Justice Through Multilateralism: How the WTO Can Change Its Legacy of Asymmetry

In June 2025, Burkina Faso’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karamoko Jean-Marie Traore, declared that “supporting the multilateral trade system is a matter of justice,” a bold statement indeed—but one echoed amongst world leaders at the UN’s fourth International Conference on Financing for Development. At the same conference, Spanish President Pedro Sanchez stated that Spain’s priorities moving forward are “open science, equality and inclusion,” emphasizing the importance of reforms to the World Trade Organization (WTO), including shared development and the abolition of “unfair competition.”

In a world of increasingly isolationist trade policy, these declarations are more urgent than ever. But just how important is a commitment to multilateral trade systems for developing economies? Is it possible to reform international trade institutions, such as the WTO, to resolve a legacy of imbalanced and unfair trade policies? And what might these reforms look like? 

Burkina Faso’s history with the WTO offers an insightful lens into the successes and failures of the international trade institution. The state first became a member of the WTO under the status of ‘least developed country’ (LDC) in 1995. Burkina Faso’s economy remains undiversified, made up primarily of agricultural exports, with limited manufacturing capacity. Under this membership, Burkina Faso has become a recipient of various assistance programs, such as the Trade-Related Technical Assistance (TRTA), a participant in the Doha Development Agenda, and a member of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). 

Membership in the WTO integrates states into the network of multilateral trade. However, the benefits offered by the WTO to developing economies have historically been outweighed by “harmful imbalances“ between developed and developing economies. The largest deficiency of the institution remains in the insufficient concessions made by developed economies as they seek to continuously expand their market share, while only one per cent of the global export market share is composed of African economies. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS) implemented by other international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have sought to improve economic conditions in developing nations while introducing a new form of debt, hindering developing states’ ability to truly expand their presence in global markets. 

Despite these imbalances, there remains value to multilateral trade systems for developing states. According to Traore, a renewed commitment to multilateral trade is required to “act as a lever for development,” and “carry out broad changes in society.” Multilateral trade offers developing economies leverage power over their more developed counterparts through the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the institution, where all members have the right to file a complaint against trade policies to be reviewed by a panel of experts. Legal complaints present a “distributive tactic” as they require “unilateral policy change from the defendant”—meaning a bilateral solution is not necessary, and action is required by only one of the parties involved. 

For instance, in 2005, a cohort of West African states (including Burkina Faso) and Brazil came together to challenge a set of cotton subsidies implemented in the United States. Despite commitments to free trade made by the US, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increased cotton subsidies to American farmers up to 80 per cent. For states like Burkina Faso, which have committed themselves to liberal economic guidelines by limiting government intervention in return for foreign aid from the IMF, equivalent subsidies for farmers are unaffordable. As a result, US cotton subsidies lower cotton prices, reducing revenue from cotton exports for West African states. Brazil filed a complaint with the WTO, later joined by Chad and Benin as third parties, against American cotton subsidies, alleging that they violated WTO agreements. The WTO ruled in favour of Brazil in March 2005, ultimately causing the US to remove some of the subsidies. The mechanisms, including the Dispute Settlement Understanding, in place at the WTO allowed for “opportunities for weak states to achieve outcomes virtually inconceivable in its absence.” The effectiveness of this campaign indicates the importance of the dispute mechanisms of the WTO, shedding light on a crucial reform: the restoration of the Dispute Settlement System. Although it still exists, it has been defunct since 2019 when the US voted against renewing members of the Appellate Body. 

There remain several reforms with the potential to make multilateral trade more just. Through the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), it became evident that for developing states to increase their global market share, strengthened aid from wealthier economies is necessary. 

Launched in 2001, the DDA was established with the intention of reforming the international trading system in order to address the imbalances of existing trade rules and prioritize developing states. The DDA constantly faced stalemate as a result of developing states’ refusal to proceed with new discussions until certain topics were addressed, with developed states being unwilling to make concessions. 

Eventually, the DDA resulted in the adoption of the Bali Package at the 9th Ministerial Conference of the WTO in 2013. The Bali Package acts as the first multilateral agreement under the DDA, promising various components such as trade facilitation (TF), and measures to provide “duty-free-quota-free (DFQF) market access” to LDCs. 

TF implies provisions to “expedite the movement, release and clearance of goods.” In other words, TF was implemented with the intention of reducing trade costs of up to fifteen per cent in developing economies. While industrialized economies praised this agreement, developing states and LDCs recognized the stark imbalances in the agreement. Indeed, the Bali Package risks proliferating trade imbalances as developing economies do not possess the existing capacity to increase exports. In order for states that are not “export-ready” to benefit from the Bali Package, measures addressing not only TF, but tariff barriers, as well as technical and financial assistance from developed states, are required. While it is true that the WTO offers leveraging mechanisms for developing and LDCs, this offers no true value unless reforms are made to ensure equal benefit from multilateral agreements. 

Amidst growing uncertainty within multilateral trade, a pivotal moment is presented to determine the fate of global trade dynamics. While a commitment to multilateral trade systems can benefit developing economies, critical reforms must be made so that developed economies are held accountable through legally binding commitments and increased investment in developing economies. For multilateral trade systems to fulfill the promise of “justice” and societal change, the asymmetrical nature of trade agreements must be eliminated. The WTO can better fulfill its purpose by offering developing and least developed states a platform to determine the necessary reforms to achieve justice. The institution must prioritize equity: no longer can the voices of developing states be overpowered; they must stand at the forefront of decision-making in multilateral trade. 

Edited by Annabelle Zehner

Feature image: “Cargo containers on asphalt” by Kelly is licensed under Pexels.