This study examines the evolution and current challenges of the international trading system, focusing on the period between 2018 and 2024, with particular emphasis on the unprecedented simultaneous trade disputes between the United States, China, and Canada. The research provides a comprehensive analysis of how these conflicts have tested and potentially transformed the established GATT/WTO framework.

Through a comparative analysis of bilateral relationships characterized by different levels of economic development and integration, this study offers unique insights into the varying impacts and legal implications of modern trade wars.
The investigation reveals several key findings. First, the research demonstrates how the intersection of economic and national security concerns has led to novel legal interpretations of trade agreements, particularly regarding security exceptions under GATT Article XXI. Second, it identifies significant gaps in existing international trade law regarding digital trade, intellectual property protection, and state subsidies, especially in the context of emerging technologies.

Third, the study illuminates how global value chains and technological advancement have fundamentally altered the nature and impact of trade barriers compared to previous eras.
The research makes three primary contributions to existing literature. It develops a new analytical framework for understanding how different types of bilateral relationships influence both the conduct and legal ramifications of trade wars. It provides empirical evidence of how security-based trade measures affect economies at different development stages.

Finally, it offers specific recommendations for WTO reform that address the challenges posed by modern trade disputes. These findings have significant implications for policymakers and scholars working on international trade law reform and the future architecture of global economic cooperation.

Introduction:
The global trading system is critical as recent trade wars challenge the foundational principles of the post-World War II international economic order.The United States' simultaneous engagement in trade disputes with both China and Canada between 2018 and 2024 marks a significant departure from decades of progressive trade liberalization, presenting an unprecedented challenge to the established GATT/WTO framework.These trade conflicts, characterized by escalating tariffs, retaliatory measures, and innovative legal justifications, have not only disrupted global commerce but also threatened to fundamentally alter the architecture of international trade law.

The unique nature of these concurrent trade disputes provides an exceptional opportunity to examine how trade wars affect economies at different stages of development and with varying degrees of economic integration. The U.S.-Canada relationship, built on deep economic integration, shared democratic values, and similar levels of development, stands in stark contrast to the U.S.-China relationship, which is characterized by asymmetric development levels, different political systems, and strategic rivalry.This divergence in relationship characteristics allows for a nuanced analysis of how existing economic ties and institutional frameworks influence both the conduct of trade wars and their legal implications.

Moreover, these trade conflicts have emerged during a period of unprecedented global economic integration, technological advancement, and geopolitical realignment.Global value chains now span multiple jurisdictions, making the impact of trade barriers more complex and far-reaching than in previous eras.The increasing importance of digital trade, intellectual property rights, and technology transfer has introduced new dimensions to trade disputes that test the boundaries of existing legal frameworks.Additionally, the growing intersection of economic and national security concerns has led to novel legal justifications for trade restrictions, particularly through the invocation of security exceptions under GATT Article XXI.

The legal implications of these trade wars extend far beyond immediate economic impacts.The use of national security justifications for tariffs, particularly in the case of U.S. steel and aluminium measures under Section 232, has created contentious precedents that challenge the WTO's dispute resolution framework.Similarly, disputes over technology transfer, intellectual property protection, and state subsidies in the U.S.-China conflict have exposed gaps in existing international trade law and raised questions about its adequacy in addressing modern trade challenges.

This analysis contributes to existing literature by providing a novel comparative framework that integrates economic and legal perspectives on trade conflicts.By examining how different types of bilateral relationships influence both the conduct of trade wars and their legal ramifications, we offer insights valuable for policymakers, legal scholars, and economic analysts.The findings have significant implications for ongoing debates about WTO reform, the future of trade agreements, and the balance between national sovereignty and international economic cooperation.

Historical Context: The GATT/WTO Framework:

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947 and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), were created to prevent trade wars, like those of the 1930s, by establishing foundational principles:

• Equal treatment for all member countries (Most-Favored-Nation treatment)
• Equal treatment for domestic and imported goods (National Treatment)
• No quantitative restrictions on trade
• Transparent trade policies
• Mechanisms for resolving trade disputes

The Evolution of Modern Trade Relations:

The transformation of international trade relations since World War II has been marked by distinct phases of development, each contributing to the complex framework we observe today.The initial post-war period witnessed the emergence of the GATT system, which established fundamental principles such as non-discrimination, transparency, and reciprocity.This foundation proved crucial in facilitating the unprecedented growth in global trade throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

The 1970s and 1980s brought significant challenges to this system, as oil shocks and monetary instability tested the resilience of international trade cooperation.These challenges ultimately led to the Uruguay Round negotiations, culminating in the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995.The WTO's creation represented a landmark evolution in trade governance, introducing a more comprehensive legal framework and a binding dispute settlement mechanism.

The digital revolution of the late 1990s and early 2000s introduced new dimensions to trade relations, necessitating the development of novel regulatory approaches.E-commerce, digital services, and cross-border data flows emerged as critical components of international trade, challenging traditional concepts of market access and regulatory jurisdiction.This period also saw the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements, which often incorporated provisions extending beyond WTO commitments.

The 2008 global financial crisis marked another pivotal moment in trade relations, leading to increased scrutiny of global economic interdependence and its implications for national resilience.This period witnessed a gradual shift away from multilateral approaches toward more bilateral and regional arrangements, reflecting growing scepticism about globalization's benefits.The rise of global value chains during this era created new vulnerabilities while simultaneously deepening economic integration.

Recent years have seen the emergence of what some scholars term "geoeconomic competition," where trade policy increasingly intersects with national security concerns.This development has led to more frequent invocation of security exceptions in trade agreements and a growing emphasis on supply chain resilience.The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated these trends, highlighting the delicate balance between economic efficiency and security considerations in international trade.

• For thirty years following the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, trade between the United States and China was virtually nonexistent. This was largely due to the fact that Washington had severed ties with the communist government in Beijing.
• However, in the late 1970s, China began a decades-long economic reform process under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. The government loosened its control over the economy, allowing private industry to develop and flourish.
• In 1979, the United States and China normalized relations, paving the way for increased trade and investment between the two countries. Seven years later, in 1986, China applied to rejoin the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the precursor to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• After protracted negotiations with the United States and other WTO members, China finally joined the organization in December 2001. As a condition of its admission, Beijing committed to implementing a sweeping set of economic reforms.
• These reforms included steep cuts to tariffs on imported goods, enhanced protections for intellectual property (IP), and increased transparency around its laws and regulations. At the time, U.S. President Bill Clinton and his advisors believed that bringing China into the global trading system would not only benefit the United States but also foster economic and democratic reform in China.
• However, not everyone shared this optimism. U.S. labor unions and many congressional Democrats opposed China's WTO membership, arguing that its weak worker and environmental protections would incentivize similar practices elsewhere and lead to a "race to the bottom."
• Despite these concerns, trade between the United States and China surged following China's WTO membership. The value of U.S. goods imports from China rose from approximately $100 billion in 2001 to over $400 billion in 2023.
• This significant increase in trade is due in part to China's critical position in global supply chains. Chinese factories assemble products for export to the United States using components from all over the world. As a result, China's WTO membership has had far-reaching implications for the global economy.
• The U.S.-China trade relationship has been a topic of criticism from the U.S. government, particularly regarding bilateral trade deficits and China's exchange rates. To address these concerns, the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama imposed quotas and tariffs on Chinese textiles, accusing China of dumping prices.
• Despite these measures, U.S.-Chinese trade continued to grow, with China's economy becoming the second-largest in the world. However, some U.S. policymakers have expressed concerns over China's economic initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and viewed China's growth as a challenge to American economic dominance.
• Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign promised to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, attributing it to unfair trade practices. American proponents of tariffs argue that they will bring manufacturing jobs to the U.S., make bilateral tariffs reciprocal, eliminate the trade deficit, and change China's policies on intellectual property and investment.
• However, most economists are skeptical about the effectiveness of tariffs in achieving these goals. A study found that U.S. exports to China support 1.2 million American jobs, and Chinese multinational companies employ 197,000 Americans. Economists believe that the American trade deficit is primarily due to macroeconomic factors rather than trade policy.
• To stabilize strained relations, the U.S. and China are holding talks in Beijing, aiming to prevent competition from escalating into conflict and maintain open communication.

The history of the U.S.-Canada trade relationship:

The U.S.-Canada trade relationship dates back to the colonial era, when Indigenous peoples had already established extensive trading networks across North America. These networks were later adapted by European settlers, though British colonial policies initially restricted trade between British North America (Canada) and the United States. The Jay Treaty of 1795 marked the first formal trade agreement between the territories, establishing important frameworks for cross-border commerce and ensuring rights for Indigenous traders.

Throughout the 19th century, trade grew steadily, focusing on natural resources, agricultural products, and manufactured goods. The early 1900s saw significant growth in bilateral trade, despite the rejection of the 1911 Reciprocity Agreement by Canadian voters. World War I led to increased industrial integration, and the emergence of the automobile industry became a major driver of cross-border trade, alongside growing interdependence in sectors like mining, forestry, and agriculture.

The post-World War II era marked unprecedented economic cooperation, highlighted by the 1965 Auto Pact which revolutionized North American auto manufacturing. This period saw the development of integrated supply chains across numerous industries and significant growth in energy trade, particularly in oil, natural gas, and electricity. The relationship entered a new phase with the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which eliminated most tariffs, followed by NAFTA in 1994, which created a continental trading bloc including Mexico.The recent USMCA (2020) modernized the relationship for the digital age, addressing new areas like intellectual property and digital trade.

Today, the U.S.-Canada trade relationship is one of the world's largest bilateral economic partnerships, with daily trade exceeding $2 billion. The relationship features deeply integrated supply chains, shared infrastructure, and cooperative regulatory frameworks.However, challenges persist, including periodic disputes over specific sectors like lumber, dairy, and steel, as well as ongoing discussions about balancing border security with trade efficiency. Looking forward, the relationship continues to evolve with growing emphasis on clean technology, renewable energy, digital trade, and e-commerce, while both nations work together on enhancing supply chain resilience and pursuing sustainable development goals.

The partnership faces several modern challenges, including regulatory harmonization efforts, competition from emerging global markets, and the need to coordinate environmental and labor standards. Despite these challenges, the fundamental strength of the relationship, built on centuries of cooperation and mutual benefit, positions both nations well for continued economic partnership in an increasingly complex global marketplace.

Trade war between USA and CHINA:

Trade tensions between the United States and China can be traced to Donald Trump's early advocacy for protectionist policies, initially sparked by Japan's economic rise in the 1980s. Trump's concerns about trade deficits and foreign competition became central to his successful 2016 presidential campaign, particularly regarding China's alleged currency manipulation.

Upon taking office, Trump directed the United States Trade Representative to investigate Chinese economic practices in 2017. The subsequent report highlighted significant concerns about technology transfer practices, estimating annual losses between $225-600 billion to the U.S. economy.This led to a series of retaliatory measures, including tariffs on Chinese products, WTO complaints, and restrictions on Chinese investment in U.S. technology sectors.

The Trump administration argued that previous diplomatic efforts had failed to address China's unfair practices adequately. They particularly emphasized concerns about forced technology transfer, state capitalism, and cyber intrusions into American commercial networks.Technology, viewed as crucial to the U.S. economy, became a focal point of the dispute. The administration sought to prevent Chinese state-controlled companies from acquiring American technology firms and to protect U.S. companies from mandatory technology transfers as a condition of market access.

The American business community largely shared these concerns, with a majority of American Chamber of Commerce members in China identifying intellectual property protection as a significant challenge. While Trump initially characterized trade conflicts as "good, and easy to win," the escalating tensions led to a more nuanced position by 2019.

Administration officials, including Trade Policy Director Peter Navarro, defended the tariffs as necessary protective measures to address the trade deficit. They argued that persistent deficits enabled foreign entities to acquire American assets, potentially undermining domestic investment opportunities.

Trade war between US and CANADA:

Following Trump's second inauguration, trade tensions escalated between the United States and its North American neighbors through a series of threats and countermeasures. The situation intensified when Trump proposed implementing 25% tariffs across multiple sectors targeting Canada and Mexico.

In response, Ontario's Premier Doug Ford contemplated retaliatory measures, including restrictions on U.S. liquor imports and potential limitations on energy exports to several U.S. states including Michigan, New York, and Minnesota. The Ontario government also considered restricting exports of critical minerals essential for electric vehicle battery production and related supply chains.

The situation reportedly culminated in early 2025 when President Trump declared a national security emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, implementing 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, with a lower 10% rate applied to energy imports. The order also included a suspension of the de minimis rule. Canada allegedly responded with targeted 25% counter-tariffs on select U.S. goods.

According to analyses from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the maritime city of Saint John, New Brunswick, followed by Calgary, Alberta, were identified as potentially facing the most significant economic impacts from these trade measures.

Reasons Behind Imposing Tariff on China and Canada:

The imposition of US tariffs on China and Canada stems from distinct economic and political motivations. Regarding China, the US government's primary concerns centered on alleged unfair trade practices, particularly in technology and intellectual property. The US Trade Representative's investigations highlighted significant issues with forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and cybersecurity breaches of commercial networks, estimating annual losses in the hundreds of billions.

These concerns were compounded by accusations of currency manipulation and state capitalism practices that allegedly disadvantaged US businesses seeking to operate in Chinese markets. The Chinese tariffs were implemented as part of a broader strategy to address what the US perceived as systematic market distortions and inadequate reciprocity in trade relationships.

In contrast, the more recent tariffs on Canada emerged from different circumstances. The measures, implemented through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, appeared to focus more on immediate economic leverage within North American trade relations rather than addressing long-term structural issues.

The implementation of differential tariff rates - 25% on general goods and 10% on energy imports - alongside the suspension of the de minimis rule, suggests a targeted approach to specific trade objectives. Unlike the Chinese tariffs, which were primarily motivated by technology transfer and intellectual property concerns, the Canadian measures seem to have evolved from broader regional trade tensions and immediate economic considerations.

Countermeasures in Trade Disputes: US-China and US-Canada Scenario

Trade law countermeasures refer to legally justified retaliatory actions taken by one state against another in response to internationally wrongful acts. Under WTO law, these measures typically involve suspending trade concessions or other obligations to address violations of international trade agreements.

US-China Trade Dispute

The China-US trade dispute illustrates classic countermeasure dynamics. When the US imposed tariffs citing intellectual property concerns and forced technology transfers, China responded with reciprocal measures:

• Proportional Response: China implemented retaliatory tariffs on US goods, carefully calibrating them to match US measures.
• Legal Justification: China filed WTO complaints arguing the US tariffs violated international trade obligations.
• Sectoral Targeting: Chinese countermeasures specifically targeted sensitive US economic sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

US-Canada Trade Dispute

The more recent US-Canada scenario demonstrates different aspects of countermeasures:

• Regional Integration Impact: Canada's threatened responses included strategic sectors (energy, critical minerals, liquor imports) that leverage deep North American economic integration.
• Multi-level Response: The involvement of provincial governments (Ontario) in proposing countermeasures shows how federal systems can amplify trade responses.
• Critical Supply Chains: Canada's consideration of restricting critical minerals for EV batteries represents a modern approach to countermeasures targeting strategic industries.

Key Legal Principles Governing Countermeasures

Key legal principles governing countermeasures in both cases include:

• Proportionality: Responses must be proportionate to the alleged violation.
• Notification: States must generally notify their intent to impose countermeasures.
• Temporality: Measures should cease when the wrongful act ends.
• Purpose: The aim should be to induce compliance with international obligations.

Legal Implication and System Stress

The ongoing trade tensions have put pressure on the GATT/WTO legal framework, revealing several weaknesses:

• Dispute Resolution Breakdown: The WTO Appellate Body's paralysis has hindered effective conflict resolution.
• National Security Loophole: Broad interpretations of GATT Article XXI have set precedents that could erode the rules-based trading system.
• Escalating Retaliation: The legitimacy and WTO compliance of countermeasures have become increasingly complicated, fueling cycles of retaliation.
   

Systemic Implications

The ongoing trade conflicts have exposed fundamental flaws in the international trading system:

• Ineffective Enforcement: The WTO's ability to enforce its decisions is uncertain, especially when major economies are involved.
• Outdated Framework: The current system struggles to address modern trade issues like digital commerce and state-owned enterprises.
• Politicization of Trade: The growing influence of politics in trade disputes undermines the WTO's technocratic, rules-based approach.

Conclusion:
Trade wars often reflect deeper systemic issues in international relations and global governance. Preventing such conflicts requires a multifaceted approach involving institutional reform, political commitment, and enhanced international cooperation.

A crucial initial step involves strengthening multilateral dialogue and creating early warning systems to identify potential trade conflicts. This must be paired with a modernized dispute resolution mechanism capable of efficiently addressing traditional and emerging trade issues.

The current international trading system, foundational to post-WWII prosperity, requires significant modernization to address contemporary challenges, including updating frameworks for digital trade, intellectual property rights, and state-owned enterprises.

Transparency is vital in preventing trade wars, necessitating clear guidelines for subsidies and state support, alongside standardized reporting requirements for trade-related policies. Building trust through reciprocity is equally important, involving balanced market access and joint standards development.

From a systemic perspective, preventing trade wars requires comprehensive institutional reform, sustained political will, and a balance between national sovereignty and international interdependence. The WTO needs substantial modernization, while major economies must prioritize systemic stability.

Looking forward, success in preventing trade wars requires both immediate practical steps and long-term strategic vision. Short-term priorities should focus on restoring dispute settlement mechanisms and implementing early intervention protocols.

Medium-term goals should address updating rules for modern trade issues, while long-term objectives must include building a more resilient and inclusive trading system. This approach recognizes that avoiding destructive trade wars is necessary and achievable.

The most effective path forward combines strengthened international institutions with flexibility to address legitimate national concerns. This involves developing sophisticated mechanisms for handling trade disputes, creating better frameworks for emerging trade issues, and fostering genuine international cooperation.

While challenging, this balanced approach offers the best hope for sustainable international trade relations in a complex global economy, serving the interests of both developed and developing nations in maintaining a stable and prosperous trading system.

Let me provide a comprehensive bibliography following OSCOLA format for this topic.

Bibliography:

1. Bagwell K and Staiger RW, The Economics of the World Trading System (MIT Press 2004)
2. Bown CP, Global Value Chains and Trade Policy in the Age of Trump (Peterson Institute for International Economics 2020)
3. Das DK, The World Trade Organisation: A Guide to the Framework for International Trade (3rd edn, Routledge 2019)
4. Hoekman BM and Kostecki MM, The Political Economy of the World Trading System (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2021)
5. Crowley MA, 'Trade War: The Clash of Economic Systems Threatening Global Prosperity' (2019) 324 CEPR Discussion Paper Series 45
6. Evenett SJ and Fritz J, 'The WTO's Next Work Program — As If the Global Economic Crisis Really Mattered' (2020) 14 World Trade Review 321
7. Hillman JA, 'Appellate Body Reform: The Long Game for the WTO' (2020) 54 Journal of World Trade 601
8. Lester S and Zhu H, 'A Proposal for "Rebalancing" to Deal with "National Security" Trade Restrictions' (2019) 42 Fordham International Law Journal 1451
9. Baldwin R, 'The World Trade Organization and the Future of Multilateralism' (2016) CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP11021
10. Bown CP and Irwin DA, 'What Might a Trump Withdrawal from the World Trade Organization Mean for US Tariffs?' (2018) Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief 18-23
11. WTO, 'World Trade Report 2023: Building Resilient and Inclusive Trade' (WTO Publications 2023)
12. UNCTAD, 'Trade Wars: The Pain and the Gain' (2019) Key Statistics and Trends in Trade Policy
13. Blustein P, 'China Inc. in the WTO Dock: Tales from a System Under Fire' (2019) Centre for International Governance Innovation, accessed 15 February 2025
14. Mavroidis PC and Sapir A, 'China and the WTO: An Uneasy Relationship' (2021) Bruegel Policy Contribution, accessed 15 February 2025
15. Jackson JH, 'The WTO Dispute Settlement System After Ten Years: The First Decade's Contributions to International Law' (Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington DC, March 2024)