By Prof. David Collins
The recent announcement of sweeping tariffs by US President Donald Trump on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China has ignited a global trade conflict with far-reaching implications. President Trump’s decision to impose a 25% tariff on most Canadian and Mexican goods, with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources, and an additional 10% on Chinese imports, marks a significant departure from the longstanding free trade relationship between the two nations. In response to the US tariff threat, Canada announced retaliatory measures, planning to impose 25% targeted tariffs on $155 billion worth of US imports.
While a temporary reprieve has been granted for both Canada and Mexico, it is not clear that the tariffs will not eventually be imposed, as they have been on China, potentially violating the US’s commitments under international treaties. All four countries, as WTO members, are bound not to raise tariffs beyond their committed levels under Article II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Article I of GATT further requires countries not to treat imports from different WTO members differently with respect to tariffs. Article 2.4 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) prevents those three parties from increasing tariffs.
The USMCA was negotiated by President Trump – indeed it was one of his signature achievements in international economic policy during his first term. Ongoing US grievances against Canada under the USMCA are legitimate – Canada retains a highly protectionist dairy sector and is closed to foreign investment in telecommunications, aviation and banking. Still, it is unclear why Trump did not wait until the USMCA is renegotiated next year, or else insist that the renegotiation be brought forward. His impatience may have something to do with the fact that Canada’s parliament is currently prorogued pending the Prime Minister’s resignation. A Canadian federal election and a new Prime Minister are likely before the summer.
EU law has developed a unique and complex system under which the Union and its Member States can both act under international law, separately, jointly or in parallel. International law was not set up to deal with such complex and hybrid arrangements, which raise questions under both international and EU law. Thie book assesses how EU law has been adapted to cope with the constraints of international law in situations in which the EU and its Member States act jointly in relations with other States and international organisations. Each chapter was jointly written by a team of two authors. The various contributions offer new insights into the tension that continues to exist between EU and international law obligations in relation to the (joint) participation of the EU and its Member States in international agreements.