The European Union, the WTO, and the “Rhetoric of Reaction”

This article examines the European Union’s response to the United States’ challenge to two pillars of the multilateral trading system: the Most Favoured Nation principle and compulsory third-party adjudication. Drawing on Hirschman’s analysis of the “Rhetoric of Reaction”, it argues that the United States has framed its attack to the WTO disciplines through claims of perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Rather than resisting this rhetoric, the European Union has increasingly echoed that discourse. Using the “Liberation Day” tariffs and the ensuing Turnberry “deal” as a test case, the article shows how the European Union moved from its firmer reaction to the 2018 Section 232 measures to a more deferential posture in 2025, including the acceptance of discriminatory tariffs and the decision not to initiate WTO litigation. The article contends that this shift weakens the European Union’s traditional role as a defender of multilateralism, normalizes departures from non-discrimination and dispute settlement, and risks accelerating the erosion of key principles of the WTO legal order.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Laws
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/laws15040096
Primary Topic
World Trade Organization Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The European Union, the WTO, and the “Rhetoric of Reaction”

Carlo M. Cantore
Laws
World Trade Organization Law
article

The European Union, the WTO, and the “Rhetoric of Reaction”

Carlo M. Cantore
article en

Abstract

This article examines the European Union’s response to the United States’ challenge to two pillars of the multilateral trading system: the Most Favoured Nation principle and compulsory third-party adjudication. Drawing on Hirschman’s analysis of the “Rhetoric of Reaction”, it argues that the United States has framed its attack to the WTO disciplines through claims of perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Rather than resisting this rhetoric, the European Union has increasingly echoed that discourse. Using the “Liberation Day” tariffs and the ensuing Turnberry “deal” as a test case, the article shows how the European Union moved from its firmer reaction to the 2018 Section 232 measures to a more deferential posture in 2025, including the acceptance of discriminatory tariffs and the decision not to initiate WTO litigation. The article contends that this shift weakens the European Union’s traditional role as a defender of multilateralism, normalizes departures from non-discrimination and dispute settlement, and risks accelerating the erosion of key principles of the WTO legal order.

LawsVol. 15(4)
Office of the Attorney General (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
World Trade Organization Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.