I. Introduction: The Unraveling Consensus

The international framework governing global trade, painstakingly constructed in the aftermath of World War II and centered around the principles of multilateralism and liberalization embodied by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), is currently undergoing a period of profound and potentially irreversible transformation. This shift transcends mere economic adjustment; it represents a fundamental geopolitical realignment. The dynamics observed are driven by intensifying great power competition, the elevation of national security concerns in economic policymaking, and a distinct resurgence of realpolitik, where national interests and power calculations supersede previously dominant liberal internationalist ideals. The era characterized by hyper-globalization and the belief in converging economic interests appears to be receding, giving way to a global economic landscape marked by increasing fragmentation, heightened contestation, and pervasive uncertainty.¹

This report undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the historical underpinnings, principal drivers, and multifaceted consequences of this ongoing global trade order realignment. It posits that the escalating geopolitical rivalries, most prominently the strategic competition between the United States and China, have been significantly accelerated by systemic shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, pushing the global system towards fragmentation. This realignment is actively reshaping global supply chains, altering established trade flow patterns, posing existential challenges to multilateral institutions like the WTO, and fundamentally recalibrating the global balance of power. These shifts carry substantial implications for nations across the development spectrum. The analysis herein adopts a realpolitik perspective, consistently emphasizing the primacy of national interest and the dynamics of power in shaping state behavior and the emerging geoeconomic order.

The subsequent sections will delve into the historical context of the GATT/WTO system, examine the primary drivers compelling the current changes, present statistical evidence illustrating these shifts, analyze the resulting impact on geopolitical power balances, explore specific case studies exemplifying the realignment in practice (including reshoring initiatives, the formation of new regional economic blocs, and the challenges confronting the WTO), project plausible future scenarios for the global trade order, and conclude with a synthesis of the findings.

II. The Foundation: Rise and Stagnation of the GATT/WTO Order

The architecture of the post-war global trade system was forged in the crucible of conflict, driven by a desire to avoid repeating the economic nationalism and protectionism that contributed to global instability and war. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), signed in 1947 and entering provisional force in 1948 with 23 founding nations including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, was the cornerstone of this effort.⁷ Initially conceived as an interim measure pending the establishment of a more comprehensive International Trade Organization (ITO), the GATT became the de facto governing body when the ITO charter failed to secure ratification, notably from the US.⁷

The core purpose articulated in the GATT’s preamble was the “substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis”.¹⁰ Its early work centered on achieving this through successive rounds of multilateral negotiations focused primarily on lowering tariffs.⁸ This approach yielded considerable success; by the early 1990s, average tariffs on industrial goods among member countries had been reduced from approximately 40% in 1947 to less than 5%.⁸

This system rested on several key principles designed to foster stable and predictable trade relations:

1. Non-discrimination: This principle has two core components. The Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clause (Article I) requires that any trade advantage (like a tariff cut) granted by a member to any country be automatically extended to all other GATT/WTO members.⁷ National Treatment mandates that imported goods, once they have cleared customs, must be treated no less favorably than domestically produced goods regarding internal taxes and regulations.⁷ Exceptions to MFN were permitted, notably for regional trade agreements and preferential treatment for developing countries.⁷
2. Reciprocity: While not always a strict legal requirement initially, the principle of mutual exchange of concessions underpinned negotiations, particularly in early rounds dominated by “principal suppliers”.⁷ The aim was to ensure balanced benefits and limit free-riding.⁷
3. Binding Commitments: Members agreed to “bind” their tariffs at certain maximum levels, creating predictable ceilings. Raising tariffs above these bound rates required negotiation and potentially compensation to affected partners.⁷
4. Transparency: Members were obligated to publish their trade regulations and notify the GATT/WTO of significant policy changes, allowing for scrutiny by trading partners.⁷
5. Safety Valves: The agreements included provisions allowing members to restrict trade under specific, defined circumstances, such as protecting public health, national security, or the environment.⁷

Over time, the GATT evolved. Later negotiating rounds, such as the Kennedy (1964-67) and Tokyo (1973-79) Rounds, began to tackle non-tariff measures (NTMs) alongside further tariff cuts.⁹ However, the system faced growing pressures. Key sectors like agriculture and textiles remained largely outside core disciplines for decades.¹¹ The increasing complexity of global trade and the limitations of the GATT framework led to the ambitious Uruguay Round (1986-1994).⁸ This round dramatically expanded the scope of multilateral trade rules to include services (General Agreement on Trade in Services – GATS), intellectual property (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – TRIPS), agriculture, and textiles, and significantly strengthened the dispute settlement mechanism.¹⁰

The culmination of the Uruguay Round was the Marrakesh Agreement, establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 1995.⁷ The WTO absorbed the original GATT agreement (now referred to as GATT 1994) and provided a permanent institutional structure with a broader mandate and enhanced enforcement capabilities.¹² Membership grew significantly, eventually encompassing most of the global economy.⁹

Despite its initial successes, the WTO system began showing signs of strain by the early 21st century. The Doha Development Agenda round, launched in 2001 ¹⁰, failed to conclude, highlighting the difficulty of achieving consensus among a large and diverse membership with conflicting interests. This stagnation spurred a proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) or Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), as countries sought alternative or supplementary avenues for trade liberalization and rule-making.¹⁶ Systemic challenges also emerged, particularly concerning the integration of large, state-influenced economies like China into a system largely designed for market economies, leading to disputes over subsidies, state-owned enterprises, and intellectual property rights.¹ These underlying tensions ultimately contributed to the paralysis of the WTO’s Appellate Body, its dispute settlement mechanism, due to the United States blocking judicial appointments from 2017 onwards, effectively crippling a key function of the organization.¹

The historical trajectory reveals a critical point: the very mechanisms and successes of the GATT/WTO system contained elements that contributed to its current challenges. As tariffs fell, the focus shifted to more complex and politically sensitive non-tariff barriers and domestic regulations, areas where international consensus is harder to achieve.³ The expansion of membership, while promoting universality, introduced fundamental disagreements about economic models and the interpretation of rules, particularly following China’s accession.¹ The consensus-based decision-making model, effective with fewer members, became increasingly cumbersome, pushing states towards more nimble regional or plurilateral arrangements.¹⁷ Even the explicit allowance for RTAs under GATT Article XXIV ²², intended to accommodate regional integration, inadvertently facilitated the creation of a complex web of preferential deals that could fragment the multilateral system. Therefore, the current realignment is not solely the result of recent geopolitical shocks but also stems from unresolved structural issues and inherent contradictions within the multilateral framework itself, reflecting the persistent tension between national interests and global rule-making.

III. Forces of Disruption: Drivers of the Great Trade Realignment

The contemporary realignment of the global trade order is not attributable to a single cause but rather a confluence of powerful, interconnected forces. These drivers have collectively eroded the foundations of the post-war consensus, pushing the world towards a more fragmented and contested geoeconomic landscape.

A. Geopolitical Rivalry and Weaponized Interdependence

The intensifying strategic competition between major global powers, particularly the United States and China, stands as the central driver of the current trade realignment. The prevailing view, especially in Washington, has shifted dramatically from seeing economic interdependence as a tool for promoting political liberalization and mutual benefit, to viewing it as a strategic vulnerability and a potential liability that exposes economies to foreign influence and coercion.²³

• US-China Strategic Competition: This rivalry permeates nearly all aspects of the realignment. The US has articulated concerns over a range of Chinese economic practices, including alleged intellectual property theft, extensive state subsidies distorting competition, persistent market access barriers for foreign firms, and the national security implications of reliance on Chinese supply chains.¹ This led to a decisive shift from a policy of engagement towards one of strategic competition.

• The Trade War (2018-Present): Beginning in 2018, the US imposed significant tariffs on Chinese goods under Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices) of US trade law, eventually covering a substantial portion of bilateral imports.¹⁹ China responded with retaliatory tariffs on US goods.²⁵ Despite the signing of a “Phase One” trade deal in January 2020, which involved some tariff reductions, the bulk of these tariffs remain in effect.²⁵ The scale was significant: the US ultimately imposed tariffs on import transactions from China equivalent to about 2.6% of US GDP, with average tariffs on these goods jumping from 3.7% to 25.8%.²⁵ China, in turn, raised tariffs on US imports equivalent to about 2.0% of its GDP (based on import share of 17.9% and 11% coverage ²⁵), while facing US tariffs on exports equivalent to roughly 3.5% of its GDP (based on export share of 19.7% and 18% coverage ²⁵).
  
• Economic Impacts of the Trade War: The tariffs demonstrably reduced bilateral trade flows in affected categories.²⁶ One study estimated a US$35 billion loss in Chinese exports to the US market in the first half of 2019 alone due to the tariffs, though Chinese firms retained 75% of their export value, indicating some absorption of costs or competitiveness.³⁰ Significant trade diversion occurred, as US importers shifted sourcing to other countries like Vietnam, Mexico, Taiwan, and the EU to avoid tariffs.²⁶ The costs of US tariffs were largely passed on to American consumers and importing firms through higher prices ²⁶, and US producers faced increased costs for intermediate inputs imported from China.²⁵ While the overall US bilateral trade deficit with China did not immediately shrink, partly due to factors like importers pre-emptively buying goods before tariffs hit (‘front-loading’) ²⁶, China’s share of total US merchandise imports fell markedly – from a peak of 21.6% in 2017 to 16.3% in 2022 ²⁹, and below 20% by 2022 according to UNCTAD.²⁸ Economic modeling suggested the 2018-19 trade war resulted in a net loss of approximately 245,000 US jobs.²⁷
  
• Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Sanctions: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered an unprecedented wave of coordinated sanctions by the US, EU, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and others.³² These measures targeted Russia’s financial sector (including freezing central bank assets and removing key banks from the SWIFT messaging system), military-industrial complex, energy exports (progressively), access to Western technology, and key individuals.³²
  
• Trade and Economic Shifts: The sanctions regime, combined with Russia’s counter-actions, significantly disrupted trade patterns. European countries drastically reduced their dependence on Russian energy, particularly natural gas, albeit incurring significant costs to secure alternative supplies and shield consumers.³³ Russia, facing closure of Western markets, actively redirected its trade flows, particularly energy exports, towards China, India, and other nations not participating in the sanctions.³³ Sino-Russian bilateral trade surged to record levels, driven by energy, but also electronics and industrial components, reflecting a deliberate geo-strategic realignment.³⁷ Russia increasingly utilized China’s Renminbi (RMB) for trade settlements, rising from 0.4% in January 2022 to 36% by early 2024.³⁷ Evidence emerged of sanctions evasion through third countries in Central Asia and elsewhere.³² While the Russian economy suffered – with GDP estimated to be 10-12% below its pre-invasion trend after three years ³² and facing high inflation and interest rates ³² – it proved more resilient than many initially predicted, partly buoyed by increased military spending and successful trade redirection.³³ Globally, the war and associated disruptions were estimated to reduce world trade by 1% and global GDP by 0.7%.³⁸ The conflict also appeared to accelerate efforts by China and others to develop alternatives to the US dollar-dominated financial system.³³ Post-invasion data indicates that trade between geopolitical blocs (e.g., West vs. Russia/China) declined significantly more (by roughly 12%) than trade within these blocs.³⁹

B. The Return of Protectionism and Industrial Policy

Parallel to direct geopolitical conflict, there has been a marked resurgence of protectionist policies and a renewed embrace of state-led industrial strategy, challenging the long-dominant paradigm of trade liberalization.

• Rising Trade Barriers: The number of new trade-restrictive measures implemented globally has surged, more than tripling since 2019 ³⁹ and increasing sevenfold between 2015 and 2023.⁴⁰ This trend is fueled by various factors, including nationalist political movements (e.g., the “America First” posture ¹⁹), domestic concerns about job losses attributed to globalization and offshoring ², and the use of trade policy as a tool in strategic competition. There’s a discernible shift away from multilateral negotiations and towards unilateral actions or coercive bilateralism.¹
  
• Tariff Landscape: While the long-term global trend saw average Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) tariffs decline significantly (from 13.2% in 1996 to 7.4% in 2021 for WTO members ⁴²), this masks considerable variation and recent counter-trends. The US maintains a relatively low simple average MFN tariff (3.3%), contrasting sharply with major trading partners like India (17.0%), Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), and the EU (5.0%).⁴¹ High tariffs (“tariff peaks”) persist in specific sectors, often those of interest to developing countries, such as agriculture, apparel, and textiles.⁴⁴ Furthermore, trade-weighted average tariffs, which account for the volume of trade, are generally lower (world average applied weighted mean was around 2.3% in 2022 ⁴⁵), but applied tariffs remain a significant barrier, particularly for trade between developing countries (South-South trade).⁴⁴ The US-China tariff war represents a major recent increase, running counter to the general stability observed elsewhere.⁴⁴
  
• Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs): As tariffs have fallen, NTMs have become increasingly prominent and complex barriers to trade.³ These encompass a wide range of policies beyond tariffs, including technical regulations and standards (Technical Barriers to Trade – TBT), Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures for food and agriculture, subsidies, import licensing requirements, burdensome customs procedures, and restrictions on data flows.²⁴ The number of SPS measures notified to the WTO grew by 134% between 2010 and 2021.⁴² Technical measures are estimated to regulate around two-thirds of world trade, while SPS measures affect nearly all agricultural products.⁴⁴ While many NTMs serve legitimate policy objectives (e.g., consumer safety, environmental protection), they can also be designed or applied in ways that discriminate against imports, functioning as disguised protectionism.⁴¹ Developing countries like India often face a high incidence of NTMs in their key export markets.⁴⁶
  
• Industrial Policy Resurgence: Governments worldwide, particularly in advanced economies, are increasingly deploying industrial policies involving substantial subsidies, tax incentives, and regulatory measures to bolster domestic industries deemed strategically important. This is especially evident in sectors like semiconductors, electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries, renewable energy technologies, and biotechnology.¹ Landmark US legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) explicitly aims to reshore manufacturing capabilities, enhance supply chain resilience, and reduce technological dependence on potential adversaries, primarily China.³¹ These policies have demonstrably spurred significant domestic investment announcements in targeted sectors.⁴⁷ However, this trend also raises concerns about costly global subsidy races, potential violations of WTO rules, and retaliatory actions from trading partners.⁵⁰

C. Supply Chain Reckoning: Resilience over Efficiency?

The fragility of highly optimized, geographically dispersed global supply chains (GVCs) was starkly exposed by recent global shocks, prompting a fundamental reassessment of the trade-offs between efficiency and resilience.

• The COVID-19 Shock: The pandemic delivered an unprecedented shock to GVCs, triggering both severe supply disruptions and massive demand shifts.⁵³ Lockdowns, factory closures, worker shortages due to illness or restrictions, and transportation bottlenecks (especially in air and sea freight, where shipping costs surged dramatically, reaching five times pre-pandemic levels in 2021 ⁵⁵) led to widespread input shortages, production halts, and delivery delays.⁵⁴ Inventory levels plummeted in many sectors.⁵⁶ The impact was severe: global merchandise trade was projected to fall by 9.5% in 2020, and global Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by a staggering 42%.⁵⁴ A survey found over 90% of multinational enterprise (MNE) affiliates in developing countries experienced adverse effects in the second quarter of 2020.⁵³
  
• The Pivot Towards Resilience: The pandemic experience, compounded by geopolitical risks like the US-China tensions and the Ukraine war, has intensified calls for greater supply chain resilience.² This involves reducing dependence on single geographic sources, particularly China, and mitigating disruption risks.² Key strategies being pursued or debated include:

• Reshoring: Bringing manufacturing activities back to the firm’s home country.⁶⁰ Evidence for widespread reshoring is mixed. The US witnessed a surge in manufacturing job announcements linked to reshoring and FDI, reaching a record 364,000 in 2022, a 53% increase from 2021.⁴⁷ This was heavily concentrated in EV batteries and semiconductors, significantly boosted by the IRA and CHIPS Act.⁴⁷ However, the number of announced jobs decreased in 2023 to 287,000 as the initial impact of subsidies perhaps moderated.⁵¹ Furthermore, the overall share of manufacturing in total US private employment continued its slow decline ³¹, and achieving large-scale reshoring faces challenges like labor availability.⁵² Some European countries also show signs of reshoring, while others continue offshoring.⁶¹
  
• Nearshoring: Relocating production facilities to countries geographically closer to the home market.⁵⁹ Some data suggests US firms are increasing sourcing from Mexico and Canada ²⁹, consistent with nearshoring. However, analyses suggest this is not yet a widespread trend across many sectors or regions.²⁹
  
• Friend-shoring: Shifting supply chains to countries considered political allies or geopolitically aligned.⁶ This concept, explicitly promoted by the US Treasury ⁶², appears to be gaining traction. Data indicates an increase in trade flows between geopolitically aligned countries since 2018, coinciding with a decrease in trade between rivals.⁶ The shift in US imports away from China towards countries like Vietnam and Mexico is consistent with this trend ⁵, as is the EU’s increased trade with the US following the reduction in trade with Russia.⁵
  
• Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Trends: Global FDI flows have reflected the increased uncertainty and risk aversion. After a rebound in 2021, global FDI fell by 12% in 2022 to $1.3 trillion ⁶³ and declined a further 2% in 2023 to $1.33 trillion.⁶⁴ Excluding volatile flows through conduit economies, the 2023 decline was closer to 10%.⁶⁴ Initially, the decline was concentrated in developed economies ⁶³, but developing countries experienced a significant 7% drop in FDI inflows in 2023, totaling $867 billion.⁶⁴ FDI flows are increasingly being redirected along geopolitical lines.³⁹ While ASEAN nations proved relatively resilient, attracting record FDI in 2023 ⁶⁶, flows to developing Asia overall fell 8%, and Africa saw a 3% decline.⁶⁴ A concerning trend is the sharp fall in international project finance deals (down 26% in 2023), which are crucial for infrastructure and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).⁶⁴ Investment in SDG-related sectors in developing countries fell by over 10% in 2023.⁶⁴ While global FDI showed a rebound in H1 2024, flows dropped sharply in the second quarter, and announced greenfield projects in emerging markets hit a two-year low.⁶⁷

D. Climate and Technology Imperatives

Environmental and technological factors are also playing increasingly significant roles in reshaping trade patterns and policies.

• Climate Policies as Trade Drivers: Governments are integrating climate objectives into trade policy, creating new dynamics and potential friction. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is the most prominent example.² Its stated aim is to prevent ‘carbon leakage’ – where emissions reduction efforts in the EU are offset by increased emissions elsewhere due to industries relocating or imports from less regulated regions increasing.⁶⁸ CBAM requires importers of specific energy-intensive goods (initially iron and steel, cement, fertilizers, aluminium, electricity, and hydrogen ³⁶) to purchase certificates corresponding to the carbon price under the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) for the emissions embedded in those imports.³⁶ The mechanism is being phased in, with reporting requirements starting in October 2023 and financial obligations beginning in 2026, coinciding with the gradual phase-out of free ETS allowances currently given to EU industries.³⁶
  
• Potential CBAM Impacts: Modeling suggests CBAM could be effective in reducing carbon leakage.⁶⁸ However, it is expected to negatively impact the competitiveness of EU producers in export markets and could harm downstream EU industries that rely on the covered imports.⁶⁸ There are significant concerns about its impact on trading partners, particularly developing countries whose industries may be more carbon-intensive and less equipped to handle the compliance burden.⁶⁸ This has led to threats of challenges at the WTO on grounds of discrimination.³⁶ Conversely, CBAM might incentivize other countries to adopt their own carbon pricing mechanisms to avoid the EU levy.⁷⁰ India, for instance, is actively analyzing the potential impact on its exports.⁷⁴
  
• Technological Transformation: Rapid technological advancements, particularly in digitalization, are reshaping what is traded and how. The pandemic accelerated the shift towards digital services, contributing to the robust growth of services trade, which now accounts for roughly 25% of global trade flows.² Trade in digitally deliverable services has shown particular dynamism.⁴⁰ On the manufacturing side, technologies like automation, robotics, and 3D printing can alter the calculus of production location, potentially making reshoring more economically viable in some cases by reducing labor cost differentials.⁵⁹ Furthermore, technology itself has become a central arena for geopolitical competition. The race for dominance in critical technologies like semiconductors is a key facet of the US-China rivalry, driving export controls, investment screening, and massive industrial policy initiatives like the CHIPS Act.⁴⁷

These diverse drivers – geopolitical tensions, resurgent protectionism, supply chain vulnerabilities, and climate/technology imperatives – are not operating in isolation. They are deeply interconnected, creating complex feedback loops. For instance, geopolitical rivalry fuels protectionist measures and strategic industrial policies. The supply chain disruptions highlighted by the pandemic were amplified by perceived geopolitical risks, accelerating diversification efforts often backed by state subsidies. Climate policies like CBAM, while framed environmentally, inevitably carry trade and geopolitical weight, potentially functioning as non-tariff barriers and influencing supply chain location decisions. Technological competition is both a cause and consequence of US-China tensions and a major target of industrial policy. Understanding this intricate interplay is crucial for grasping the depth and direction of the global trade realignment. Simple explanations focusing on only one factor will inevitably fall short.

Furthermore, the narrative often pits supply chain resilience against economic efficiency as a binary choice. The reality emerging from recent trends appears more nuanced.² While securing supply chains through diversification or regionalization often involves higher costs compared to hyper-optimized global chains, the evidence points towards complex reconfigurations rather than a wholesale abandonment of efficiency principles. Strategies like “friend-shoring” ⁶ or the “China + 1” approach ²⁹ represent diversification among foreign suppliers, seeking a balance between risk mitigation and cost management. The persistence of China’s role in supplying intermediate goods to countries like Mexico and Vietnam, which then export final products to the US ²⁹, demonstrates that established production ecosystems and cost advantages continue to shape decisions. This creates new, indirect dependencies even as direct bilateral trade patterns shift. The future landscape seems likely to involve a multi-layered system with regional production hubs, politically influenced sourcing decisions, and continued, albeit more complex and potentially costlier, global interdependence, rather than a simple return to localized production.

IV. Shifting Power Dynamics: A Realpolitik Assessment

The realignment of the global trade order is intrinsically linked to shifts in the global balance of power. Nations are leveraging trade and economic policy tools not just for prosperity, but increasingly to advance strategic interests, enhance national security, and gain advantage relative to rivals. A realpolitik assessment reveals how major actors are navigating this changing landscape:

United States:

• Objectives: The primary US goal is to maintain its position as the leading global economic and technological power, actively counter the perceived challenge posed by China’s rise, and reduce strategic dependencies in critical sectors.¹ This involves prioritizing relative gains and national security over purely free-market principles.
• Policies & Actions: Key tools include the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods ²⁵, stringent export controls on advanced technologies, significant industrial policy measures like the CHIPS Act and IRA to incentivize domestic production and reshoring ⁴⁷, diplomatic promotion of “friend-shoring” supply chain strategies ⁶², and launching the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) as an alternative regional economic engagement model.⁷⁷ Concurrently, the US has actively challenged the WTO’s dispute settlement system by blocking appointments to the Appellate Body.¹
• Outcomes & Implications: US policies have successfully induced some shift in trade patterns away from direct imports from China ⁵ and spurred significant investment announcements in targeted domestic industries like semiconductors and EV batteries.⁴⁷ However, these actions have come at the cost of higher prices for consumers and producers ²⁷, contributed to global trade policy uncertainty ¹, and arguably weakened the multilateral trading system it historically championed.¹ The large US trade deficit persists ²⁴, and initiatives like IPEF have faced criticism for lacking the market access commitments (tariff reductions) offered by traditional trade agreements like RCEP or CPTPP ⁷⁷, potentially limiting their appeal.

China:

• Objectives: China seeks to solidify its status as a premier global economic power, reduce its vulnerability to US economic pressure and technology restrictions, expand its international influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ³⁷, and play a greater role in shaping global economic governance, potentially offering alternative models.³⁷
• Policies & Actions: China implemented retaliatory tariffs against US measures ²⁵, significantly deepened its economic and strategic ties with Russia, particularly following the Ukraine invasion ³⁷, actively promoted and participated in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) ⁷⁷, and continued to expand trade and investment relationships with countries in the Global South and along the BRI routes.³¹
• Outcomes & Implications: China has demonstrated considerable economic resilience, maintaining export competitiveness despite US tariffs.³⁰ It has indirectly benefited from trade diversion, as its intermediate goods are increasingly incorporated into exports from third countries (like Vietnam and Mexico) to the US.²⁹ RCEP reinforces its central position within Asian supply chains.⁸⁵ However, China faces significant domestic economic headwinds, including slower growth ⁸⁰, and potential challenges from industrial overcapacity.²⁴ Western “de-risking” strategies and technology controls pose ongoing challenges. Nevertheless, China continues to run large trade surpluses with the US and the world.²⁴

European Union:

• Objectives: The EU aims to enhance its “strategic autonomy,” reducing critical dependencies while maintaining its global competitiveness and influence.⁸⁸ It seeks to promote its regulatory standards globally (the “Brussels Effect”) ³⁶, navigate the complex triangular relationship with the US and China ⁸⁹, and respond decisively to Russia’s aggression while managing the economic fallout.⁸⁹
• Policies & Actions: The EU joined broad sanctions against Russia ³², is implementing the CBAM as a key climate and trade policy tool ³⁶, continues to negotiate its own bilateral and regional trade agreements, is developing instruments to counter economic coercion by third countries ⁸⁸, and has been active in WTO reform discussions, including supporting interim dispute settlement arrangements.⁹⁰
• Outcomes & Implications: The EU successfully weaned itself off Russian fossil fuels but faced a significant energy price shock and adjustment costs.³³ CBAM represents a major unilateral policy initiative with potentially far-reaching global trade implications and risks of disputes.⁶⁸ The EU occupies a complex geopolitical position, seeking to balance its transatlantic ties with its significant economic relationship with China.⁸⁹ Its overall trade balance has improved, shifting back into surplus ⁸¹, partly driven by increased exports to, and energy imports from, the US.⁵ Internally, the EU faces the challenge of balancing its ambitious green transition goals with the need to maintain industrial competitiveness.⁶⁸

Russia:

• Objectives: Russia’s primary goals have been to withstand the pressure of unprecedented Western sanctions, cultivate alternative economic partnerships and markets, deepen its strategic alignment with China ⁹¹, and preserve its influence, particularly in neighboring states.⁷⁶
• Policies & Actions: Moscow has actively redirected energy exports (oil and gas) and other trade towards Asian markets, primarily China and India.³³ It has increased the use of non-dollar currencies (especially RMB) in trade settlements ³⁷, utilized non-Western shipping, insurance, and financial networks to circumvent sanctions ³⁷, and imposed exit barriers and costs on Western companies leaving the Russian market.³³
• Outcomes & Implications: While the Russian economy has been significantly impacted by sanctions and the costs of war, it has avoided collapse, supported by high energy prices (initially), military Keynesianism, and successful trade redirection.³² This has led to a marked increase in economic dependence on China.³⁷ The sanctions have inadvertently spurred efforts by Russia and others to reduce reliance on the US dollar and Western financial infrastructure.³³ However, Russia’s long-term economic prospects appear diminished due to the loss of access to Western markets, investment, and advanced technology.³⁵

India:

• Objectives: India seeks to accelerate its economic growth trajectory, expand its manufacturing base (“Make in India”), maintain strategic autonomy while navigating the complex dynamics of great power competition, secure reliable energy supplies, and enhance its regional and global influence.
• Policies & Actions: New Delhi is actively pursuing bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), participates in the US-led IPEF (though initially opted out of the trade pillar negotiations), significantly increased its imports of discounted Russian crude oil following the invasion of Ukraine ³³, and is positioning itself as a viable alternative manufacturing and supply chain destination (“China + 1”).
• Outcomes & Implications: India has maintained robust GDP growth rates ⁹³ and seen strong expansion in its services exports.⁴⁶ However, its merchandise trade deficit has widened.⁷⁴ India has benefited to some extent from trade diversion as companies seek alternatives to China.³⁰ Challenges remain, including relatively high import tariffs compared to global peers ⁴¹ and the prevalence of NTMs affecting its trade.⁴⁶ India’s strategic importance as a large, growing economy pursuing an independent foreign policy makes it a key player in the emerging multipolar order. FDI inflows, however, showed weakness, declining in 2021 ⁴⁶ and dropping sharply (-37% for South Asia) in 2023.⁶⁴

Emerging Economies / Global South:

• Objectives: Goals vary widely across this diverse group, but common themes include fostering sustainable economic development, reducing poverty, attracting beneficial foreign investment, managing external economic shocks, and coping with significant debt burdens.⁷⁵
• Policies & Actions: Many are participating in regional integration efforts (e.g., ASEAN, the AfCFTA ⁹⁵), and there has been a notable increase in trade among developing countries (South-South trade).⁷⁵
• Outcomes & Implications: The impact of the trade realignment is highly uneven across the Global South. Some economies, particularly in Southeast Asia (like Vietnam) and Mexico, have benefited significantly from trade diversion as companies shift sourcing away from China.²⁹ However, many other developing countries, especially the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and those not well-integrated into major regional blocs or value chains, risk further marginalization.⁶⁴ They face challenges from rising protectionism in advanced economies limiting market access ⁹⁷, increased vulnerability to commodity price volatility ⁸⁷, and a deepening debt crisis exacerbated by higher global interest rates.⁷⁵ The EU’s CBAM poses potential challenges for developing countries with carbon-intensive export sectors.⁷⁰ The investment gap required to meet the SDGs has widened alarmingly, now estimated at $4 trillion annually for developing countries ⁶³, with SDG-related investment flows actually declining recently.⁶⁴ While South-South trade has more than doubled between 2007 and 2023, reaching $5.6 trillion ⁷⁵, trade within the Global North remains larger.⁸⁷ Despite these challenges, developing economies as a group saw faster trade growth than developed economies in 2024.⁸¹

The unfolding trade realignment is clearly not a neutral economic adjustment; it is actively reshaping development pathways and potentially exacerbating global inequalities. While certain developing nations are adeptly capitalizing on the shifts driven by great power competition and supply chain reconfiguration ³⁰, a larger number, particularly the LDCs and those lacking strategic importance or integration into the emerging economic blocs, face significant risks of being left further behind.⁶⁴ The explicit introduction of political alignment as a criterion for economic partnership, exemplified by the “friend-shoring” concept ⁶, inherently disadvantages nations perceived as non-aligned or strategically peripheral. Coupled with rising protectionism in key Northern markets ³, the escalating debt crisis crippling fiscal space in many Southern nations ⁷⁵, and the worrying decline in SDG-focused investment ⁶³, the current trajectory challenges the post-Cold War narrative of global economic convergence and risks creating a more deeply stratified and unequal world order.

Simultaneously, the weakening of the multilateral system under the WTO and the intensified rivalry between the US and China elevate the strategic significance of middle powers and regional blocs. Countries like India, Brazil, Turkey, and regional groupings such as ASEAN find themselves possessing increased diplomatic leverage as potential partners, balancers, or spoilers in the great power contest.⁹⁹ Their choices regarding alignment and economic partnerships can significantly influence regional and global power dynamics. As the WTO struggles, regional blocs like RCEP, CPTPP, and potentially AfCFTA gain importance as venues for establishing regional economic rules, standards, and preferential trading zones.¹⁶ These blocs can act as building blocks or stumbling blocks for broader integration, reflecting competing visions for regional and global order. ASEAN’s continued ability to attract substantial FDI amidst global downturns underscores the appeal of cohesive regional markets.⁶⁶ Consequently, the emerging trade order is likely to be defined not solely by the US-China dyad, but by a more complex, multipolar interplay involving these major powers, assertive middle powers, and influential regional organizations.

V. Case Studies in Realignment

The broad trends of trade realignment manifest in specific policy initiatives, regional agreements, and institutional challenges. Examining these cases provides concrete illustrations of the forces at play.

A. Reshoring, Nearshoring, Friend-shoring: Policy-Driven Reconfiguration

A prominent feature of the realignment is the conscious effort by some governments, notably the United States, to reshape supply chains through industrial policy, moving away from pure efficiency towards goals of security and resilience.

• US Initiatives (CHIPS Act, IRA): The Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) represent significant legislative efforts to bolster domestic manufacturing capacity in strategically vital sectors. The explicit goals include reducing reliance on imports, particularly from China and East Asia, for critical goods like advanced semiconductors, EV batteries, and clean energy components, thereby enhancing national economic security.⁴⁷ These acts authorize and appropriate substantial government funding through subsidies, tax credits, and other incentives – estimated at $52.7 billion for chips under the CHIPS Act, and potentially $1.2 trillion over ten years for clean energy and related sectors under the IRA.⁴⁸
• Impact on Investment and Jobs: These policies have triggered a visible surge in investment announcements and related job creation pledges in the targeted sectors. 2022 saw a record number of manufacturing jobs announced linked to reshoring and FDI in the US (over 360,000), with EV batteries and semiconductors accounting for a remarkable 53% of this total.⁴⁷ Construction spending on computer, electronic, and electrical manufacturing facilities in the US skyrocketed following the passage of the CHIPS Act in August 2022, reaching levels far exceeding historical averages.⁵⁰ In 2023, this sector accounted for 64% of all US manufacturing construction spending, up from just 11% five years prior.⁵² However, the pace of new job announcements slowed in 2023 (down 16% from 2022 to 287,000) ⁵¹, suggesting the initial wave spurred by subsidies might be leveling off, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of the trend without continued massive government support.⁴⁹ Concerns also exist regarding potential labor shortages needed to staff these new facilities.⁵²
• Global Context and Nuances: While US industrial policy is clearly influencing investment location decisions ⁵⁰, the global picture is complex. Detailed trade data analysis suggests that the reconfiguration is often more nuanced than simple reshoring (bringing production fully back home). There is strong evidence of continued, and even growing, indirect US supply chain links with China. US imports from countries like Mexico and Vietnam have increased significantly in product categories where direct imports from China have fallen.⁵ Concurrently, both Mexico’s and Vietnam’s imports from China have risen, alongside increasing Chinese FDI into these countries, particularly in manufacturing.³¹ This points towards a “China + 1” strategy or a re-routing of supply chains, where China remains a critical supplier of intermediate goods and components that are assembled elsewhere before final export to the US.²⁹ Evidence for widespread nearshoring (beyond immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada) or pure reshoring across many industries remains limited.²⁹ Friend-shoring, prioritizing politically aligned partners, appears to be a more dominant trend in the actual shifts observed so far.⁶

B. The Rise of Mega-Regional Blocs: RCEP, CPTPP, IPEF, AfCFTA

As faith in the WTO’s ability to deliver new multilateral liberalization has waned, countries have increasingly turned to Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) to deepen economic integration and establish trade rules with preferred partners. This has led to the emergence of several large-scale regional blocs with significant economic and geopolitical implications.

• Context of RTA Proliferation: The number of RTAs notified to the GATT/WTO has exploded, rising from around 50 in 1990 to over 370 currently in force.¹⁷ Modern RTAs are often “deep,” extending beyond traditional tariff reductions to cover areas like services, investment, intellectual property, competition policy, and other behind-the-border regulations.³ Research suggests these deeper agreements tend to generate larger increases in trade and investment flows compared to shallower ones.¹⁸
• RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership): Bringing together the 10 ASEAN member states plus China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, RCEP forms the world’s largest free trade area by GDP (around 30%) and population.⁷⁷ Entering into force in January 2022 ⁷⁹, its main features include gradual elimination of tariffs on most goods over a 20-year period, harmonized rules of origin designed to facilitate regional supply chains, and provisions on investment, e-commerce, and intellectual property.⁷⁷ Compared to CPTPP, RCEP generally has lower standards and more exceptions.⁷⁷ From a geopolitical perspective, RCEP is widely seen as consolidating China’s economic influence in the Asia-Pacific region and strengthening East Asian production networks.⁸⁵ Economic modeling projected RCEP could increase member GDP by 1.5% by 2030.¹⁰¹
• CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership): This agreement involves 11 Pacific Rim countries, including major economies like Japan, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Vietnam, and Singapore (with the UK recently acceding).⁷⁷ It originated from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the US withdrew in 2017.⁷⁷ CPTPP is characterized by its high standards, covering areas like labor rights, environmental protection, digital trade, and disciplines on state-owned enterprises, often exceeding existing rules in member states.⁷⁷ It represents about 13.5-14.5% of global GDP.⁷⁷ Estimated GDP gains for members are around 0.4% by 2030, significantly lower than the 0.7% projected under the original TPP-12 with US participation.¹⁰¹
• IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity): Launched by the United States in 2022, IPEF includes 14 partners spanning the Indo-Pacific, such as India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and several ASEAN nations.⁷⁷ It is structured around four pillars: Trade (including digital trade), Supply Chains, Clean Energy, and Fair Economy (anti-corruption, tax).⁷⁷ Crucially, IPEF is not a traditional FTA; it does not offer tariff reductions or broad market access commitments.⁷⁸ Participation is flexible, allowing countries to opt into specific pillars.⁷⁷ IPEF is largely viewed as a geopolitical initiative aimed at strengthening US economic engagement in the region, offering an alternative framework to China-led initiatives, and countering China’s growing influence.⁷⁷ Its effectiveness remains debated due to the lack of traditional trade incentives.⁷⁸
• AfCFTA (African Continental Free Trade Area): This ambitious agreement aims to create a single market for goods and services across the African continent, potentially encompassing 54 countries and 1.3 billion people.⁹⁵ Its primary focus is on reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers within Africa to boost intra-continental trade, foster industrialization, and reduce the continent’s reliance on external markets and partners.⁹⁵ While holding immense potential, the AfCFTA faces significant implementation challenges. China’s strong existing economic presence in Africa means it could also benefit significantly from increased continental integration.⁸⁶
• Comparative Geopolitics: These mega-blocs embody different approaches and geopolitical alignments. RCEP reflects an Asia-centric model with China playing a central role. CPTPP represents a high-standard agreement among largely market-oriented economies, now lacking US leadership but potentially expandable. IPEF is a US-led strategic framework prioritizing geopolitical alignment and specific issue areas over traditional market access. AfCFTA represents a major effort towards endogenous regional integration in the Global South. The simultaneous rise of these blocs, while potentially fostering integration within regions, also risks creating competing regulatory spheres and further fragmenting the global trading system by establishing preferential terms for members that inherently discriminate against outsiders.¹⁷

Table 1: Comparison of Major Regional Trade Agreements

Feature	RCEP	CPTPP	IPEF	AfCFTA
Key Members	ASEAN (10), China, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand	Japan, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Vietnam, Singapore, Chile, Peru, etc. + UK	US, India, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, 7 ASEAN nations, NZ, Fiji	54 African Union Member States (ratification ongoing)
Est. Share Global GDP	~30% 77	~14% 77	~40% (combined GDP of partners)	Potential $3.4 trillion market
Status	In force (Jan 2022) 79	In force (Dec 2018/Jan 2019 for initial members) 101	Negotiations ongoing/concluded on pillars; Not a traditional FTA 77	Trading commenced (Jan 2021), implementation ongoing
Scope Highlights	Tariff reduction (gradual), Rules of Origin, Investment, E-commerce	High standards: Tariffs, NTMs, Labor, Environment, Digital Trade, SOEs	Pillars: Trade/Digital, Supply Chains, Clean Energy, Fair Economy (No tariff reduction) 77	Tariff reduction (intra-Africa), NTMs, Services, Dispute Settlement
Standards/Depth	Moderate/Shallow compared to CPTPP 77	High/Deep 77	Variable by pillar; Focus on cooperation/standards, not market access	Focused on intra-African barriers 95
Geopolitical Driver	ASEAN centrality, China’s regional integration 85	Post-US TPP withdrawal, maintain high standards, counter-balance China	US re-engagement in Indo-Pacific, counter China’s influence, flexible framework 77	Pan-African integration, reduce external dependency 95

Source: Synthesized from.⁷⁷

This table highlights the diversity of these major agreements. RCEP offers broad market integration but with less depth, solidifying existing Asian value chains often centered on China. CPTPP provides deeper integration based on higher standards among its members. IPEF represents a novel, US-driven approach focused on specific strategic areas without the traditional quid pro quo of market access. AfCFTA focuses inward on unlocking the continent’s own potential. Their coexistence underscores the move towards a more complex, regionally-focused trade landscape.

C. WTO Under Strain: The Appellate Body Crisis and Reform Efforts

The World Trade Organization, the central institution of the multilateral trading system, faces a profound crisis, most acutely manifested in the paralysis of its Appellate Body (AB), the final arbiter of trade disputes.

• The Crisis: Since July 2017, the United States systematically blocked the appointment and reappointment of AB members, citing deep dissatisfaction with its functioning.²⁰ By December 11, 2019, the AB fell below the required quorum of three members needed to hear new appeals, effectively grinding its operations to a halt.²⁰ This paralysis means that a WTO member losing a case at the initial panel stage can appeal the decision “into the void,” preventing the panel report from being formally adopted and becoming legally binding, thereby undermining the enforceability of WTO rulings.¹⁰²
• US Rationale: The US objections were longstanding and multifaceted.²⁰ Key criticisms included: alleged judicial overreach, where the AB was accused of exceeding its mandate by making findings on issues not strictly necessary to resolve the dispute or by effectively creating new rules not agreed upon by members ²⁰; the treatment of past AB reports as binding precedent, which the US argued was not intended ²¹; routinely missing the mandated 90-day deadline for issuing reports ²¹; improperly reviewing panels’ findings of fact, including interpretations of domestic law ²¹; and allowing AB members to continue working on cases after their official terms had expired (Rule 15).¹⁰⁴ The core US argument was that the AB had deviated from the limited role envisioned by WTO members, infringing on national sovereignty and altering the negotiated balance of rights and obligations.²⁰
• Consequences: The AB’s paralysis represents a severe blow to the WTO’s credibility and effectiveness.¹⁹ It weakens the dispute settlement system – often called the “crown jewel” of the WTO ¹⁹ – which had been instrumental in resolving trade conflicts peacefully and preventing unilateral retaliation. The lack of a final, binding appeal mechanism increases the likelihood that trade disputes will be resolved based on economic power rather than agreed rules, potentially leading to escalating protectionism and trade wars, disproportionately harming smaller and developing countries.¹⁹ It has significantly eroded trust among WTO members.¹
• Reform Efforts and Interim Solutions: Recognizing the damage, WTO members initiated discussions aimed at resolving the impasse and reforming the dispute settlement system, with a target set for achieving a fully functioning system by 2024 (known as the Walker Process).¹⁰⁴ Reform proposals generally focus on addressing the specific US concerns by clarifying the AB’s mandate, ensuring adherence to procedural rules like the 90-day deadline, and potentially amending the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).¹⁰³ In the interim, the EU and a group of other WTO members established the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) under existing DSU provisions (Article 25) to serve as a temporary appeal mechanism for disputes among participating members.⁹⁰ However, the US and some other major players are not part of the MPIA. Some analysts also point to plurilateral Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs) within the WTO on topics like e-commerce as a potential alternative path (Plan B) for rule-making among willing members, bypassing the stalled consensus process.¹

The protracted crisis in the WTO’s dispute settlement function is more than just a technical or procedural disagreement. While the specific US complaints about AB practices are detailed and have some grounding in the DSU text ²¹, the willingness to cripple a core pillar of the multilateral system reflects deeper geopolitical currents. It stems from a broader US disillusionment with the WTO’s perceived inability to effectively discipline the economic practices of rivals like China, coupled with a more general shift under recent administrations away from binding multilateral commitments and towards unilateralism or preferential arrangements.¹ The impasse is fundamentally about great power politics, competing visions of global governance, and a breakdown of trust and consensus among the WTO’s most influential members.¹ Resolving the crisis requires not merely technical adjustments to dispute settlement procedures, but a fundamental political reconciliation and agreement on the future role and rules of the multilateral trading system – a prospect that appears challenging in the current climate of strategic competition. This institutional weakness further incentivizes the pursuit of regional and plurilateral alternatives.

VI. Future Trajectories: Scenarios for the Global Trade Order

Given the powerful drivers reshaping global commerce – geopolitical rivalry, protectionism, supply chain reconfiguration, climate action, and technological change – a simple return to the pre-2018 status quo of deepening multilateral integration appears highly unlikely. The future global trade order is poised to evolve along one of several potential trajectories, each carrying distinct implications for economic prosperity, geopolitical stability, and the balance of power.

Scenario 1: Fragmentation into Rival Geopolitical Blocs

• Description: This scenario envisages a deepening bifurcation of the global economy, primarily driven by intensifying US-China strategic competition. Trade, investment, and technology flows become increasingly confined within distinct geopolitical blocs centered around Washington and Beijing. Cross-bloc economic interaction diminishes significantly, potentially leading to divergent technological standards (a “splinternet”) and separate financial systems. The logic of “friend-shoring” becomes paramount, with economic partnerships dictated primarily by political alignment. Multilateral institutions like the WTO lose relevance for governing trade between these rival blocs, perhaps surviving only to manage relations within them or with non-aligned states.
• Realpolitik Implications: This trajectory points towards a world of heightened security dilemmas and zero-sum competition. The risk of direct or proxy conflicts between the blocs would likely increase.¹⁰⁵ The economic costs would be substantial, stemming from the loss of efficiencies gained through global specialization, the duplication of supply chains, reduced economies of scale, and diminished cross-border innovation.²⁶ Power would become further concentrated in the hands of the bloc leaders (US and China), forcing middle powers into difficult alignment choices and potentially marginalizing those who attempt neutrality. Developing countries, particularly those outside the main blocs, could face increased fragmentation, reduced market access, and diminished development prospects.¹⁰⁷

Scenario 2: A Patchwork Multipolar System with Competitive Coexistence

• Description: In this scenario, the global order evolves into a more complex multipolar structure, lacking a single dominant hegemon but featuring multiple centers of economic and political influence (e.g., US, China, EU, possibly India, Brazil, etc.). Multilateral institutions like the WTO weaken and struggle to achieve broad consensus but do not collapse entirely, perhaps finding relevance in specific areas or among certain groups of countries. Regional trade blocs (RCEP, CPTPP, EU Single Market, AfCFTA) gain significant prominence, setting rules and standards within their respective spheres and governing a large share of global trade.¹⁷ Trade and investment continue to flow across these regional and geopolitical divides, but face greater friction due to strategic export controls, investment screening, selective protectionism, and regulatory divergence. The dominant approach becomes “de-risking” – managing dependencies on rivals – rather than full economic decoupling. Plurilateral agreements among like-minded countries on specific issues (e.g., digital trade, critical minerals, environmental standards) become more common.¹
• Realpolitik Implications: This scenario entails more fluid and complex balance-of-power dynamics. Regional diplomacy and the strategic maneuvering of middle powers become crucial.⁹⁹ While the potential for conflict remains, there might also be greater scope for cooperation on transnational challenges where interests align (e.g., climate change, pandemic preparedness). This environment could offer greater flexibility and agency for some developing countries, allowing them to leverage relationships with multiple major powers, but it would also demand sophisticated diplomatic navigation. Global governance would likely become more fragmented, ad hoc, and potentially less predictable.⁴⁰

Scenario 3: Revitalized Multilateralism (Revised Rules)

• Description: This scenario posits a renewed commitment to multilateralism, perhaps catalyzed by a collective recognition of the severe economic and security costs of fragmentation. This would involve successful, comprehensive reform of the WTO. Key institutional challenges, such as the Appellate Body crisis, would be resolved through compromise.⁹⁰ Members would agree on updated rules to address 21st-century trade issues, including digital commerce, state subsidies and state-owned enterprises, the trade-climate nexus, and potentially supply chain resilience. Core multilateral principles like non-discrimination would be reaffirmed, possibly incorporating lessons learned from successful RTA provisions to make them more relevant and effective.¹
• Realpolitik Implications: This outcome requires significant political will, leadership, and, crucially, compromise among the major powers, particularly the US and China.¹ Given the current depth of strategic mistrust, this appears the least likely scenario in the near to medium term. Achieving it would necessitate concessions from all sides and likely involve a rebalancing of influence within international institutions to reflect contemporary economic realities.⁸³ If realized, however, this scenario could restore greater stability, predictability, and efficiency to the global trading system, potentially fostering higher global growth and facilitating cooperation on global challenges. It would represent a recommitment to a rules-based international order, albeit one likely adapted to new power configurations and priorities.

Assessment of Probabilities: Based on current trends – the persistent US-China rivalry, the proliferation of RTAs, the struggles within the WTO, and the increasing use of trade policy for strategic ends – Scenario 2 (Patchwork Multipolarity) appears the most plausible trajectory for the global trade order in the coming years.² It reflects the ongoing erosion of the old multilateral consensus without predicting a complete breakdown into hermetically sealed blocs. Scenario 1 (Fragmentation) remains a significant downside risk, particularly if geopolitical tensions escalate dramatically, carrying severe economic and security consequences. Scenario 3 (Revitalized Multilateralism), while normatively desirable for many, faces formidable political obstacles and seems more like a long-term aspiration than a near-term probability.¹

The strategic implications of moving towards a more fragmented global economy (as in Scenarios 1 and 2) are profound. Geoeconomic fragmentation ¹⁰⁷, driven by great power competition ⁷⁶, elevates the importance of factors beyond pure economic efficiency in national strategy. Supply chain security, technological sovereignty, access to critical resources, and overall economic resilience become core components of national power and security calculations. This new landscape creates distinct vulnerabilities – such as dependence on politically aligned but potentially less efficient or reliable suppliers – alongside new opportunities, particularly for countries or regions that can successfully position themselves as secure, reliable hubs or indispensable partners within the reconfigured networks. The very structure of the international system, whether integrated or fragmented, significantly shapes how geopolitical shocks propagate and impact global stability.¹¹⁰ Consequently, states must fundamentally adapt their foreign and economic policies, investing heavily in domestic resilience, carefully managing strategic dependencies, and pursuing international cooperation more selectively, often based on converging strategic interests rather than universal principles. The notion of a stable, universally accepted “rules-based order” is itself being actively contested and reshaped through these geoeconomic power struggles.¹⁰⁷

VII. Conclusion: Navigating the New Geoeconomic Reality

The established global trade order, characterized for decades by expanding multilateralism and deepening integration under the GATT/WTO framework, is undergoing a fundamental realignment. The post-Cold War era of hyper-globalization is giving way to a landscape increasingly defined by fragmentation, the overt politicization of economic ties, and pervasive uncertainty. This transformation is propelled by a powerful confluence of factors: the intensifying strategic competition between the United States and China, a global resurgence of protectionism and state-led industrial policy, a reckoning with supply chain vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical shocks like the war in Ukraine, and the growing imperatives of climate change mitigation and technological competition.

Observable shifts confirm this realignment. Statistical data reveals significant trade diversion away from direct US-China routes, a complex reconfiguration of global supply chains favoring regionalization and “friend-shoring” over simple reshoring, a marked decline in global FDI flows accompanied by redirection along geopolitical lines, and the persistent use of tariffs and sophisticated non-tariff measures as tools of statecraft. Concurrently, the authority and effectiveness of the World Trade Organization have diminished, particularly with the paralysis of its Appellate Body, while competing regional economic blocs like RCEP and CPTPP gain prominence.

Table 2: US-China Bilateral Goods Trade & China’s Share of US Imports (2017-2024)

Year	US Exports to China ($B)	US Imports from China ($B)	Bilateral Balance ($B)	China’s % Share of Total US Imports
2017	129.9	505.5	-375.6	21.60%
2018	120.1	539.7	-419.5	21.20%
2019	106.4	451.7	-345.2	18.10%
2020	124.5	434.7	-310.2	18.60%
2021	151.1	504.9	-353.8	17.90%
2022	153.8	536.3	-382.4	16.50%
2023	147.8	427.2	-279.4	13.90%
2024	~150 (proj.)	~400 (proj.)	~-250 (proj.)	~13% (est.)

*Source: US Census Bureau, UNCTAD 28, IMF. Note: 2024 figures are indicative projections based on partial year data and trends.*

**Table 3: Global & Regional FDI Inflows ($ Billion & YoY % Change)**

Region/Grouping	2021 ($B)	2022 ($B)	2022 (% Change)	2023 ($B)	2023 (% Change)
World	1478	1295	-12%	1332	-2%
Developed Economies	597	378	-37%	464	+9%
Europe	51	-107	N/A	-16	N/A
North America	453	338	-26%	361	-5%
Developing Economies	881	916	+4%	867	-7%
Africa	80	45	-44%	53	-3%
Latin America & Caribbean	138	208	+51%	193	-1%
Asia (Developing)	662	662	0%	621	-8%
LDCs	N/A	27	N/A	31	+17%
LLDCs	N/A	24	N/A	24	+3%
SIDS	N/A	7	N/A	8	+15%

Source: UNCTAD World Investment Reports.⁶³ Note: 2023 figures are estimates. Developed Europe figures highly influenced by conduit economies. LDC/LLDC/SIDS data availability varies.

From a realpolitik standpoint, this realignment constitutes a raw contest for power, influence, and strategic advantage. National security considerations and the pursuit of relative gains increasingly overshadow the quest for absolute economic efficiency that characterized the previous era. The United States leverages economic tools to preserve its global primacy and contain China’s challenge. China utilizes its economic might to secure its ascent, reshape regional and global governance structures, and reduce its vulnerabilities. The European Union seeks to carve out a position of strategic autonomy amidst these competing giants. Russia prioritizes regime survival and disruption of the Western-led order. Meanwhile, pivotal states like India and diverse nations across the Global South navigate these shifting geopolitical tides, facing a complex calculus of risks and opportunities.

The future trajectory points towards a more fragmented, multipolar global system. The most probable scenario involves a ‘patchwork’ order characterized by competitive coexistence between major powers and influential regional blocs, where trade flows are increasingly mediated by geopolitical considerations and national interests, rather than a purely rules-based multilateral framework. Complete decoupling seems unlikely, but the friction and uncertainty inherent in this new geoeconomic reality will persist. Successfully navigating this complex environment will demand strategic agility, enhanced resilience, careful management of dependencies, and a clear-eyed assessment of power dynamics from policymakers and business leaders worldwide. The assumption that trade liberalization would inevitably foster peace and convergence has been superseded; the era of geoeconomic competition has arrived, demanding new strategies for a contested world.

Works cited

1. Reconfiguring the Trading System – CSIS, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/reconfiguring-trading-system
2. Resilience and Realignment of Global Trade – Policy Center, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.policycenter.ma/publications/resilience-and-realignment-global-trade
3. Why protectionism and market accessibility are now driving international trade, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/why-protectionism-and-market-accessibility-are-now-driving-international-trade/
4. The economic implications of rising protectionism: a euro area and global perspective, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2019/html/ecb.ebart201903_01~e589a502e5.en.html
5. Geopolitics and the geometry of global trade: 2025 update – McKinsey, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/geopolitics-and-the-geometry-of-global-trade-2025-update
6. How geopolitics is changing trade – CEPR, accessed April 12, 2025, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/how-geopolitics-changing-trade
7. World Trade Organization – Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization
8. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) | The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/general-agreement-on-tariffs-and-trade
9. What Is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)? – Investopedia, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gatt.asp
10. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – Wikipedia, accessed April 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade
11. www.brookings.edu, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/selfenforcingtrade_chapter.pdf
12. The World Trade Organization: Background and Issues – EveryCRSReport.com, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-928.html
13. The WTO: Functions and Basic Principles, accessed April 12, 2025, https://spot.colorado.edu/~maskus/teach/4413/WTO.pdf
14. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): History and Principles of GATT, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/trade-2/general-agreement-on-tariffs-and-trade-gatt-history-and-principles-of-gatt/23525
15. GATT – International Trade Law – Library Guides at University of Melbourne, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unimelb.libguides.com/c.php?g=929605&p=6716621
16. Do Regional Trade Agreements Really Boost Trade? Estimates for Agricultural Products – CEPII, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2015/wp2015-09.pdf
17. The Rise of Discriminatory Regionalism – International Monetary Fund (IMF), accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/06/the-rise-of-discriminatory-regionalism-michele-ruta
18. Regional Trade Agreements – World Bank, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/brief/regional-trade-agreements
19. Trump’s tariffs and the threat to global trade: A wake-up call for developing economies, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.tbsnews.net/thoughts/trumps-tariffs-and-threat-global-trade-wake-call-developing-economies-1114236
20. The World Trade Organization: The Appellate Body Crisis | Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business | CSIS, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.csis.org/programs/economics-program-and-scholl-chair-international-business/world-trade-organization
21. Reforming the World Trade Organization | 04 Dispute settlement in crisis – Chatham House, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/09/reforming-world-trade-organization/04-dispute-settlement-crisis
22. WTO Regional Trade Agreements Database – World Trade Organization, accessed April 12, 2025, https://rtais.wto.org/
23. INSTRUMENTS OF ECONOMIC SECURITY – Bruegel, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.bruegel.org/system/files/2024-05/WP%2012%202024_0.pdf
24. The Global Trade Realignment is Coming | Commonplace, accessed April 12, 2025, https://commonplace.org/2025/04/11/the-global-trade-realignment-is-coming/
25. The Economic Impacts of the US-China Trade War, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29315/w29315.pdf
26. The Impact of US-China Trade Tensions, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/05/23/blog-the-impact-of-us-china-trade-tensions
27. the impact of china pntr repeal and increased tariffs on the us economy and american jobs, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.uschina.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/the_economic_impact_of_china_pntr_repeal.pdf
28. Import diversification and trade diversion: Insights from United States of America – China trade patterns – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wp-2024d3_en.pdf
29. Is US Trade Policy Reshaping Global Supply Chains? – World Bank Documents and Reports, accessed April 12, 2025, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099812010312311610/pdf/IDU0938e50fe0608704ef70b7d005cda58b5af0d.pdf
30. Trade War Leaves Both US And China Worse Off: UN – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/press-material/trade-war-leaves-both-us-and-china-worse-un
31. Friendshoring? Nearshoring? Reshoring? How the U.S. Trade Relationship with China Is Evolving | FSI, accessed April 12, 2025, https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/friendshoring-nearshoring-reshoring-how-us-trade-relationship-china-evolving
32. Sanctions effectiveness: what lessons three years into the war on Ukraine?, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine
33. The Economic Impact of Russia Sanctions – CRS Reports, accessed April 12, 2025, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12092
34. The Sanctions Weapon – International Monetary Fund (IMF), accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/06/the-sanctions-weapon-mulder
35. Medium-term Macroeconomic Effects of Russia’s War in Ukraine and How it Affects Energy Security and Global Emission Targets in – IMF eLibrary, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2024/039/article-A001-en.xml
36. EU carbon border adjustment mechanism – European Parliament, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698889/EPRS_BRI(2022)698889_EN.pdf
37. Russia’s Global Trade Realignment Sino-Russian Trade Flows Rising China’s Global Trade Realignment – MUFG Americas, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.mufgamericas.com/sites/default/files/document/2024-03/Chart-of-the-Day_2_28_Geo-Strategic-Realignment-of-Sino-Russian-Trade-Flows.pdf
38. Publication | The Impact of the War in Ukraine on Global Trade and Investment, accessed April 12, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/8a37c7fb-5fd8-56aa-bb7e-2a0970c468d9
39. Speech: Geopolitics and its Impact on Global Trade and the Dollar, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/05/07/sp-geopolitics-impact-global-trade-and-dollar-gita-gopinath
40. World Economic Situation and Prospects: March 2025 Briefing, No. 188 – the United Nations, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-march-2025-briefing-no-188/
41. Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits – The White House, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/
42. Understanding Trade Barriers: Tariff and Non-Tariff Measures – Southern Ag Today, accessed April 12, 2025, https://southernagtoday.org/2025/02/07/understanding-trade-barriers-tariff-and-non-tariff-measures/
43. Tariff rate, most favored nation, simple mean, all products (%) – World Bank Open Data, accessed April 12, 2025, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.FN.ZS
44. Key statistics and trends in trade policy 2023 – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/key-statistics-and-trends-trade-policy-2023
45. Tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products (%) – World Bank Open Data, accessed April 12, 2025, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS
46. India Trade Brief – ESCAP Repository, accessed April 12, 2025, https://repository.unescap.org/rest/bitstreams/06c74a6b-dcf3-4df8-85ad-528f7af5000e/retrieve
47. IRA and Chips Act Set Off Seismic Waves, Driving Reshoring Up 53% – IMTS, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imts.com/read/article-details/IRA-and-Chips-Act-Set-Off-Seismic-Waves-Driving-Reshoring-Up-53/1753/type/Read/1
48. Government Incentives Fuel U.S. Reshoring, Recovery – STI/SPFA, accessed April 12, 2025, https://stispfa.org/government-incentives-fuel-us-reshoring-recovery/
49. Reshoring Initiative 2022 Data Report, accessed April 12, 2025, https://reshorenow.org/content/pdf/2022_Data_Report.pdf
50. US chip construction spending skyrocketed after US CHIPS Act passed in August 2022 | PIIE, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/us-chip-construction-spending-skyrocketed-after-us-chips-act-passed
51. Reshoring Initiative® 2023 Annual Report, accessed April 12, 2025, https://reshorenow.org/content/pdf/Reshoring_Initiative_2023_Annual_Report.pdf
52. The IRA and CHIPS Act are supercharging US manufacturing construction – Atlantic Council, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/the-ira-and-chips-act-are-supercharging-us-manufacturing-construction/
53. the impact of covid-19 on foreign investors: evidence from the second round of a global pulse survey september 2020 – World Bank Document, accessed April 12, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/453660ed-d9e8-54c3-8cb0-83341423df9b/download
54. Chapter 5 – Global Value Chains in the Time of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) – Public Documents | The World Bank, accessed April 12, 2025, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/c9af0143184de77cb58ddd5adf024508-0350012021/related/9781464816833-ch5-1.pdf
55. Mobility Development – World Bank Documents and Reports, accessed April 12, 2025, https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099536303102340994/pdf/IDU0396b42e60ffd104db30ac110b3f271e29f77.pdf
56. The Aggregate Effects of Global and Local Supply Chain Disruptions : 2020–2022, accessed April 12, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/10986/39445/1/IDU04fa983470a55e045cf086ea01ed3050976da.pdf
57. Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Trade and Development: Lessons Learned – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osg2022d1_en.pdf
58. UNCTAD Advocates for Resilient Global Supply Chains Amid Trade Disruptions, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.globaltrademag.com/unctad-advocates-for-resilient-global-supply-chains-amid-trade-disruptions/
59. International supply networks: A portrait of global trade patterns in four sectors – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wp-2023d2-no3_en.pdf
60. Offshoring, Reshoring, and the Evolving Geography of Jobs: A Scoping Paper – O.N.E – OECD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://one.oecd.org/document/DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2024)6/en/pdf
61. The new face of global trade – Polski Instytut Ekonomiczny, accessed April 12, 2025, https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Globalny-handel-ENG.pdf
62. The Transatlantic Relation in the Era of Friend-shoring – Market Insights, accessed April 12, 2025, https://market-insights.upply.com/en/the-transatlantic-relation-in-the-era-of-friend-shoring
63. World Investment Report 2023 | UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2023
64. World Investment Report 2024 | UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024
65. World Investment Report 2024: Investment facilitation and digital government – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2024_en.pdf
66. ASEAN Investment Report 2024, accessed April 12, 2025, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AIR2024-3.pdf
67. New OECD FDI data: trends, impacts and regulations, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2024/11/oecd-fdi-data-impacts-regulation.html
68. EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: What is it, how does it work and what are the effects? – OECD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/03/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-what-is-it-how-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-effects.html
69. Carbon Border Adjustments – OECD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/carbon-border-adjustments_e8c3d060-en.html
70. Learning from CBAM’s transitional phase: Early impacts on trade and climate efforts, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2024/learning-cbams-transitional-impacts-trade
71. Event Highlights: Carbon Border Adjustments in the EU, the U.S., and Beyond, accessed April 12, 2025, https://ccsi.columbia.edu/content/event-highlights-carbon-border-adjustments-eu-us-and-beyond
72. Potential conflicts between the European CBAM and the WTO rules – Norton Rose Fulbright, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/9c5d9ec6/potential-conflicts-between-the-european-cbam-and-the-wto-rules
73. EU CARBON BORDER ADJUSTMENTS AND WTO LAW, PART TWO, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.elr.info/sites/default/files/files-general/51.10935.pdf
74. TRADE WATCH, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-12/Trade-Watch.pdf
75. Trade and Development Report 2024 – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/trade-and-development-report-2024
76. Global Development in an Era of Great Power Competition – CSIS, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/global-development-era-great-power-competition
77. Asia’s Free Trade Agreements in Focus: CPTPP, RCEP and IPEF | Rödl & Partner, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.roedl.com/insights/asia-free-trade-agreements-cptpp-rcep-ipef
78. RCEP vs. IPEF: Tariff Adjustments, Dispute Settlement, and Trade Remedies, accessed April 12, 2025, https://globaltrainingcenter.com/rcep-vs-ipef-tariff-adjustments-dispute-settlement-and-trade-remedies/
79. A Comparative Analysis of RCEP and IPEF from the China-U.S. Competition, accessed April 12, 2025, https://front-sci.com/journal/article?doi=10.32629/memf.v3i4.1029
80. The Evolution of Global Trade in 2024 | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/blog/evolution-global-trade-2024
81. Global Trade Update (March 2025) | UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/global-trade-update-march-2025
82. Global trade hits record $33 trillion in 2024, driven by services and developing economies, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/news/global-trade-hits-record-33-trillion-2024-driven-services-and-developing-economies
83. Great Power Competition in the Multilateral System – CSIS, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/great-power-competition-multilateral-system
84. Assessment of China’s Rise and Great Power Competition: A Review of Global Strategic Trends Out to 2055 Report – Beyond the Horizon ISSG, accessed April 12, 2025, https://behorizon.org/assessment-of-chinas-rise-and-great-power-competition-a-review-of-global-strategic-trends-out-to-2055-report/
85. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and Its Expected Effects on World Trade – ResearchGate, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350658103_The_Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership_Agreement_and_Its_Expected_Effects_on_World_Trade
86. Is RCEP a Small Geo-Economic Step or Big Geo-Strategic Leap? – Vision of Humanity, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.visionofhumanity.org/rcep-one-small-geo-economic-step-or-a-giant-eastward-leap-in-geostrategic-gravity/
87. Chapter IV: Rise, retreat and repositioning: Lessons from the global South – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2024ch4_en.pdf
88. Geopolitics and trade: A changing landscape – Chatham House, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/research-event/geopolitics-and-trade-changing-landscape
89. Consistency of the EU’s Decisions on China: An Analysis of Cooperation and Sanctions – ePrints Soton – University of Southampton, accessed April 12, 2025, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/496920/1/Tuzgen_PhD_Thesis.pdf
90. Resolving the WTO Appellate Body Crisis – National Foreign Trade Council, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.nftc.org/archive/Trade%20Policy//WTO_Issues/Resolving%20the%20WTO%20AB%20Crisis%20vol2%2006042020.pdf
91. Sino-Russian Cooperation Toward Revisionism – DTIC, accessed April 12, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1184912.pdf
92. A Rebalancing China and Resurging India: How will the pendulum swing for Russia? – World Bank Documents and Reports, accessed April 12, 2025, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/690531522429871020/pdf/A-rebalancing-China-and-resurging-India-how-will-the-pendulum-swing-for-Russia.pdf
93. 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for India – International Monetary Fund (IMF), accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2025/English/1indea2025001-print-pdf.ashx
94. Trade and Development Report 2023 – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/trade-and-development-report-2023
95. AFRICAN AND ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – AFEBI Journal System, accessed April 12, 2025, http://journal.afebi.org/index.php/aefr/article/download/843/425
96. Global Trade Update (December 2024) | UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/publication/global-trade-update-december-2024
97. The reshaping of global trade: How developing countries can strategize – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/news/reshaping-global-trade-how-developing-countries-can-strategize
98. Shaping the future – UNCTAD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osginf2024d7_en.pdf
99. World Economic Outlook, April 2024; Chapter 4: Trading Places: Real Spillovers from G20 Emerging Markets, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2024/April/English/ch4.ashx
100. Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO – University of Nottingham, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/credit/documents/papers/00-03.pdf
101. Actual and Potential Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific: Estimated Effects – World Bank Document, accessed April 12, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33549/Actual-and-Potential-Trade-Agreements-in-the-Asia-Pacific-Estimated-Effects.pdf?sequence=1
102. THE WTO APPELLATE BODY CRISIS – A WAY FORWARD? | Clifford Chance, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2019/11/the-wto-appellate-body-crisis-a-way-forward.pdf
103. Resolving the WTO Appellate Body Crisis: Proposals on OverReach – National Foreign Trade Council, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.nftc.org/archive/trade/WTO/Resolving%20the%20WTO%20Appellate%20Body%20Crisis_Proposals%20on%20Overreach.pdf
104. The WTO Appellate Body crisis – A contribution to the ongoing discussions – Kommerskollegium, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.kommerskollegium.se/globalassets/publikationer/rapporter/2023/the-wto-appellate-body-crisis.pdf
105. THE FUTURE OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION – Institute for National Strategic Studies, accessed April 12, 2025, https://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/82/Lynch_CH%2024%20-%20Future%20of%20GPC%20%28Aug24%29.pdf
106. The Future of Great Power Competition: Trajectories, Transitions, and Prospects for Catastrophic War, accessed April 12, 2025, https://mccareer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/the-future-of-great-power-competition.pdf
107. Assessing Strategic Competition, Non-State Armed Groups, and Geoeconomic Fragmentation: Implications for the West and the Rules Based Order – Divergent Options, accessed April 12, 2025, https://divergentoptions.org/2024/07/15/assessing-strategic-competition-non-state-armed-groups-and-geoeconomic-fragmentation-implications-for-the-west-and-the-rules-based-order/
108. Toward a New Global Trade Framework – CSIS, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/toward-new-global-trade-framework
109. Deep Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How Multilateral-friendly? | OECD, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/deep-provisions-in-regional-trade-agreements-how-multilateral-friendly_5jxvgfn4bjf0-en.html
110. Great Power Competition and the Effects of Global Fragmentation on International Law, accessed April 12, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389700238_Great_Power_Competition_and_the_Effects_of_Global_Fragmentation_on_International_Law