Grading Trump’s China Trade Strategy

  • Steve CharnovitzEmail author
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR, volume 10)


Although much has been written about the ongoing trade war between China and the United States from 2017 to early 2019, this literature omits detailed examination of the substance of the US trade complaints about China. This article seeks to fill that gap in the literature by unpacking the 20 most prominent complaints that are being levelled by the Trump Administration. The article finds that half of the complaints involve behaviour that is contrary to WTO rules and yet the Trump Administration has lodged only three WTO cases against that behaviour. The Trump Administration justifies this omission on the ground that WTO dispute settlement is not capable of resolving legal complaints against China’s nonmarket economy and that many of the Chinese measures characterized in this article as WTO-illegal are actually permitted by the WTO. The article suggests that the real reason why the Administration chose not to bring multiple new WTO cases against China is that the Administration prefers to confront China with power-based measures in the form of unilateral tariffs. Moreover, robust WTO dispute settlement is viewed by the Trump Administration as unwanted international control over disguised trade protectionism long favoured by US trade officials.


  1. Aaronson S (2018) What are we talking about when we talk about digital protectionism? World Trade Review online, 6 Aug 2018.
  2. Chaisse J, Matsushita M (2018) China’s ‘Belt and Road’ initiative: mapping the world trade normative and strategic dimensions. J World Trade 52(1):163–186Google Scholar
  3. Charnovitz S (1993–94) Designing American industrial policy: general versus sectoral approaches. Stanford Law Policy Rev 5:78–92Google Scholar
  4. Charnovitz S (2001) The WTO and the rights of the individual. Intereconomics Rev Eur Econ Policy 36(2):98–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnovitz S (2008) Mapping the law of WTO accession. In: Janow ME, Donaldson V, Yanovich A (eds) The WTO: governance, dispute settlement and developing countries. Juris Publishing, Huntington, pp 855–920Google Scholar
  6. Charnovitz S (2010) Addressing government failure through international financial law. J Int Econ Law 13(3):743–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnovitz S (2018) How American rejectionism undermines international economic law. Trade Law Dev 10(2):226–269Google Scholar
  8. Chatzky A, McBride J (2019) China’s massive belt and road initiative. Council on Foreign Relations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding R (2014) “Public Body” or not: Chinese state-owned enterprise. J World Trade 48(1):167–190Google Scholar
  10. Ehring L (2014) Nature and status of WTO accession commitments: “WTO-Plus” obligations and their relationship to other parts of the WTO Agreement. In: Cremona M, Hilpold P, Lavranos N, Schneider SS, Ziegler AR (eds) Reflections on the constitutionalisation of international economic law, Liber Amicorum for Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 337–361Google Scholar
  11. Esty DC (ed) (2019) The labyrinth of sustainability. Anthem Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Haas R (2019) How a world order ends. Foreign Aff 98(1):22–30Google Scholar
  13. Kahn R (2017) Have sanctions become the Swiss army knife of U.S. foreign policy? Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
  14. Meyer T (2018) Free trade, fair trade, and selective enforcement. Columbia Law Rev 118(2):491–566Google Scholar
  15. Petersmann EU (2018) The 2018 trade wars as a threat to the world trading system and constitutional democracies. Trade Law Dev 10(2):179–225Google Scholar
  16. Rovnov Y (2019) The life and death of a non-recurring subsidy: the role of change in ownership of subsidy recipient. J World Trade 53(2):211–228Google Scholar
  17. Schoenbaum TJ, Chow DCK (2019) The perils of economic nationalism and a proposed pathway to trade harmony. Stanford Law Policy Rev 30:115–195Google Scholar
  18. Tooze A (2019) Is this the end of the American century? Lond Rev Books 41(7).
  19. Yamaoka T (2013) Analysis of China’s accession commitments in the WTO: new taxonomy of more and less stringent commitments, and the struggle for mitigation by China. J World Trade 47(1):105–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Washington University Law SchoolWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations