Month: April 2025

US Tariffs Threaten International Law but Could Save Free Trade

By Prof. David Collins

President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariff onslaught could inflict the most significant shock to international trade of all time. Markets have already collapsed and recessions around the world, including in the US, are feared. Economists are in near-unanimous agreement that the sudden 20% (on average) charge on trade with the world’s largest economy, plus 25% on automobiles, are a strategic error on the part of the White House. President Trump’s own economic advisors struggle to justify them. Some in the Republic party are even breaking ranks, pleading with the president that American consumers will be worse off by thousands of dollars a year, languishing under inflation and a drop in GDP by up to 3%. While it has attracted limited attention from the media, the tariffs are almost certainly illegal, breaching the US’s commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and various bilateral trade agreements, including the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) although Mexico and Canada were omitted from Liberation Day measures.

As harmful as the US’s sweeping tariffs are on their own, worse damage could be inflicted via retaliation, even if Trump were not to escalate with further counter-tariffs, which is unlikely. The EU, China and others are already planning a suite of measures. But a tariff is a tariff, whether or not it is morally justified. It will only raise costs of US imports more, forcing consumers to switch to alternatives which will in turn become dearer in their scarcity. Countries with large trade surpluses with the US (like the EU and China) will find retaliation unhelpful as a weapon of persuasion – we are not in the 1930s. Another danger is the looming spectre of dumping. A glut of goods that would have been shipped to the US, especially from mega-manufacturer China will now end up elsewhere. Anti-dumping duties, yet again tariffs, may end up being levied to head-off this surge.

The UK, seemingly wisely, is holding off on tariff retaliation against the US. Having been hit with ‘only’ a 10% tariff by the Americans (notwithstanding the car, steel and aluminium tariffs at 25%), the UK has fared better than the EU, which faces a 20% Trump tariff. Many have been quick to present this as a ‘Brexit dividend’ – but while a lower tariff is always better than a higher one, it is unlikely that the cross-Channel differential will spur a manufacturing boom in the UK as European firms rush to locate production here as a way of lowering the costs of entry to the US. Supply chains do not re-orient overnight and White House policy can turn on a dime – the UK could just as easily get thumped in the next round.

Continue reading

The WTO dispute between China and EU over Chinese SEPs global rate-setting

By Enrico Bonadio and Federico Manstretta at Parma University, IP Law Galli

Back in January 2025, the EU initiated consultations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to challenge the practice of Chinese courts to unilaterally set binding global royalty rates for non-Chinese standard essential patents (SEPs) without the consent of the parties to the litigation. According to the EU Commission press release, this unfairly pressures European high-tech companies to lower their royalty rates worldwide, granting Chinese manufacturers cheaper access to European technologies. Additionally, the EU claims this approach interferes with the jurisdiction of EU courts over patent matters and violates WTO rules, including transparency obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

The initial 60 days term given to the parties to find a satisfactory solution in the WTO consultations stage has expired, and the EU could then request a panel to be appointed to hear the case.

Continue reading

Book launch: ‘EU Trade and Investment Treaty-Making Post-Lisbon: Moving Beyond Mixity’

By Cheryl Dine

On Monday 31st March, 2025, City Law School welcomed Dr. Gesa Kübek to formally launch her book ‘EU Trade and Investment Treaty-Making Post-Lisbon: Moving Beyond Mixity’. This book launch was a public event that brought together EU, trade and investment law academics to explore the evolving landscape of EU trade and investment agreements in the post-Lisbon era.

Dr. Kübek’s book critically examines the evolution of EU treaty-making following the Lisbon Treaty, particularly the shift away from mixed agreements – where both the EU and its member states share competence. In her book, she argues that the EU is increasingly asserting exclusive competence over trade agreements, reshaping the legal and political dynamics of bilateral trade and investment treaty making. According to Dr. Kübek, “mixity in the field of trade and investment has become a matter of substance” as opposed to Heliskoski’s (2001) traditional view of mixity as a “procedural choice”.

During the book launch, Dr. Kübek explored how the practice of mixity has evolved over time. Fast forward to the 2020s, the notion of ‘mixity’ seems to involve deeper substantive considerations, including political, legal, and constitutional complexities. One of the key takeaways from Dr. Kübek’s analysis is that there is a growing tension between EU institutions and its member states in regards to the division of powers in external trade relations. For instance, Belgium’s decentralised constitutional structure, which adds another layer of complexity to the mixed procedure calling for a substantive design in EU’s recent treaty-making.

Continue reading

© 2025 City Law Forum

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Skip to toolbar