shipments of fuel to India,” saying their ties were “resilient to external pressure”4.

Trade and refining sources estimate that this December shipment will top 1 million barrels per day (bpd), notwithstanding mounting pressure from the American side5. The sustained flow is aided by non-sanctioned Russian entities offering deep discounts, and by state-owned refiners such as Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, and Hindustan Petroleum resuming purchases in line with pre-sanctions levels. At the same time the Ministry added that India’s buying of American oil is increasing6. The hypocrisy is that the USA has been buying significant amounts of enriched uranium fuel from Russia, making Russia a top supplier and allowing for waivers through 2028 due to national interest and limited alternatives7.

WTO - a Centre for Trade Liberalisation

At the global level, the WTO, established as a core part of the rule-based international order, as a member driven organization, establishes and enforces the global rules of trade to ensure that trade flows smoothly, predictably, and freely8. The primary purpose of the WTO is to open trade for the benefit of all and is committed to the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, and binding dispute settlement. WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations are ratified in their legislatures.

However, the influence of WTO as the watchdog of global trade is slowly eroding. After ten years of intense discussions, the Doha Round of trade negotiations among the WTO members, concluded in November, 2011 without achieving the desired goal of multilateral trade liberalisation. The impact of this failure is surely visible on the WTO’s rule-making authority and its dispute-settlement mechanism.

Undoubtedly, binding tariffs and applying them equally to all trading partners (most-favoured-nation treatment, or MFN) are key to the smooth flow of trade in goods. In the past, preferential trade agreements (PTAs) among small groups of countries co-existed with multilateral, non-discriminatory trade liberalisation pacts. For instance, the rules that govern anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties to offset illegal subsidies, were in the domain of both the WTO and the PTAs.

As per Article 1 of the WTO Agreements, Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the GATT, 1994, an anti-dumping measure shall be applied only under the circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement9.

Most importantly, in case of a conflict, the WTO rules prevailed, because the WTO rules conferred enforceable rights that applied uniformly to all WTO members. Whereas PTA-defined rights were applicable only to the PTA members. However, over the years, a variety of developments, like economic nationalism and trade wars, such as the US-China tariff dispute, are creating challenges to the WTO’s efficiency and authority as a centre for rule-based global trade governance.

Weakening influence of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)

Dispute settlement is the central pillar of the multilateral trading system. The Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO and DSM (Dispute Settlement Mechanism) resulted in transforming the global trading system to be more rule-based, inclusive, and capable of enforcing trade obligations. WTO’S procedures governing the settlement of disputes, enabled the member nations to resolve trade disputes transparently and efficiently10.

The commitment was given by member states that the multilateral system of settling disputes under the WTO will be used instead of taking action unilaterally. This amounted to the obligation to abide by the agreed procedures, and accept judgements. Every sovereign member state has a sovereign right to frame rules and regulations to regulate its international trade. This is permissible as long as the rules and regulations, so made, are not in conflict with its obligations and the rights of the other member states. The Uruguay Round agreement introduced a more structured and detailed process of dispute settlement along with a timetable to be followed in resolving disputes (DSB). Most notably, decisions of and reports by the DSB are enforced by the Uruguay Round Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).

Flexible deadlines were provided at various stages of the procedure, filling the loopholes of the earlier dispute settlement mechanism of GATT. The GATT procedure provided for rulings to be adopted by consensus. Under the current WTO system, rulings are automatically adopted unless there is a consensus to reject a ruling. Any disputant state wanting to block a ruling must rally the support of all other WTO members (including its adversary in the case) to share its view.

The WTO dispute settlement process starts with bilateral consultations between the disputant parties (Article 4 of the DSU), providing the disputant parties an opportunity to discuss the matter and to find a satisfactory solution without resorting to litigation (Article 4.5 of the DSU)11. This mandatory, non-judicial, diplomatic provision, a party-controlled and without third-party involvement and supervision provision was made aiming for a quick, negotiated and mutually agreed and WTO-consistent solution. Between the entry into force of the WTO on 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2024, a total of 631 requests for consultations were circulated to the WTO membership. According to WTO statistics, disputes raised in WTO forum during the period 1995- 2024 have involved claims under a broad range of WTO agreements, with the majority of disputes related to anti –dumping, subsidiaries and agriculture12.

Unfortunately, the highest dispute settlement body of the WTO - the Appellate Body, which is composed of seven Members (As per Article 17 of the DSU). and are appointed by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of WTO, is currently inoperative13. The Appellate body is facing an existential crisis, the term of the last sitting member expiring on 30 November 2020., has made the Appellate Body a court without judges. This is because of the blockage of appointment by the USA, the appointment (or reappointment) of Appellate Body members. All WTO members, who are exoffcio members of DSB, must agree with the appointment of new members and the USA has used its veto. The United States has systematically blocked the appointment of new judges since late 2017. Because of this blockage, the Appellate Body, ordinarily composed of seven members, had on 11 December 2019 was left with only one member and from that date, no longer be able to hear and decide any new appeals filed.

The US is especially dissatisfied with the WTO’s rulings in anti-dumping cases, on matters relating to subsidies, countervailing measures, safeguard measures and technical barriers to trade, terming WTO decisions as judicial overreach. The non-functioning of the Appellate Body has enabled large trading blocs to have the upper hand to settle international trade disputes over smaller ones and dictate decisions, mostly favouring their interest.

The Fallout of the Breakdown of the DSB

The WTO was established with the intention to promote free trade, ensure non-discrimination, to create and sustain an uniform rule- based system for resolving trade disputes. Member states increasingly resorting to alternative mechanisms runs the possibility of creating a fragmented trade landscape. Unilateral trade interpretations carry the risk of creating uncertainty, of transforming the multilateral rule-based trading system into a system of power play. This leads to compelling the smaller nations to toe the line of the bigger players.

A most serious challenge undermining the credibility and authority of WTO as a global trade body relates to the economic nationalism stands and anti-globalism populist unilateralism, namely trade restrictive measures allegedly taken by member states in the pretext of protection of national security. The use of the national security exception under Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, has proliferated in recent years15.

The GATT national security exception was always available to GATT Contracting Parties, however members seldom invoked this provision, exercising and showing self-restraint. Trade restrictive measures allegedly taken for the protection of national security by the USA appear to have made the reverse trend, from self-restraint to proliferation of use of this provision for protection of domestic industries.

The protectionist stands, America First policy, under Trump's presidency involving a wide range of measures like unilateral increase in tariffs without prior consultation and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means poses a serious challenge to the non-discrimination and equal treatment for all members that the MFN clause represents.

Article I (a) of GATT upholds that

Each contracting party shall accord to the commerce of the other contracting parties treatment no less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of the appropriate Schedule annexed to this Agreement16.

Under MFN, countries levy the same level of tariff for the product. USA has criticized the basic most-favoured nation (MFN) treatment, arguing that this provision prevents member states from optimising individual trade relationships. Unilateral actions like discriminatory application of trade preferences or penalties erodes the principles of predictability and transparency, lead to a divided international system for trade with parallel sets of rules, underpinning the multilateral trading system.

At the home front Mexico’s sudden protectionist turn, announcing the imposition of additional tariffs of up to 50% on select Indian imports starting January 1, 2026 appears to be closely tied to the effort of Mexico to align trade policy to USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) priorities17. The announcement is coming from Mexico at a time when the regional trade deal- USMCA, is due for review. After the United States, Mexico becomes the second North American nation to impose a 50% additional tariff on certain goods exported from India.

Rightly to protect trade interests, GOI is negotiating several trade deals in a bid to offset the effect of the US tariffs. This strategy of India showed tangible results with the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), with the UK18. Most importantly, the UK-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) includes deliverables, including duty-free access for 99% of Indian exports to the UK and the reduction of UK tariffs on 90% of Indian goods. Other deliverables include enhanced professional mobility for skilled workers and easy access for Indian professionals to sectors like IT and finance. Also an increased access to UK public procurement for Indian firms is another significant deliverable. This has prompted many commentators to describe this trade deal as a win–win deal for both partners. The India- UK FTA 2025 with clear deliverables may be taken as a reference -as a template for concluding further trade deals by India with other nation states.

At the same time, we need to be aware of the possibility that Bilateral trade deal may expose Indian farmers and small-scale industries to intense global competition, particularly in agricultural and labour-intensive sectors. President Trump has made the reduction of US tariffs conditional on the opening of the Indian market to US agricultural products. India has long used protectionist means to shield its vital farming sector, which employs 40 per cent of the country’s workforce19.

As a leading member state of organisations like ASEAN and BRICS plus, focus must be made on continuing efforts for diversifying markets, building resilient supply chains, and leveraging collective bargaining power. In this context the recent signing of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Oman, is a strategic trade strategy and well-timed20. In a global trade environment of protectionism and uncertainty , most nation-states are seeking an export destination closer to home, making nearshoring and friend shoring the norm .

A functioning, rule-based multilateral trade system is crucial for global economic stability. Urgent reform of the WTO is required for removal of power imbalance and protectionism, and to ensure that the global trade remains the medium for inclusive growth, job creation, and sustainable development for all nations, irrespective of the size in terms of population, area or wealth.

The current Director-General of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has recently reiterated that the multilateral trading system is bent, not broken21. She has made an appeal for using the current challenges as a golden opportunity for urgent and meaningful reform. Speaking in the capacity as Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), the WTO Director-General told a meeting of the (TNC) on 15 July, 2025.

The world is looking to the WTO to respond to issues that impact lives, livelihoods and the future prospects of the businesses that drive trade.

A major concern of developing states is that the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is becoming more legalistic, making the process more expensive and complex, shifting away from its original diplomatic approach. The exorbitant financial cost and lack of specialised expertise to navigate complex legal framework, is allegedly resulting in power imbalance in the DSB. Decisions are given on precedents of past cases making the system predictable and more formal, reducing theoriginally intended diplomatic element. To counter fragmentation and to build resilience, the Director General has also advocates for an alternative strategy -diversifying and deconcentrating supply chains to include more countries in the Global South, thereby fostering inclusivity and resilience without excessive concentration in a few areas.

The Director General has further urged member nations to utilize the upcoming 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in March 2026 to show a “genuine shift in negotiations and a change in mind- set and political will to deliver results that address these concerns22.

The DG further underscored the importance of delivering a manageable and meaningful agenda for MC1423.

Way Forward- Measures for Overhaul

Global trade is indeed currently at a critical stage, national interest appears to be influencing trade decisions, trade agreements are becoming more like a win –win situation, making it often harder for nation states to arrive at mutually beneficial trade agreements. Rising protectionism is negatively impacting the credibility of the WTO as a global trade watchdog and also undermines the main objects of the WTO to ensure smooth, predictable, and free trade by lowering barriers, creating a platform for trade negotiations, and establishing rules for global trade and commerce.

Apart from dispute settlement, another main function of the WTO is to act as a forum for the negotiation and adoption of new trade rules. The failure of the Doha Round, the latest phase of multilateral trade negotiations among the WTO members is a major setback to the legislative effort of the world body to achieve major reform of the international trading system, through the introduction of lower trade barriers and revised trade rules. The inability of WTO to act effectively as a forum for devising global rules has been paralysed by the fact that all decisions need to be taken by consensus. This appears to be a difficult task with vast economic diversity among the 166-member state, members ranging from high-income and middle-income to Least-Developed Countries (LDCs).

Equally challenging is making the WTO’s Appellate Body functional again, to make the body more relevant and less legalistic, address US concerns about alleged judicial overreach of the Appellate body, balancing developing countries interests with US concerns. An opt –out provision, allowing members to opt out of appellate process may be explored, encouraging Mediation as an alternative medium of dispute settlement (Article 5 -DSU). Greater use of ADR will definitely make the DSB process less legalistic and more flexible and diplomatic.

WTO Reforms is to be directed to restore stability and cooperation among nation states. The Appellate body composition and functioning is to be revisited, adopting and applying reforms to make the body less legalistic and more flexible. Currently observer status in the WTO is given only to INGO’s (International Intergovernmental Organisations). Engagement with civil society groups is to be explored to strengthen the involvement of NGOs to get diverse perspective in trade negotiations and decisions24. A collaborative approach, emphasising on creating multi stakeholder dialogues among governments, business and civil society is to be encouraged to understand the concerns of diverse economic groups. This will ensure the adoption of trade rules that are more market friendly and community rooted, thereby assisting to balance market -driven growth with community and environmental concerns, leading to effective implementation of trade rules.

Article 17 of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) , by which provision the Appellate Body was established, provides a timeframe, that appeals shall be decided within 90 days and that an appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel25. US has criticized the Appellate body for not following WTO rules, like the 90 day time frame, resulting delays and uncertainty26. As and when the USA lift the blocking of the appointment of new members. the 90 -day time frame for issuing Appellate Body reports is to be strictly followed. This will restore the credibility of the DSB. Of the World Trade Organisation. Another contentious issue, that needs urgent attention is the alleged judicial overreach of the Appellate body. The Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) was established by the WTO member states to administer the WTO dispute settlement system in accordance with the DSU.

In Article 3.7, of The DSU, the WTO Members agreed:

“The aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute”, the aim of the dispute settlement system is not to produce interpretations or “make law”27.

In light of this provision, a WTO adjudicator’s findings must therefore be limited to those findings necessary to resolve a given dispute. This will limit the Appellate Body’s interpretation, leading to preserving the sovereignty of the member states. This is important for in Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement, WTO Members reserved for themselves acting in the Ministerial Conference or General Council “the exclusive authority to adopt interpretations” of the WTO agreements28.

The USA and some other members are particularly vocal about the interpretation of trade agreements by the Appellate body. USA, for instance has questioned decisions given by the Appellate body on national security exceptions. The Appellate Body must confine it’s role only to the original intention of the DSU, to operate within its mandate, refraining from issuing advisory opinions, abstain from addressing issues unrelated to resolve a dispute. The Appellate Body Members must discontinue serving beyond their terms without WTO members approval. All these measures, are suggested to mitigate allegations about the Appellate Body’s fairness and legitimacy.

To address the concern of the developing states, Special and Differential Treatment (S&D) provisions are to be made more effective and operational. At the same time, provisions for S&D treatment are to be revisited as some states once considered to be developing are now major economies. The world’s second largest economy, PRC recently announced that China will no longer seek Special Differential Treatment (SDT) benefits under future WTO trade agreements, will not claim less stringent obligations in future WTO agreements29. This move of PRC, if followed by some other current major economies, still categorised as developing nations in the WTO system will help to make the WTO trading system more balanced. However, graduating from Developing Country status is a complex issue, States concerned must be allowed to have a pragmatic sovereign decision. Only then the shift in status will be beneficial for all, ensuring speedier implementation. A comprehensive approach to WTO reforms including transparency and inclusive agenda setting - addressing the diverse needs of the member states, the greater involvement of the Global South in the negotiating processes would restore faith in the neutrality of the global trade body.

For India, the increased tariffs are to be converted into opportunities for India by powerfully and meaningfully accelerating the ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’(Self-Reliant India) mission. Indian exporters must be given incentives to sell more to the world, reducing roadblocks at home. The new support from the government to expand trade could include steps like easily accessible loans by relaxing bank lending rules, fewer compliance hurdles, a review of strict quality checks that have been slowing down supply chains, thereby enabling India to integrate with global value chains from a position of strength rather than dependence. In this context the Director General of WTO inviting India to take a proactive role in shaping Global trade reforms is significant30. This is surely a “path-breaking moment" giving India a space and opportunity to be the voice of the Global South in making the present global trade order fairer and transparent.

End Notes

1. Zreik, M.( 2020): The Westphalia Peace and Its Impact on The Modern European State Available on: https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/348773-the-westphalia-peace-and-its-impact-on-t- 2457df08.pdf

2. US imposes additional tariffs on India for buying oil from Russia ( 6th august, 2025 ):

3. Industry experts weigh in on US tariff exemption for Indian pharma amid section 232 review: EP News Bureau (August 8,2025) Available on: https://www.expresspharma.in/industry-experts-weigh-in-on-us-tariff-exemption- for-indian-pharma-amid-section-232-review/

4. Joint Statement following the 23rd India - Russia Annual Summit (December 05, 2025), Media Centre, Ministry of External Affairs: Ministry of External Affairs Available on : https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/40410

5. Felicity Bradstock: India Deepens Russian Oil Ties Despite U.S. Tariff Pressure in 2025 (December 14th, 2025) Available on: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/India-Deepens-Russian-Oil-Ties- Despite-US-Tariff-Pressure-in-2025.html

Team Angel One:India Crude Oil Imports from US Surge Amid Trade Tensions and Russian Oil Diversification (28 Oct 2025) Available on: https://www.angelone.in/news/market-updates/india-crude-oil-imports-from-us- surge-amid-trade-tensions-and-russian-oil-diversification

7. Russia 'ready to keep supplying enriched uranium to USA'(23rd May, 2025) https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/russia-happy-to-keep-supplying-enriched-uranium- to-usa

8. About the WTO Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/thewto_e.html

9. WTO Analytical Index Anti-Dumping Agreement – Article 1 (DS reports): Text of Article 1

10. Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes: Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/dsu_e.htm

11. WTO Analytical Index DSU – Article 4 (DS reports) Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/dsu_art4_jur.pdf

12. Dispute settlement activity — some figures Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispustats_e.html

13. WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Developments in 2018 Ambassador Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand),2018 DSB Chair and 2019 GC Chair 10 th April 2019: Available on https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/sunata_19_e.htm

14. DS: 544 United States — Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products: Panel Report under Appeal on 26 January 2023 Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds544_e.htm United States appeals panel reports regarding US duties on steel and aluminium products: Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/ds544_552_556_564apl_30jan23_e.html

15. The National Security Exception in WTO Law: Emerging Jurisprudence and future Directon: Jacob Gladysz: Available on: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp- content/uploads/sites/21/2021/12/GT-GJIL210007.pdf

16. Understanding the WTO Basis :Principles of the trading system: Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/tif_e.htm

17. Mexico Hits India With 50% Tariffs. This Will Be Most Impacted Sector: NDTV World : December 12, 2025: Available on: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/mexico-slaps-50-tariffs-on-indian-goods-this-will-be-most-impacted-sector-9795503

18. India – United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA): Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, GOI: Available on: https://www.commerce.gov.in/international-trade/trade-agreements/india-united-kingdom- comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement/

19. India–US trade deal talks move forward, but Delhi refuses to open agriculture market:India Today, Dec, 12, 2025: Available on : https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/india-us-trade- deal-talks-agriculture-market-refuse-to-open-defence-energy-okay-piyush-goyal-trump-tariff- 2835007-2025-12-12

20. India and Oman sign CEPA to deepen trade, services and labour mobility Agreement grants near-complete duty-free access for Indian exports, boosts services, MSMEs and worker movement, and positions Oman as a gateway to wider regions: Ministry of External Affairs, GOI December 19, 2025: Available on https://indbiz.gov.in/india-and-oman-sign-cepa-to-deepen- trade-services-and-labour-mobility/

21. Facebook - World Trade Organization - WTO's post (17th September, 2025) https://www.facebook.com/worldtradeorganization/posts/the-global-trade-system-is-bent-not- broken-said-director-general-ngozi-okonjo-iw/1198524098975757/

22. 14th WTO Ministerial Conference. 8th Dec. 2025 WTO Reform Week concludes with "constructive and positive exchanges" among members: Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news25_e/mc14_08dec25_239_e.htm

23. DG Okonjo-Iweala: “More than ever all eyes are on us”: 15 th july, 2025, Trade Negotiations Committee news archive: Available on https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/archive_e/tnc_arc_e.htm

24. NGOs and the WTO: Available on : https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/ngo_e.htm

25. Article 17 of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) : Available on : https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/dsu_art17_jur.pdf Article 17.5 of the DSU has made it mandatory for the Appellate Body to issue a report, in principle, within 60 days of filing of an appeal to the Appellate Body, and at the most, within 90 days

26. US claims victory in tyre dispute with China The panel was composed by the DG on 12 March 2010, decision given on 18th December, 2010. Available on: https://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2010/twninfo101212.htm

27. Article 3-DSU Reports Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/dsu_art3_jur.pdf

28. Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement Available on: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/wto_agree_art9_jur.pdf

29. China gives up WTO developing-country status as tariff tensions linger – EURO NEWS- 24th september, 2025 Available on: https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/09/24/china-gives-up-wto-developing- country-status-as-tariff-tensions-linger

30. WTO chief urges India to lead global trade reforms WTO chief urges India to lead global trade reforms (The Economic Times- ET online, November 14, 2025) Available on: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/wto-chief- urges-india-to-lead-global-trade-reforms/articleshow/125322433.cms?from=mdr

Written By Dr. Navashikha Duara

Dr. Navashikha Duara - Associate Professor, Incharge Principal of SVKM'S Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai.