Why the World Trade Organization "is dying" and how it's proposed to be saved
On 17–18 September, the WTO Public Forum 2025 was held in Geneva, aptly titled "Improve, Create, and Preserve."
The event was massive, bringing together over 4,000 participants to discuss pressing issues in international trade and the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) within it.
A central topic across many sessions was the future of the WTO, which remains highly uncertain, especially in the context of "trade wars" that began during Donald Trump’s first term and escalated further during his second.
Read more about the organisation’s challenges and proposals to improve its effectiveness, in the column by Angela Makhinova of Sayenko Kharenko Law Firm: Defending against Trump: can the WTO survive current attacks on global trade?
According to Makhinova, the forum organisers dedicated significant time to reminding everyone why the WTO is important in its own right.
Key positive characteristics highlighted included predictability, transparency and stability in regulating international trade, as well as effective dispute resolution through the WTO’s dispute settlement system.
Many sessions, writes Makhinova, focused on the WTO’s problems. Naturally, discussions began with criticism of Donald Trump and his tariffs imposed under national security pretexts, as well as new bilateral trade deals currently being signed under pressure from the United States.
"But there was also general criticism of the WTO itself. In particular, everyone agreed that the organisation has essentially lost its negotiating function.
Members barely managed to agree on the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement, which came into effect on 15 September. Everyone hailed this as a major achievement," says the Sayenko Kharenko partner.
Forum participants also noted that the WTO has become very rigid and unable to resolve urgent issues promptly. For example, regulations on e-commerce took more than five years to adopt, and not all WTO members have ratified them.
Another major problem today is the dispute settlement system, once considered one of the most effective, which is now non-functional.
Makhinova reminds readers that the Appellate Body ceased to exist in December 2019 after the United States began gradually blocking the appointment of new members.
"As a result, even if a panel of experts reviews a dispute, any appeals that follow leave decisions ‘suspended’ indefinitely, creating an atmosphere of ‘impunity and lawlessness’ at the WTO," explains Makhinova.
She notes that forum participants agreed that the WTO remains indispensable, but, unfortunately, there is currently no universal solution to revive the organisation.
Many discussed the need to change WTO decision-making procedures.
"Unfortunately, almost everyone agrees that consensus on all issues is unlikely going forward, given the 166 WTO members with widely differing interests. There is active discussion about replacing consensus with either a two-thirds vote or a simple majority, at least on certain issues," writes Makhinova.
Another proposed solution is to pursue plurilateral agreements, agreements that would apply only to the members that sign them, rather than multilateral agreements binding all WTO members.
Makhinova concludes that the forum did not present any radically new ideas capable of effectively and quickly reforming the WTO.