New Article …. “Trump’s Tariff Wars.”


New article discussing President Trump’s tariff actions …………… Malawer, “Trump’s Tariff Wars and National Security — A Political and Historical Perspective,China and WTO Review (Sept. 2018).

| Leave a comment

International Lawyer Interview — Stuart Malawer

Interviewed by the editor of the Journal of East Asia and International Law (Spring 2018) as its International Lawyer of distinction. Interview for International Lawyer.

| Leave a comment



Trump’s Immigration Policy of Separation of Children from Parents and International Law —- Illegal?

     Lot of international law recognizing rights of children have developed since German actions during World War Two and Japanese Internment by U.S. during the war. For example, the 1951 Refugees Convention which the U.S. ratified. The Supreme Court needs to revisit the disgraceful Korematsu Case of the 1940s and end this illegal policy, now.

    It’s an affront to American values and international legal standards by the U.S. president. Seems to place the President and the U.S. as violating both treaty and customary international law.

     The courts should step in. Such law is the Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI of the Constitution. Trump’s actions are judicially reviewable. Executive foreign policy or national security arguments are simply bogus.


                                                         German separations during World War II.


| Leave a comment

Trump and an International Law Strategy — More Litigation?


Why is it that Qatar recently filed legal actions in both the World Trade Organization and the International Court of Justice to enforce its international legal rights (against the UAE blockade) and the Trump administration has filed no cases, whatsoever, in the ICJ and only 1 or 2 in the WTO concerning a myriad of perceived global grievances? 

     A number of cases have been filed against the U.S. in the both the WTO and in the ICJ and the U.S. has not responded by counter litigation.

   Wouldn’t filing such cases by the US be at least good optics supporting int’l litigation and judicial tribunals as a means of settling disputes rather than undiplomatic language, bluster, and unilateral threats?

     After all the U.S. was the primary architect of both the ICJ and the WTO which reflect U.S. exceptionalism and its defining adherence to a rules-based system and protection of rights by judicial mechanisms.    

   If you recall Iran recently filed a case against the U.S. in the ICJ concerning execution on its assets (of its central bank). This involved a case by private plaintiffs in U.S. domestic courts attempting to satisfy judgments against Iran for its acts of  international terrorism. Why hasn’t the U.S. responded by filing its own cases addressing a myriad of complaints against Iran?

    By the way even the Philippines filed a case against China over the South China Sea in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (which it won recently). Again why hasn’t the U.S. responded with its own case over law of the sea issues in the South China Sea?

     It seems to me that a legal strategy focusing on international tribunals is in the U.S. national interest. It is pursuant to historical American values of promoting the rule of law and reliance upon litigation to settle disputes. It would do wonders in giving U.S. diplomacy a firmer grounding in international law.

Of course, this would be a steep hill to climb by the Trump administration that has gone out of its way to terminate treaties, to lambast multilateral institutions and to almost totally neglect international judicial institutions.

    Nevertheless, such litigation would provide invaluable experience for the many lawyers in the U.S. Department of State before resigning and entering private practice.


| Leave a comment

WTO Cases & the Trump Era — U.S. becoming more active?

Here’s a quick review of WTO litigation concerning the U.S. (as either a complainant or respondent) during Trump’s presidency so far. 
The U.S. has been the respondent in 12 cases and the complainant in only 3 cases. 
Countries that brought actions against the U.S. have been India (1), Korea (3), China (2), Vietnam (2), Canada (3) and Turkey (1). Cases against the U.S. have involved §232 duties on steel and aluminum, §201 duties on washers and solar panels, §301 measures concerning intellectual property rights, among others. 
The Trump administration has brought only three cases in the WTO. One case has been brought against each China, India, and Canada. They have involved intellectual property rights, among others. 
What can be said so far at this point? 
Most of the cases brought against the U.S. have been by our allies or friendly states. Only two were brought by China. The cases the U.S. brought involved all but one against an ally or a friendly country. (The other was against China.) 
The U.S. is defending all the cases brought against it during the short Trump administration and has only belated filed a major case against China (in which China has responded by its own case). So despite the U.S. pronounced opposition to the WTO and its dispute resolution system the U.S. continues to use it. Becoming more active recently in defending cases and bringing them. That’s good — at least for now.
[June 3rd Update — Both the EU and Canada have recently filed cases against the U.S. for its imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 ‘National Security.’]
| Leave a comment

Trump and New WTO Litigation, Finally.

What passes as conventional knowledge and received wisdom in the Trump administration (better known as ‘Trump Think’ in Trumpland) concerning U.S.-China trade relations and the WTO (and particularly its dispute resolution system)?

Simply put it is two-fold – China has taken advantage of its WTO membership since its accession in 2001 and, in particular, it is useless to rely upon the WTO’s dispute resolution process to resolve disputes. This is because, according to Trump Think, everyone knows — China never observes the rules of global trade nor decisions of the WTO.  

Well, let’s look at “Just the facts” as my favorite detective Sgt. Joe Friday said in the long-ago TV detective show “Dragnet.”

What the facts are concerning China and litigation in the WTO with a focus on the U.S.

I want to start and end with the very short history of WTO litigation during the Trump administration. Three salient facts jump out.

One. The Trump administration never filed a case during its first year. It only belatedly filed one against China (concerning intellectual property rights) as part of its onslaught in spring 2018 to force China’s capitulation to its broad trade and investment demands.

Two. China responded to Trump’s trade demands by filing its own two cases against the United States. The first concerning the U.S. reliance on §301 unilateral retaliation to impose restrictions on a range of Chinese products because of alleged China’s violations of intellectual property rights. The second concerning U.S. reliance on §232 national security to impose restrictions on steel and aluminum imports from China.

Three. The recent action by the United States in the dispute resolution system is in the broader context of the Trump administration’s public disdain of the WTO and, in particular, its dispute resolution system. The Trump administration argues that system is a gravely flawed legal process that works against U.S. national interests.

One additional intervening event occurred and should be noted. The WTO issued a compliance report concerning a prior case brought by China against the United States. It found that the United States was not incompliance with prior recommendations concerning state owned enterprises are not necessarily a ‘public body’ for the determination of government subsidies. The U.S. is appealing this panel compliance decisions.

     What can be surmised from the above?

Despite the Trump administrations’ disdain for the WTO’s dispute resolution systems it is now participating somewhat in it, finally. This is a good development.

| Leave a comment

Constitutional and International Legal Issues — Trump’s Foreign Policy.

The interrelationship of public international law and U.S. constitutional issues is of paramount concern today. However, it’s unfortunate that neither universities nor public policy communities have fully grasped this in connection with the Trump administration actions.  

This is especially the case in light of unprecedented challenges to both the international and the constitutional legal systems that current United States policy presents. It is the Trump administration that has more than any other administration forced these issues to the forefront. They need to be addressed, now. 

To illustrate the above here are some issues that need to be examined by law professors and foreign policy experts…………. 

What is the President’s authority to terminate a treaty unilaterally when not complying with the withdrawal provisions of the treaty? (Keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution about terminating a treaty.) What if there is implementing legislation? Can the President still terminate a validly negotiated and implemented treaty? (Think about the TPP, the Paris Agreement or the Iranian Nuclear agreement. And Trump’s treats concerning NAFTA and the WTO.)

Since customary international law is deemed by the Supreme Court to be the supreme law of the land is the President bound by it? Can he ignore it? For example, by negotiating terms of international agreements that have been deemed unlawful? (Think about the voluntary export restraints in the new U.S.-Korea agreement.) Can the President violate customary international law (Article 52 of the Vienna Convention in the Law of Treaties) and threaten the use of military force in order to coerce another country to enter into an agreement? 

Think about the current Iranian and North Korea situations today and even U.S. trade negotiations with China. The Article 52 rule that voids agreements brought about by the threat or use of armed force was adopted to not give juridical recognition to the type of military threat by Nazi Germany in bringing about the Munich Agreement in the 1930’s. (And older ones with China.) 

What should be the role of U.S. domestic courts in the international legal system?  

Should courts limit the defense of sovereign immunity in actions concerning terrorism and torture? Should courts apply constitutional protections to actions by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies outside of the U.S.? Should courts be required to look to international law and foreign law in interpreting U.S. laws? To what extent should foreign plaintiffs (individuals and corporation) have standing to utilize U.S. court to enforce their international legal claims? (Think about international human rights violations.)

Constitutional and international law are most often taught as discreet courses and often dealing with esoteric and philosophical perspectives. It is necessary today to focus on the inter-relationship of these courses in the context of foreign policy issues. Both in a professional and real world context. This is the critical challenge today — for both these subject areas — in order to stay relevant.


| Leave a comment