Stratos Pahis
@stratospahis.bsky.social
Associate Professor, Brooklyn Law School.
I teach and write about international economic law (trade, investment, sovereign debt), public international law, and arbitration.
I teach and write about international economic law (trade, investment, sovereign debt), public international law, and arbitration.
If it’s ham and Swiss, you must dismiss
November 6, 2025 at 9:39 PM
If it’s ham and Swiss, you must dismiss
The charge was baloney
November 6, 2025 at 9:13 PM
The charge was baloney
The fact that the administration chose tariffs instead of those other more effective means of restricting imports shows that revenue generation is in fact major purpose of the tariffs. Common sense and the President’s own statements lead to the same conclusion.
November 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
The fact that the administration chose tariffs instead of those other more effective means of restricting imports shows that revenue generation is in fact major purpose of the tariffs. Common sense and the President’s own statements lead to the same conclusion.
In any event, if the goal was actually to stop all imports--as the Solicitor General suggested--then quotas or blockades would be a much more effective tool.
November 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
In any event, if the goal was actually to stop all imports--as the Solicitor General suggested--then quotas or blockades would be a much more effective tool.
That argument strikes me as very weak and almost self-rebutting. The expected revenue from the tariffs is $2 trillion over the next decade. To call that revenue "incidental" is absurd.
November 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
That argument strikes me as very weak and almost self-rebutting. The expected revenue from the tariffs is $2 trillion over the next decade. To call that revenue "incidental" is absurd.
The SG also repeated more than once that the way you could tell these are “regulatory tariffs” is that they would be most effective in reaching their goals if no one ever paid the tariff (meaning they led to a complete halt to imports).
November 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
The SG also repeated more than once that the way you could tell these are “regulatory tariffs” is that they would be most effective in reaching their goals if no one ever paid the tariff (meaning they led to a complete halt to imports).
This argument is key to the government's case that IEEPA's language "regulate...importation" authorizes the tariffs here and that they pass constitutional muster.
November 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
This argument is key to the government's case that IEEPA's language "regulate...importation" authorizes the tariffs here and that they pass constitutional muster.
The Solicitor General emphasized over and over that the IEEPA tariffs are “regulatory tariffs” not “revenue raising” tariffs, and that any revenue was merely incidental to the tariffs.
November 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
The Solicitor General emphasized over and over that the IEEPA tariffs are “regulatory tariffs” not “revenue raising” tariffs, and that any revenue was merely incidental to the tariffs.
But yes of course if any former/current USTR folks want to speak on or off the the record, please DM me!
October 28, 2025 at 3:52 PM
But yes of course if any former/current USTR folks want to speak on or off the the record, please DM me!
Yes - I have had some helpful off the record conversations so far have confirmed the theory - not quite sure what to do with that in the paper though, since it's not quite scientific and in any event the paper obviously takes a different methodology...
October 28, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Yes - I have had some helpful off the record conversations so far have confirmed the theory - not quite sure what to do with that in the paper though, since it's not quite scientific and in any event the paper obviously takes a different methodology...
Very helpful to think through this - thank you - and more comments very much welcome!
October 28, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Very helpful to think through this - thank you - and more comments very much welcome!
But ultimately I think defiance would have actually threatened greater and more permanent damage to the institution by undermining its legitimacy - which (unlike appointments) is not something that can't be restarted on a dime.
October 28, 2025 at 3:38 PM
But ultimately I think defiance would have actually threatened greater and more permanent damage to the institution by undermining its legitimacy - which (unlike appointments) is not something that can't be restarted on a dime.
As far as defying being a less forceful, I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps more spectacular, yes...
October 28, 2025 at 3:38 PM
As far as defying being a less forceful, I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps more spectacular, yes...
But perhaps the US saw refusing to participate as a bridge too far - if so then the question becomes why? And I think that just brings us back to why would the US view the process as so important...
October 28, 2025 at 3:38 PM
But perhaps the US saw refusing to participate as a bridge too far - if so then the question becomes why? And I think that just brings us back to why would the US view the process as so important...
Yes - thank you - that is a great point that is worth unraveling. As I envisioned it, at least in its most extreme form, defiance would have included refusing to participate in AB proceedings, which would have made it no less costly than objecting to AB appointments.
October 28, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Yes - thank you - that is a great point that is worth unraveling. As I envisioned it, at least in its most extreme form, defiance would have included refusing to participate in AB proceedings, which would have made it no less costly than objecting to AB appointments.
Many thanks to @harlangcohen.bsky.social, @aratojulian.bsky.social Gregory Shaffer, Petros Mavroidis for their comments.
More comments very welcome!
Paper is available here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
More comments very welcome!
Paper is available here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
An Autopsy of the Appellate Body and the Rule of Law
<p>Once the “crown jewel” of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Appellate Body wielded compulsory jurisdiction over more countries and more agreement
papers.ssrn.com
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Many thanks to @harlangcohen.bsky.social, @aratojulian.bsky.social Gregory Shaffer, Petros Mavroidis for their comments.
More comments very welcome!
Paper is available here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
More comments very welcome!
Paper is available here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I close by drawing on those insights to offer three strategies for enhancing the resilience of our international institutions during this era of great upheaval, and for, perhaps, reviving WTO dispute settlement in the next.
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
I close by drawing on those insights to offer three strategies for enhancing the resilience of our international institutions during this era of great upheaval, and for, perhaps, reviving WTO dispute settlement in the next.
I then tease out various lessons from this account for international law and international trade law, including:
✅ The power and limitations of international law,
✅ The complementary nature of international legal theories,
✅ And the productive and destructive force of legal formalism.
✅ The power and limitations of international law,
✅ The complementary nature of international legal theories,
✅ And the productive and destructive force of legal formalism.
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
I then tease out various lessons from this account for international law and international trade law, including:
✅ The power and limitations of international law,
✅ The complementary nature of international legal theories,
✅ And the productive and destructive force of legal formalism.
✅ The power and limitations of international law,
✅ The complementary nature of international legal theories,
✅ And the productive and destructive force of legal formalism.
I examine how this highly formalistic culture may have been nurtured by international law generally and WTO law specifically, including by its rules on procedure, remedies, and membership.
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
I examine how this highly formalistic culture may have been nurtured by international law generally and WTO law specifically, including by its rules on procedure, remedies, and membership.
✅ And Constructivism suggests that the reason the US made that remarkable judgment was that WTO members had been acculturated to value formal compliance with the rules of the game more than the cooperative diplomacy that stands behind them.
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
✅ And Constructivism suggests that the reason the US made that remarkable judgment was that WTO members had been acculturated to value formal compliance with the rules of the game more than the cooperative diplomacy that stands behind them.
✅ Regime Theory suggests that the US chose its method of attack because it judged it would suffer fewer reputational costs from destroying the Body than from ignoring its decisions.
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
✅ Regime Theory suggests that the US chose its method of attack because it judged it would suffer fewer reputational costs from destroying the Body than from ignoring its decisions.
✅ Realism and Liberalism suggest that the US attacked the Body because domestic, international, and legal developments made the US’s compliance with Appellate Body decisions untenable—politically and geopolitically.
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
✅ Realism and Liberalism suggest that the US attacked the Body because domestic, international, and legal developments made the US’s compliance with Appellate Body decisions untenable—politically and geopolitically.
Here is the story that International legal theory tells:
October 28, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Here is the story that International legal theory tells: