Policy Space

Analytical Note, 10 July 2026

Into the Void: The Inflation Reduction Act Panel Ruling and the Crisis of WTO Reform

By Vahini Naidu

On 30 January 2026, a WTO Panel ruled that the domestic content bonus credits under the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act violated the GATT 1994, the TRIMs Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. The United States appealed the ruling to a non-functional Appellate Body, sending it into a legal void. Read against the backdrop of WTO reform discussions that culminated at the Fourteenth Ministerial Conference in Yaoundé in March 2026, the ruling is far more than a bilateral dispute. It exposes the central contradictions in the reform agenda: the Members most vocally demanding new disciplines on others’ subsidy practices have themselves demonstrated both the willingness to operate prohibited measures and the capacity to do so without meaningful consequence. This paper unpacks the Panel’s findings, situates them within the post MC14 reform process, and draws out the implications for developing countries. It argues that the Level Playing Field track must be reframed around compliance symmetry and policy space; that dispute settlement restoration must be decoupled from other reform tracks; that the African Group’s call for reinstatement of non-actionable subsidy categories under Article 8 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) is the most operationally precise developing country proposal currently on the table; and that the United States’ parallel push to render Article XXI(b) fully self-judging threatens to create a zone of immunity for industrial policy that is structurally unavailable to the majority of developing countries.

(more…)

Investment Policy Brief 20, January 2021

Countries’ Policy Space to Implement Tobacco Packaging Measures in the Light of Their International Investment Obligations: Revisiting the Philip Morris v. Uruguay Case

By Alebe Linhares Mesquita and Vivian Daniele Rocha Gabriel 

This Policy Brief aims to provide a concise analysis of the international investment dispute involving Philip Morris subsidiaries and the Republic of Uruguay. It depicts the main legal and political background that preceded the case, analyzes the decision reached by the arbitral tribunal, and assesses the award’s major regulatory and policy implications. It intends to contribute to the discussions on how and to what extent States can adopt tobacco control measures without violating their international obligations to protect the investment and intellectual property of tobacco companies. The main lesson that can be learned from the analysis of the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case is that investors rights are not absolute and can be relativized when there is a clash between private and public interests, such as in the case of public health. As a result, claims such as indirect expropriation and fair and equitable treatment can be dismissed. Finally, one of the main consequences is the progressive change in the design of international investment treaties, containing more provisions related to the right to regulate.

(more…)