Unilateral tariff measures by major economies undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system under the WTO. Examine in the light of recent U.S. tariff developments.

The WTO order rests on Most-Favoured-Nation treatment and bound tariff ceilings, which oblige members to extend equal, predictable treatment to all partners [1]. Unilateral, executive-imposed tariffs bypass this discipline entirely — and the recent U.S. episode shows the damage persists even when domestic courts eventually strike such measures down.

Erosion of core multilateral disciplines

• Country-specific "reciprocal" tariffs breach MFN and exceed bound rates, replacing negotiated concessions with bargaining power [1].
• WTO monitoring recorded a large increase in new tariffs through 2025, with merchandise trade growth projected to fall to 0.5% in 2026 [2].
• Retaliation by affected economies compounds fragmentation, raising supply-chain costs and hitting developing members hardest [2].

The U.S. developments: unilateralism by executive action

• A 10% baseline duty (April 5, 2025) plus a 27% additional duty on India were imposed by Executive Order, not by legislated tariff schedules [3].
• In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Feb 20, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held 6–3 that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs, applying the major questions doctrine [4].
• The administration's fallback under Section 122, Trade Act 1974 was struck down by the Court of International Trade (May 2026), though litigation and stays kept duties operative — proving that legal invalidation does not undo commercial disruption [5].

The enforcement deficit at Geneva

• With the Appellate Body non-functional since 2019 and 20+ appeals "into the void", the WTO could not itself restrain the measures; the MPIA, now with 61 members, remains only an interim bridge [6].
• Correction thus came from national constitutional law, not multilateral adjudication — a reversal of the system's design.

Drift toward bilateralism: India's response

• India negotiated a Bilateral Trade Agreement (2026), cutting duties on $30.94 bn of exports from 50% to 18% and $10.03 bn to zero [7].
• Domestically, the ₹2,250-crore Export Promotion Mission cushions MSME exporters and diversifies markets [3].

Unilateral tariffs therefore weaken the WTO twice over — by violating its rules and by exposing its inability to enforce them. The durable remedy is dispute-settlement restoration and WTO reform, which members have pressed at MC14 [6], with India simultaneously deepening export competitiveness and diversified partnerships. Rebuilding rule-based predictability, rather than reciprocal retaliation, best serves both global welfare and India's trade interests.