Mona Paulsen
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.
- What strikes me most today in the news about coalitions, aside from the lack of details, is how governments continue to lend credence to what seem to be contradictory US policies. In letting the US lead global projects, we shift further away from very real questions about climate and inequality.
- What do we know from the EO on Critical Minerals? Not much. The EO suggests the problem is overbearing federal regulation, leading the government to pursue smarter regulation...but I do not see that as the goal.
- The scope is breathtakingly large. Far beyond mining and processing.
- Let's call this part: selecting national champions. Ripe for potential corruption and concerns of bypassing environmental impact assessments as vital steps for permits. Not to mention security concerns.
-
View full threadWaiving 30 day pauses...
- I completely disagree with the framing of coercion as pragmatism.
- “If trade officials were formerly too dogmatic about free trade, Trump is the opposite—excessively and ideologically attached to tariffs,” writes @petereharrell.bsky.social.
- and again ... bsky.app/profile/mona...
- And again… bsky.app/profile/reut...
- I mean there are other authorities available, sure, but some do not suit the stated objectives of the current IEEPA tariffs and most require investigation into a specific industry….so I wouldn’t say we’d see an immediate switcheroo. Otherwise IEEPA would never have into play to begin with.
- Again… I completely disagree with the framing of coercion as pragmatism.
- Framing mineral price volatility as a security concern signals a shift toward using trade policy to stabilize prices and sustain industrial capacity, writes @minerals.csis.org. csis.org/analysis/new-execut…
- Few short years ago, these kinds of actions would render a country ineligible for tariff preference programmes by the US.
- I have questions about the legal infrastructure concerning the US Government's price-supporting mechanisms and its ability to control volatility in world markets. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
- The Bloomberg report confirms that the stockpiling is for civilian consumption, which emphasises the fallacy of "strategic" materials. You can stockpile almost everything if you have the means. But at what price (thinking here economic and foreign relations)?
- Will other governments buy into the Vault and form a trust? Or will we see private producers and consumers enter a commodity cartel? How will the US Government address materials and inputs for dual-use products and related services?
- “General Motors announced Thursday it will eliminate approximately 500 jobs at its Oshawa plant …GM rep Wright denied any connection to US tariffs—and the associated persistent threats by President Donald Trump against Canada.” www.automotiveworld.com/news/gm-cuts...
- I just Need to sit with All and anything Catherine O’Hara What a gift. To laugh well. What a comic legend. Toronto improv queen. #SCTV
- Featuring my latest article on collective action through existing structures that encourage Members to cooperate, not coexistence, in pursuing shared efforts to redress volatile uncertainty.
- Reposted by Mona Paulsen
- Delighted to join Prof. Greg Messenger (Bristol) for Episode 83 of #TradeSplaining with Rob and Ardian to discuss the state of trade law and politics today, what businesses should actually pay attention to amid the noise, and what comes next... Find the pod here: pod.link/1525615736
- Reposted by Mona Paulsen[Not loaded yet]
- Reposted by Mona PaulsenAn unpopular opinion, I know. I'm not happy about it, because it means Trump has even more formidable coercive power at his command than tariffs. But the truth needs to be squarely faced. www.ft.com/content/a326...
- Reposted by Mona Paulsen[Not loaded yet]
- Reposted by Mona PaulsenDon’t bet on dollar dethronement ft.trib.al/gPTNw1X | opinion
- A race to lock the concessions in before the domestic authority granting Trump his stick yanks it away.
- Trump says 'we'll work something out with South Korea' after tariff threat reut.rs/4qIKtVj
- Reposted by Mona PaulsenFEBRUARY 4: Chrystia Freeland joins @ceciliamalmstrom.bsky.social to discuss the increasing weaponization of trade & threats of tariffs used for hardcore geopolitics, how it affects Canada, the upcoming USMCA review, & more. Info & register:
- Reposted by Mona PaulsenCanadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said President Trump’s tariff threats likely represent some prepositioning ahead of negotiations later this year to renew the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact.
- Wait, in response to these threats of 100% tariffs on Canada, what about Article 32.10 of the USMCA? Article 32.10(1) clarifies how USMCA partners may negotiate trade agreements with (undefined) non-market economies (NMEs). I dig into its provisions here: www.linkedin.com/posts/mppaul...
- That’s right. AIP not contravene art 32.10. Also NME isn’t even defined. Also there’s nothing in USMCA about maximal tariffs. Is the US threatening to terminate USMCA?
- How is this possible? I haven’t seen any official order clarifying these tariffs. Anyone else?
- Reposted by Mona PaulsenThe world moves on: "India to slash tariffs on cars to 40% in trade deal with EU, sources say" share.google/v8U7lshhQsi6...
- This would only make sense if all trade tensions were geopolitical. But over the past few years it’s not been about blind US-alignment. Far from it. So other economies concerns with the China’s export led model would remain. Would China work on its domestic policies and find compromises?
- Wha does the brutality and abuse of ICE authority have to do with voter rolls? Nothing.
- Look, Henry is always worth reading and this post is really great.
- www.programmablemutter.com/p/davos-is-a... If I can say so myself, this is a bit of a banger.
- As of 24/1/26 midday, there is news that the POTUS has threatened 100% tariffs on all Canadian goods. My first thought is: Well, I suppose we now know a bit more about how the AIP (detailed below) and the USMCA review this year might interact.
- Trump threatens 100% tariffs on Canadian imports if America's second-biggest trading partner makes a trade deal with China. cnn.it/49V7OvU
- My second thought is: Fine, let's move on from this threat. There's no obvious authority to impose such sweeping tariffs. It would be exceptionally messy. Would it include goods with US inputs? I think it's unlikely to happen, as POTUS cannot undo highly integrated supply chains.
- What does the threat suggest? I think, that the USMCA review is about to get bumpy -- even bumpier than before. And the more public perception grows wary of the United States (and its companies) this will prove harder for negotiators to find compromises.
-
View full threadOn the Canada-China AIP: www.linkedin.com/posts/mppaul...
- Well, I guess we now know more about the interaction between the AIP and USMCA talks. There's no obvious authority to impose sweeping tariffs. Unlikely to happen. This President cannot undo highly integrated supply chains across the Can-US lines in one tweet. The USMCA review is going to be bumpy.
- The more public perception grows wary of the US (& its companies), the harder it will be for negotiators to find compromises. It may also suggest that those who thought Chinese investment might be welcome in energy, autos, or other strategic sectors in the US right now may be wrong (for now).
