What is at stake at the WTO’s MC14? | Explained

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) will take place from March 26 to 29 at Yaoundé, Cameroon. The conference is the WTO’s highest decision-making body and generally meets once every two years. It is empowered to make all decisions on WTO law and to chart a path for the organisation’s future work.

What is the context in which MC14 is taking place?

MC14 is taking place amid rising geopolitical rivalry between the U.S. and China, ongoing global conflicts, and the mounting securitisation of international trade relations. Furthermore, trade multilateralism appears to be in retreat, while unilateralism is on the rise. The U.S. has, over the last year, launched a massive assault on trade multilateralism by weaponising tariffs. Arbitrary tariff impositions by the U.S. grossly violate the cardinal rules that underpin the WTO, namely the most favoured nation (MFN) rule, which epitomises non-discrimination, and the obligation not to impose tariffs beyond bound rates. The U.S. has also begun signing new, one-sided trade agreements with countries through tariff coercion.

Why is trade multilateralism reeling under a crisis?

There is a growing belief in Washington that the WTO, which the U.S. was instrumental in creating in 1995, has not served American interests well. The meteoric rise of China in the last two decades has significantly narrowed the gap between Washington and Beijing. Moreover, China’s accession to the WTO, which the U.S. facilitated, has not had the desired impact of disciplining Beijing’s state-led industrial policies.

Consequently, the U.S. now wants to eliminate all legal constraints that apply to it, such as WTO law, to take on the Chinese threat head-on. For this reason, the U.S. paralysed the WTO’s dispute settlement system by relentlessly blocking the appointment of members to the Appellate Body — the organisation’s highest judicial arm.

Another key reason for the crisis is the WTO’s inability to draft new trade rules due to consensus-based decision-making. Over the past three decades, the WTO has created only two new agreements: the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. The sluggishness in forming new trade rules has pushed countries to seek new venues for trade law-making, such as free trade agreements (FTAs).

What are the key issues in MC14?

A fundamental issue at MC14 is whether plurilateral agreements, such as the Investment Facilitation for Development, endorsed by over 120 countries, and the Agreement on Electronic Commerce, should be incorporated into the WTO rulebook.

Although the WTO is a multilateral organisation, it allows plurilateral trade agreements — agreements between fewer than all WTO members. These are typically included in Annex 4 of the WTO treaty. Plurilateral agreements bind only the signatories. However, for inclusion in Annex 4, such agreements must be approved by consensus among all WTO members.

Given the difficulty of achieving consensus, many countries believe that plurilateral agreements are the way forward to reinvigorate the WTO’s legislative function. On the other hand, a few countries, such as India, argue that inauguratingthe plurilateral rule-making door would open a Pandora’s box and lead to the fragmentation of the system. It will be riveting to see whether countries can break this logjam at MC14.

Another key issue is the WTO’s e-commerce moratorium. First agreed in 1998 and renewed every two years, this agreement among WTO member countries not to impose tariffs on electronic transmissions has benefited digital trade. This moratorium is set to expire on March 31. While the developed world wants it to be made permanent, the choice is not so easy for developing countries like India. Given the rise in digital trade, continuing the moratorium could lead to significant revenue losses for developing countries.

The 166 WTO member countries meeting in Cameroon are also expected to deliberate on issues of special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing and least developed countries (LDCs). SDT, part of the ‘WTO reforms’, recognises that, since not all WTO members are on an equal footing, special rights shall be conferred on developing countries and LDCs. The U.S. is keen to weaken the SDT principle by prohibiting larger economies, such as China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia, from enjoying special rights.

On dispute settlement reforms, it is critical to unequivocally demand the restoration of the Appellate Body to put the WTO’s dispute settlement system back on track.

The U.S. is also expected to use MC14 to challenge foundational WTO principles, such as the MFN rule. Developing countries that benefit from these principles should strongly oppose such efforts.

What should be India’s role?

India, which has always maintained its support for trade multilateralism, needs to walk the talk. It should regain its role as the normative leader for the third world by using the MC14 to articulate the importance of multilateralism and to forge alliances with other developing countries.

To do so, New Delhi should not shy away from re-visiting its deeply entrenched positions, such as opposing plurilateral agreements. India, along with other countries, should also consider other innovative solutions, such as electing Appellate Body members through voting. If MC14 fails to strengthen the WTO and promote trade multilateralism, it will represent a victory for America’s blatant unilateralism and its effort to establish a new global trade order rooted in coercion. This will be detrimental to the developing world.

(Prabhash Ranjan is a Professor and Vice Dean (Research), Jindal Global Law School. Views are personal)

Published – March 25, 2026 11:07 pm IST