Today, trade is no longer just about economics. It is increasingly used as a geopolitical tool. Tariffs are imposed as pressure tactics, and economic dependence is sometimes used strategically. In this context, the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Ministerial Conference (MC14), to be held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, Africa (March 26-29, 2026), comes at an important moment. The real issue is not whether the WTO needs reform, but whether it can adapt fast enough to stay relevant in a world moving toward more transactional and power-based trade relations.

WTO in turmoil

The WTO is facing its biggest crisis since its founding in 1995. Its dispute settlement system is still effectively paralysed because the Appellate Body appointments have been stalled for years. This weakens trust in the system, since rules matter only when they can be enforced. At the same time, WTO negotiations have struggled to keep pace with major shifts in global trade. Digital commerce is growing rapidly and now forms a large part of cross-border economic activity. Yet, WTO rules have not evolved at the same pace.

Decision-making has also become slow and difficult. With 166 members at very different levels of development, consensus is hard to reach and cumbersome. As a result, many negotiations produce limited outcomes and long-pending issues remain unresolved.

Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions and the growing use of tariffs as political tools have distorted markets. However, these problems should not be mistaken for irrelevance. Most global trade still operates under WTO rules. If enforceable multilateral rules weaken, global trade would become unpredictable and unstable. Smaller and poorer countries would suffer the most, because they rely on common rules to protect themselves from pressure by stronger economies.

The WTO’s challenges are also part of a wider shift in the global order. The Munich Security Report 2026 describes this as a move toward “wrecking-ball politics”, where countries prefer disruption and short-term deals instead of gradual institutional reform. In trade, this is visible in the rise of unilateral tariffs, economic coercion and bilateral deals that bypass multilateral commitments. If this continues, rule-based trade could be replaced by ad hoc arrangements shaped mainly by power rather than shared principles.

Global production has changed

Against this backdrop, the MC14 offers a chance not just to fix technical problems but to also restore balance between predictability and fairness. The original balance of rights and obligations in the WTO no longer reflects today’s reality. Emerging economies now export advanced and technology-intensive products, climate-related trade measures are expanding, and digital networks are reshaping how global production works.

Rules designed for a late 20th century trading system cannot fully govern a 21st century one.

Reform must start with restoring credibility to enforcement. Without a functioning dispute settlement system, commitments lose their value. Members need to rebuild a binding, trusted mechanism rather than relying mainly on temporary alternatives that lack universal acceptance. A robust dispute-resolution system helps remove politics from conflicts and keeps confidence in multilateral rules.

At the same time, predictability must go hand in hand with fairness. Long-standing disputes over agricultural subsidies, market distortions and unequal openness need transparent solutions. Many developing countries argue that while WTO rules ensure the rule of law, they do not always deliver the rule of justice. In other words, rules may be legally correct but still produce outcomes that feel unequal or developmentally unfair.

Reform should, therefore, improve transparency on subsidies, create credible responses to distortive practices, and revisit special and differential treatment so that it remains meaningful in today’s economic conditions.

Institutional adaptability is also important. The WTO’s structures were designed for a smaller and less complex membership, which contributes to today’s deadlock. Some countries are moving ahead in smaller groups on issues such as e-commerce, investment facilitation, and services. These efforts can help progress, but they must remain transparent, inclusive and connected to the wider WTO framework. Flexibility should help the system move forward, not divide it. If such initiatives remain open to all members and eventually become part of common WTO rules, they can support reform instead of fragmentation.

Ultimately, WTO reform is not only technical but also normative. The Munich Security Report warns that a world shaped mainly by transactional deals would favour the powerful and leave weaker countries vulnerable.

The choice is clear

The WTO’s value lies in preventing exactly this outcome by ensuring that trade is governed by rules rather than coercion. In an era of strategic competition, rules do not weaken sovereignty; they protect countries from economic domination.

The choice before the MC14 is crystal clear. Members can undertake serious reform, preserving the WTO’s stabilising core while updating its rules, procedures and developmental balance, or allow the system to drift further into fragmentation. Achieving reform will require political will and shared responsibility.

Rebalancing the WTO is ultimately about securing a workable framework for cooperation in a world where economic interdependence is still unavoidable. If the MC14 seizes this opportunity, it can show that meaningful reform remains the most credible path to sustaining global trade governance.

Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy is an Associate Professor, heading the School of International Relations and Peace Studies, and founding coordinator of the Centre for Bay of Bengal Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar. Anushka Padmanabh Antrolikar is a postgraduate scholar at Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar

Published – March 19, 2026 12:08 am IST

The India-United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) raises several questions regarding India’s commitments in the CETA’s intellectual property chapter (Chapter 13). A problematic article in this chapter is Article 13.6, “Understandings Regarding TRIPS and Public Health Measures”, in particular its first paragraph: “The Parties recognise the preferable and optimal route to promote and ensure access to medicines is through voluntary mechanisms, such as voluntary licensing which may include technology transfer on mutually agreed terms” (http://bit.ly/46zLEzj).

India’s agreeing to this provision would result in dilution of its position on two critical issues. First, India consistently backed the use of compulsory licensing as opposed to voluntary licensing, to address high prices of patented medicines. Second, India argued that advanced countries must transfer technologies to developing countries on “favourable terms”, for their industrialisation, and also for reducing their carbon footprints.

EXPLAINED | What does the new U.K.-India trade deal entail?

Issue of pricing

High prices of patented medicines are a serious anomaly of the patent system, due to excessive rent-seeking by patentees. Compulsory licensing of patented medicines can vastly improve the affordability of high-priced medicines by facilitating the production of such medicines. This was experienced following the grant of compulsory licence to Natco Pharma in 2012 for producing an anti-cancer medicine, sorafenib tosylate. The price came down to less than ₹8,800 for a month’s treatment, from the ₹2,80,428 charged by the owner of the patent on the medicine, Bayer Corporation (http://bit.ly/4lVTc4l).

For remedying such instances of excessive rent-seeking, India’s law-makers included compulsory licensing as a key safeguard while amending the Patents Act to make it compatible with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Both Houses of the Parliament unanimously adopted this legislation after a Joint Parliamentary Committee had carefully considered its provisions (http://bit.ly/4l7Z1uh).

Also Read | India, U.K. sign trade deal, PMs launch new partnership framework

Grant of compulsory licence

India’s TRIPS-consistent Patents Act allows grant of compulsory licence to anyone interested in producing a patented product in India, three years after the grant of a patent. This licence can be granted if: reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention are not satisfied; or the patented invention is not available to the public at reasonably affordable price, or the patented invention is not “worked” in the territory of India, implying, it has not been commercially exploited in the country (http://bit.ly/4lTSBjI).

Patent rules monitor “working” requirement and, accordingly, patentees must submit the working status of their inventions. They had to do so annually until this requirement was diluted through India’s FTA with the European Free Trade Association, with India agreeing that the periodicity of reporting “shall not be less than 3 years” (http://bit.ly/4o4NCxU). This dilution, has now been reinforced through the CETA, and it takes away an important ground for issuing compulsory licences.

By backing voluntary licensing to address the problem of access to medicines, India has, de facto, given up its position as a strong votary of compulsory licensing in the WTO. A coalition of developing countries, including India earned the right to issue compulsory licences through the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in 2001, despite strident opposition from advanced countries. The Declaration emphasised, “each Member has the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted” (http://bit.ly/3IUwjiW).

Voluntary licences cannot ensure access to affordable medicines due to the weak bargaining position of domestic companies in developing countries vis-à-vis dominant pharmaceutical corporations. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), a medical humanitarian organisation, observed that using the terms of voluntary licences, pharmaceutical corporations can set various limitations, including to control the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients, besides imposing restrictions on licensees. Therefore, options for getting affordable access are compromised when voluntary licences are used (http://bit.ly/3U0j6aQ). The MSF’s observations were proven when Cipla produced the anti-COVID drug, remdesivir, in India under a voluntary licence from Gilead Sciences, the owner of the patent on the medicine. The price of remdesivir fixed by Cipla for India was, in purchasing power terms, higher than that Gilead had charged in the United States.

COMMENT | The India-U.K. FTA spells a poor deal for public health

India’s demand will be affected

The CETA undermines India’s demand for technology transfer “on favourable terms” in several multilateral forums. This demand was first made through the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the New International Economic Order (NIEO) in 1974. A key aspect of the NIEO was the call for facilitated technology transfer from advanced to developing countries to promote the industrialisation efforts of the developing countries (http://bit.ly/41ejRRl). However, despite their best efforts, little progress was seen regarding technology transfer.

The disappointment of developing countries was reflected in India’s Fourth Biennial Update Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2024: “Despite substantial national efforts and investments, barriers like slow international technology transfer and intellectual property rights (IPR) hinder the rapid adoption of [climate friendly] technologies” (http://bit.ly/3H1ITfU).

As India has compromised its long-held position that technology transfer to developing countries must be on “favourable terms”, its demand for climate-friendly technologies from advanced countries could lose its sting.

Biswajit Dhar is former Professor of Economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. K.M. Gopakumar is Senior Researcher and Legal Adviser, Third World Network

Published – August 04, 2025 12:48 am IST

India plans to protest the European Union’s proposed carbon tax at the next WTO meeting. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

India plans to protest the European Union’s proposed carbon tax on imports of steel, iron ore and cement at the next meeting of World Trade Organization (WTO) later this month, saying it would emerge as a new trade barrier, two Government sources said.

India, along with South Africa and other like-minded countries, is planning to push its demand to rein in the European Union’s unilateral measure at the WTO’s Ministerial Conference (MC13), to be held in Abu Dhabi from Feb. 26 to 29, senior officials said.

“Any unilateral measures taken to combat climate change should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restriction on global trade,” one of the officials, with direct knowledge of WTO discussions, told reporters on February 7.

India had earlier decided to file a complaint in the WTO over the EU’s proposal to impose 20-35% tariffs on imports of high-carbon goods like steel, iron ore and cement, while raising the issue with EU officials in bilateral meetings.

EU’s carbon tax

The EU has said it designed the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) carefully so that it was compatible with WTO rules, applying the same carbon price on imported goods as on domestic EU producers.

India and China are among several countries that have aired concerns within the WTO over the EU’s carbon tax designated to prevent European industry being undercut by cheaper goods from countries with weaker environment rules.

“Climate change is a real issue, and knows no territorial borders,” said the second official. The officials declined to be identified according to government policy on discussions at international forums.

The Commerce Ministry, which is leading India’s negotiations at the WTO, declined to comment. The official said developed countries had missed an agreed annual target of mobilising $100 billion by 2020 for climate action in developing countries.

New Delhi has also opposed EU regulations banning the import of products based on deforestation in the country of origin, likely to hit billions of dollars worth of exports from India.

Members of the World Trade Organization will have a tough task ahead to make WTO’s dispute settlement system fully functional by 2024 due to divergent approaches proposed by countries like China, and the European Union, experts say.

On September 9, G-20 leaders expressed their commitment to conducting discussions for having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system of WTO by 2024.

Besides formulating norms for global exports and imports, the Geneva-based 164-member multi-lateral body adjudicates trade disputes among the member countries.

Also Read | Restoring the World Trade Organization’s crown jewel 

The dispute settlement mechanism of WTO has been derailed due to a non-functional appellate body since December 2019.

“We reiterate the need to pursue WTO reform to improve all its functions through an inclusive member-driven process, and remain committed to conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024, ” the G-20 declaration has said.

Trade experts said that all the members would have to work together to achieve this 2024 goal.

“G-20 members have agreed to pursue WTO reforms, specifically aiming for a functional dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024. Members will have a tough task ahead considering the divergent approaches proposed by the U.S., EU, China, India, and other countries,” think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) Co-Founder Ajay Srivastava said.

Trade expert and Hi-Tech Gears Chairman Deep Kapuria said G-20 leaders’ reiteration to pursue WTO reforms is a much needed political boost to the WTO Secretariat as they have now started preparing for the 13th Ministerial Conference.

Also Read | Dispute settlements that have no parallel 

“But what is more important is the leaders’ call to make WTO dispute settlement system functional and accessible to all members by 2024. Giving a deadline of 2024 would build pressure on WTO and its members to work out a system which is acceptable to all on priority basis,” Mr. Kapuria said.

Besides formulating norms for global exports and imports, WTO adjudicates trade disputes among the member countries.  There are two main ways to settle a dispute once a complaint has been filed in WTO — the countries can find a mutually agreed solution, particularly during the phase of bilateral consultations; and through adjudication which includes ruling by a panel and if not satisfied, challenging that ruling at the appellate body.

The main problem at present in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is its non-functional appellate body. The appellate body is WTO’s highest court.  It hears appeals of decisions made by WTO panels.

Mr. Srivastava said WTO member countries are supportive of reforming the appellate body, but they have different views on the specific reforms that are needed.

The U.S. has blocked the appointment of new appellate body members since 2017, arguing that the body has become too politicized and has overstepped its authority, he said.

He added that the European Union has called for reducing the number of members on the body and changing the way they are appointed.

“India wants to ensure that the appellate body remains an independent and impartial body, he said. The appellate body currently has seven members.  Some countries have proposed reducing the number of members to five or three. This would make the body more efficient and easier to manage,” another expert said.

Its members are currently appointed by consensus of WTO member countries. This has made it difficult to appoint new members in recent years. Some countries have proposed changing the appointment process to make it more transparent and democratic.

The U.S. has expressed concerns that the appellate body has become too politicized, Mr. Srivastava said. Some proposals have been made to strengthen the independence of the appellate body, such as requiring members to serve fixed terms and prohibiting them from lobbying for future appointments.

Further he said while all members stress the need for reforms at WTO, they differ on type and scope of reforms. “The key challenge in WTO reforms is to find a solution that is acceptable to all member countries. This is a difficult task, but it is essential for WTO to remain relevant and effective in the 21st century,” he said.

India submitted a comprehensive proposal to WTO on May 1 for improving the functioning of various WTO bodies/committees. The Indian proposal called “30 For 30” contains 30 suggestions that coincide with WTO’s completion of 30 years of functioning by the end of 2024.