The WTO Condemns Trump’s Tariffs on Steel and Aluminium, but Biden Condemns the WTO

Recently World Trade Organization (WTO) panels declared the illegitimacy of the tariff increases imposed in 2018 by the US government, based on national security grounds, on imports of steel and aluminium products. This paper addresses some of the key legal issues raised in the four controversial panel decisions, leaving some final reflections on the future of multilateral trade system. Given the unsettled nature of the terrain, we firstly focus on the WTO rules that are relevant to the tariffs imposed by Trump in 2018, before dwelling on the complainants’ arguments and panels’ findings. Two indications or conclusion can be drawn from the paper. First, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXI doesn’t constitute a self-judging or non-justiciable provision, differently from what argued by the US Government. Second, the controversial reports will not resolve the ongoing conflict initiated by US against the WTO. In fact Biden, far from distancing himself from Trump’s measures, openly condemned the panel’s decisions through an official statement widely disseminated by the media. The practical significance of the recent condemnation of the US tariffs is even less evident when considering the persistent issue of the appointment of members to the WTO Appellate Body. If multilateralism continues to falter, the US may no longer be the only country winking at bilateralism, as evidenced by the recent rules adopted by the EU. Security Exceptions, Dispute Settlement Understanding, Antidumping Duties, WTO, international economics, European Union, GATT, escape clauses, multilateral trade system