The numbers do tell a story: 2022 was the year with the fewest disputes ever submitted to the WTO. The possibility to appeal into the void must have a played a role, dis-incentivizing potential complainants from formally submitting disputes. Appeal into the void? This requires some explanation.

The GATT security exceptions were practically in hibernation until recently. The recent WTO disputes panel activity concerning such exceptions is characterized by a standard of review that places the accent on ‘when’ action should be taken and not so much on ‘what’ action should be taken. We see two problems with this construction. First, the ‘when’ might be a function of privileged information that those possessing it might be unwilling to divulge in a transparent manner. Second, national security is an amorphous concept, and unless we disaggregate it, it is impossible to pronounce the appropriateness of measures adopted to pursue the underlying objective. In turn, the absence of disaggregation could lead to false positives and negatives, as the same action could be pursuing essential security or providing protection to domestic players.

The Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has not heard an appeal since 2019. This article explores how adjudicators and member states have navigated WTO dispute settlement in this post-AB world. It begins by providing an overview of dispute settlement practice from 2020 to 2022, including by cataloguing appeals into the void, appeals to arbitration, and appeals forewent. It explains the incentives created by the lack of a functioning appeals mechanism and provides background on the alternative appeals procedure agreed to among a subset of WTO members: the Multi-Party Interim Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA). Moreover, it closely examines five WTO disputes: Colombia–Frozen Fries, Turkey–Pharmaceutical Products, EU–Steel Safeguards, Thailand–Cigarettes, and Costa Rica–Avocados. Through these five disputes, the article examines the circumstances in which members have agreed to binding appeals arbitration even absent formally committing to the MPIA, the circumstances in which members have appealed to arbitration or foregone such appeals, and whether facilitated negotiations present a workable alternative to an effective appeals mechanism. Finally, this article closely analyzes the reasoning of two appeals arbitration awards issued to date – Colombia–Frozen Fries and Turkey–Pharmaceutical Products – with a special focus on how those awards depart from AB precedent and what those departures can tell us about the current crisis.

On 20 January 2021, a Panel of Experts constituted under the EU–Korea FTA circulated its report in a proceeding initiated by the EU raising concerns about Korea's inadequate protection of certain labour rights in Korea, and less than satisfactory efforts to ratify the fundamental ILO Conventions. Addressing a jurisdictional claim, raised by Korea in its defense, that the EU has not demonstrated that the challenged measures affected ‘trade-related aspects of labour’, the panel found that the FTA parties’ commitments to adhere to labour standards and to ratify ILO conventions are not limited to trade-related aspects of labour, and therefore there is no requirement to demonstrate that such measures should be trade related.

The panel's interpretive reasoning in arriving at this finding does not appear to sit well with the text of the FTA. Further, such an expansive interpretation could have serious systemic implications going forward. In addition to raising questions regarding the purpose and motivations behind including labour standards in FTAs, it effectively transforms the FTA into a vehicle to enforce ILO commitments and induce countries into ratifying fundamental ILO conventions. It lends credibility to a general skepticism, particularly amongst developing countries, regarding the role of labor standards in FTAs and also raises questions regarding whether FTAs constitute an appropriate forum to address and resolve concerns regarding labour reforms.

The US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) introduced a new compliance institution for labor rights in trade agreements: the facility-specific Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM). The RRM was developed to tackle one particular thorn in the side of North American integration – labor rights for Mexican workers – as it had had detrimental, long-term political–economic consequences for the US–Mexico trade relationship. This article reviews the unique political–economic moment in the United States and Mexico that prompted the creation of this tool. It describes how the RRM works and the considerable financial and human resources the US and Mexican governments deployed to operationalize it. The article then reports a number of stylized facts on how governments used the RRM during its first three years, largely in the auto sector. It proposes paths of potentially fruitful political–economic research to aid understanding of the full implications of the RRM and concludes with preliminary lessons as well as a discussion on the potential for policymakers to assess facility-specific mechanisms for labor or other issues, such as the environment, in future economic agreements.

A ‘smart city’ is a buzz term and concept. The ‘smart city’ has mainly been discussed in the scholarly literature on urban planning, architecture, and geography. While the ‘smart city’ has been under-analyzed in international trade law, the term ‘smart city’ is commonly used in Asian trade policies. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) established the ‘ASEAN Smart Cities Network’ and the ‘smart city’ is now an important market opportunity for exporting smart technologies and services to ASEAN. Against this backdrop, this article addresses how smart cities can be regulated and governed by international trade law. The trade law perspective facilitates a broader understanding of smart city governance, which includes under-explored ‘global’ regulatory dimensions concerning the interaction between local governments and foreign firms. This article selects three relevant trade areas for discussions: (1) Internet of Things in the context of trade in goods and services; (2) international standard-setting activities; and (3) data governance. It further considers what kinds of regulatory issues international smart city projects can add to the current digital trade discourse. Drawing on the smart city literature, the article points out additional problems concerning security and privacy that have not yet been acknowledged in digital trade.

This paper develops the concept of transience of (in)formality to refer to the intersection of formal and informal negotiating procedures in the WTO decision-making system. It argues that both formal and informal negotiating processes are essential for delivering negotiating outcomes in the WTO. Particularly, the article assesses how informal negotiating practices emerge within the WTO formal framework and align with it. The analysis highlights how negotiating practices (re)shape existing norms, both formal and informal, adapting the WTO to overcome challenges and meet current needs. It also disputes legal formalistic perspectives that permeate trade literature and offer limited accounts of Members' agency in the WTO. The paper uses the Joint Initiatives as a case study to illustrate the convergence between formality and informality and a possible way ahead for the WTO negotiations. By broadening the understanding of law-making, it contributes to the discussion on WTO reform. It provides alternatives that reflect the reality of WTO negotiations and underlines the institution's relevance.

The EU has introduced a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which extends its carbon prices to imported products in some sectors. Increasingly considered by other countries, such border carbon adjustments (BCAs) are facing a global backlash against the lack of consideration of the adverse impacts on developing countries and particularly, least developed countries (LDCs). This article first argues that small overall import volumes support the conclusion that exempting or lessening BCA requirements from LDCs would not undermine developed countries' climate-related objectives in practical terms. An economic analysis of EU and UK trade in relation to a CBAM supports this assertion. However, legally, such an exemption or development-based preferential treatment is difficult under existing multilateral trade rules and jurisprudence, owing to the legal characterization and objectives of BCAs; their interaction with existing special and differential treatment (SDT) provisions; and complexity of available policy options. We thus highlight the gap between normative aims of SDT provisions to support development, and current WTO law and jurisprudence which expose WTO members providing preferential treatment to allegations of discrimination. With increasing unilateral climate action, an inability to integrate SDT more meaningfully into WTO non-discrimination frameworks risks further weakening of international cooperation on climate and trade.