Mona Paulsen
@monapaulsen.bsky.social
Assistant Professor in International Economic Law, LSE Law School. Specialisation in international trade law and economic security, in addition to research and teaching interests in international investment law, international development, and IPE.
Beyond ecosec alignment, some of these commitments involve sweeping denials of Guatemalan sovereignty, not to mention the efforts of poorer economies to protect their agricultural sectors. O/S questions: What if US standards are different from International ones? What kind of regulatory oversight?
November 14, 2025 at 8:05 AM
Beyond ecosec alignment, some of these commitments involve sweeping denials of Guatemalan sovereignty, not to mention the efforts of poorer economies to protect their agricultural sectors. O/S questions: What if US standards are different from International ones? What kind of regulatory oversight?
More US security agreements with a majority of DR-CAFTA signatories.
Ecuador commits to US economic security planning, TRQs for ag goods, commits not to impose DST, to abandon GIs on meet/cheeses. Interesting commitment on international IP though.
And for what? Qualifying doing a lot of work.
Ecuador commits to US economic security planning, TRQs for ag goods, commits not to impose DST, to abandon GIs on meet/cheeses. Interesting commitment on international IP though.
And for what? Qualifying doing a lot of work.
November 14, 2025 at 7:56 AM
More US security agreements with a majority of DR-CAFTA signatories.
Ecuador commits to US economic security planning, TRQs for ag goods, commits not to impose DST, to abandon GIs on meet/cheeses. Interesting commitment on international IP though.
And for what? Qualifying doing a lot of work.
Ecuador commits to US economic security planning, TRQs for ag goods, commits not to impose DST, to abandon GIs on meet/cheeses. Interesting commitment on international IP though.
And for what? Qualifying doing a lot of work.
I have a question - I couldn't find any record of this before, so is this a new development?
November 10, 2025 at 5:56 PM
I have a question - I couldn't find any record of this before, so is this a new development?
Fascinating - a sliver of why it's insufficient to argue that China simply "cheats" WTO subsidies disciplines. Rather, Chinese lenders operate in a far more complex way. No amount of navigating control of SOEs will account for this integrated, layered support.
www.aiddata.org/publications...
www.aiddata.org/publications...
November 5, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Fascinating - a sliver of why it's insufficient to argue that China simply "cheats" WTO subsidies disciplines. Rather, Chinese lenders operate in a far more complex way. No amount of navigating control of SOEs will account for this integrated, layered support.
www.aiddata.org/publications...
www.aiddata.org/publications...
From Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/the-...
Most debate centres on POTUS authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs, or the government’s interpretation of the law would be an unconstitutional excessive delegation of legislative power.👇🏻 reviewability Q vital too.
Most debate centres on POTUS authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs, or the government’s interpretation of the law would be an unconstitutional excessive delegation of legislative power.👇🏻 reviewability Q vital too.
November 5, 2025 at 7:39 AM
From Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/the-...
Most debate centres on POTUS authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs, or the government’s interpretation of the law would be an unconstitutional excessive delegation of legislative power.👇🏻 reviewability Q vital too.
Most debate centres on POTUS authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs, or the government’s interpretation of the law would be an unconstitutional excessive delegation of legislative power.👇🏻 reviewability Q vital too.
Distortion is not the right word. Presuming markets run free and have no state intervention, distortion implies a deviation from the normal. But if state-owned is a deviation, what value does that term add to the assessment? Good state-owned from bad state-owned?
November 3, 2025 at 7:49 AM
Distortion is not the right word. Presuming markets run free and have no state intervention, distortion implies a deviation from the normal. But if state-owned is a deviation, what value does that term add to the assessment? Good state-owned from bad state-owned?
Good thing the US still knows how VAT works.
October 26, 2025 at 11:55 AM
Good thing the US still knows how VAT works.
A reminder to advocates of using the EU ACI. Its scope is narrower than what might first appear. Certain concerns with respect to China may not be resolvable through the use of ACI. I acknowledge there is enough vagueness to make a good argument, but it is a responsive tool of last resort.
October 23, 2025 at 7:30 AM
A reminder to advocates of using the EU ACI. Its scope is narrower than what might first appear. Certain concerns with respect to China may not be resolvable through the use of ACI. I acknowledge there is enough vagueness to make a good argument, but it is a responsive tool of last resort.
And re-reading the many rationales for the controls (yes, subject to WTO disputes!), might also compare the official rationales then to today, noting how much more of a role retaliation plays. China may not be consistent with Art 23 DSU commitments not to take action into their own hands.
October 13, 2025 at 4:34 PM
And re-reading the many rationales for the controls (yes, subject to WTO disputes!), might also compare the official rationales then to today, noting how much more of a role retaliation plays. China may not be consistent with Art 23 DSU commitments not to take action into their own hands.
In reading Angela's piece again, I returned to the 2010 WTO TPR Secretariat report, which had identified the shift ToT in China's favour - perhaps today we may judge as weaponised interdependence. See WTO/TPR/S/230
October 13, 2025 at 4:34 PM
In reading Angela's piece again, I returned to the 2010 WTO TPR Secretariat report, which had identified the shift ToT in China's favour - perhaps today we may judge as weaponised interdependence. See WTO/TPR/S/230
Such a hard, abstract question! I've been trying to answer it as fairly and squarely as possible. But it's incredibly difficult when the proposed regulation suggests contradictory objectives -- both WTO renegotiation TRQ in schedules and these efforts to 'ringfence' steel from like-minded Members.
October 8, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Such a hard, abstract question! I've been trying to answer it as fairly and squarely as possible. But it's incredibly difficult when the proposed regulation suggests contradictory objectives -- both WTO renegotiation TRQ in schedules and these efforts to 'ringfence' steel from like-minded Members.
Remember, Brazil and the US are in consultations for the tariffs at the WTO too...
October 6, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Remember, Brazil and the US are in consultations for the tariffs at the WTO too...
And one of the largest lumber councils in BC have this when you visit their site:
October 1, 2025 at 6:36 AM
And one of the largest lumber councils in BC have this when you visit their site:
Ok so a few weeks ago, but this is the Canadian way of saying, Sit Down, Be Humble.
October 1, 2025 at 6:33 AM
Ok so a few weeks ago, but this is the Canadian way of saying, Sit Down, Be Humble.
Very helpful update ahead of this week. Bears emphasising that Director Kratsios' remarks reiterate that the United States' AI policies emphasise domestic oversight, leaving questions about international standards and global coordination between the US, China, and Europe.
September 15, 2025 at 7:08 AM
Very helpful update ahead of this week. Bears emphasising that Director Kratsios' remarks reiterate that the United States' AI policies emphasise domestic oversight, leaving questions about international standards and global coordination between the US, China, and Europe.
The world before investor-state treaty arbitration.
September 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The world before investor-state treaty arbitration.
Is it odd to see POTUS arguing wind turbines are 'scams' one month but then imposing higher tariffs on imported wind turbines?
www.reuters.com/business/ene...
www.reuters.com/business/ene...
August 22, 2025 at 1:17 PM
Is it odd to see POTUS arguing wind turbines are 'scams' one month but then imposing higher tariffs on imported wind turbines?
www.reuters.com/business/ene...
www.reuters.com/business/ene...
On an unrelated note, why do people like eating giant sea bugs (also known as lobster)?
August 21, 2025 at 6:00 PM
On an unrelated note, why do people like eating giant sea bugs (also known as lobster)?
While the framework offers some examples of traded products that fall under MFN terms, it's a non-exhaustive list. And I suppose it's a one step forward, three steps back situation, with the US respecting MFN but rejecting WTO reciprocity and its procedures for renegotiation.
August 21, 2025 at 5:58 PM
While the framework offers some examples of traded products that fall under MFN terms, it's a non-exhaustive list. And I suppose it's a one step forward, three steps back situation, with the US respecting MFN but rejecting WTO reciprocity and its procedures for renegotiation.
See reference in the joint statement:
August 21, 2025 at 5:34 PM
See reference in the joint statement:
Don't yet know the legal coding that will come into play to operationalise this framework. But I can't get past how the framework confirms the US's coercive raising of tariffs and calls it being on solid footing. Businesses didn't want a war, and the EU remains focused on the Russian invasion.
August 21, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Don't yet know the legal coding that will come into play to operationalise this framework. But I can't get past how the framework confirms the US's coercive raising of tariffs and calls it being on solid footing. Businesses didn't want a war, and the EU remains focused on the Russian invasion.
Ok. So this joint statement that the EU has already asserted is non-binding.
Why?
Because of commitments such as the following:
Why?
Because of commitments such as the following:
August 21, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Ok. So this joint statement that the EU has already asserted is non-binding.
Why?
Because of commitments such as the following:
Why?
Because of commitments such as the following:
Ah, the good ol' days, when the US Government worried about the plumage of certain birds.
August 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
Ah, the good ol' days, when the US Government worried about the plumage of certain birds.