ISDS Case Map
geopolitics
When the Trump administration imposed so-called "reciprocal," country-specific tariff rates in April 2025, it made clear that the measures were intended not only to protect US industry but also as negotiating leverage to extract bilateral concessions.
Governments need to be able to regulate to meet their domestic policy goals or internationally recognised sustainable development goals. That necessarily means that sometimes hard decisions will need to be taken which will affect foreign investments on their soil.
The unilateral actions by Trump in the US have exposed a highly skewed system where powerful economies essentially flex their muscles and weaponize trade instruments like tariffs to suit their own economic and political agendas.
On March 31, 2026, AsiaSat lost its authorization to provide satellite capacity in India, which prompted the company to fire a bilateral investment treaty trigger notice at the Indian government
What is often overlooked is the bigger picture of geopolitics and geoeconomics beneath bilateral trade, tariffs and non-tariff issues under FTAs.
Countries and social movements are rising to demand a renewal of genuine multilateralism—one based on cooperation rather than oppression, and on participatory democracy rather than opaque representation.
If the BRI’s pivot toward overseas manufacturing and cleantech represents the “hardware” of China’s economic statecraft, then its proliferating network of free trade agreements and related pacts provides the essential “software.”
The tariff increases – made in part to appease demands from Washington – have been designated a breach of trade rules by Beijing.
Canada’s trade diversification policy amounts to signing more old school free trade and investment deals as quickly, and with as little debate, as possible.
China sees an opening to turn President Donald Trump's tariffs to its advantage by reshaping global trade in ways that would insulate its $19 trillion economy from US pressure far into the future.
