The United States’ ongoing obstruction of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Appellate Body has effectively rendered the global trade dispute settlement mechanism inoperative, raising concerns about the future of the multilateral trading system. Since 2019, Washington has blocked the appointment of new judges to the WTO’s Appellate Body, leaving the court without a quorum and unable to hear appeals. Under WTO procedures, the filing of an appeal suspends the implementation of panel rulings, meaning that cases remain unresolved indefinitely when appeals go unadjudicated.
More than 30 rulings by WTO panels have been stalled due to the absence of an operational Appellate Body. This paralysis has allowed losing parties to file appeals without consequence, postponing compliance indefinitely and undermining the enforcement of trade rules. Critics argue that a court without judges ceases to function as a judicial body and instead becomes a symbolic entity with little practical effect.
The U.S. government has justified its blockade by accusing the Appellate Body of exceeding its mandate and creating new legal obligations rather than interpreting existing ones. U.S. officials have also expressed concerns about systemic issues related to China’s economic model, describing it as a non-market system that manipulates entire industrial sectors to achieve global dominance. Despite these grievances, Washington has declined to propose concrete reforms or engage constructively within the WTO framework, choosing instead to wield its veto power to prevent the replenishment of the Appellate Body.
The impasse has forced the U.S. to adopt alternative measures, such as convening independent reviews of China’s WTO compliance through the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Observers note that this approach allows Washington to act as prosecutor and judge without a functioning multilateral tribunal, raising questions about the legitimacy and consistency of such unilateral actions.
Beyond the WTO, the U.S. approach to international law reveals a broader pattern of selective engagement. While benefiting from international legal frameworks, Washington often resists obligations it deems constraining. For instance, the U.S. signed but never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Trump administration escalated opposition by imposing sanctions on the ICC and encouraging other nations to withdraw, signaling a desire to diminish the institution’s authority.
Similarly, the U.S. has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but continues to reference it in disputes with China over maritime claims in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, U.S. enforcement actions such as Operation Southern Spear, targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels, have raised allegations of violations of international maritime and human rights law. A recent UN report concluded that lethal strikes in this campaign may constitute extrajudicial killings, a claim disputed by U.S. authorities on grounds of an ongoing armed conflict with drug cartels.
Experts contend that the selective application of international law undermines the coherence of the global legal order. Observers warn that when the United States enforces rules against others but exempts itself from similar constraints, the multilateral institutions designed to manage global cooperation face increasing challenges to their legitimacy and effectiveness.