Editor's note: Hu Jianguo is a senior researcher at the Institute of Chinese Path to Modernization and associate professor at the School of Law, Nankai University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN. It has been translated from Chinese and edited for brevity and clarity.

Recently, the US government has resorted to imposing unilateral tariffs on its trade partners, reflecting a transactional approach that essentially amounts to unilateral bullying, marked by strong protectionist characteristics. On April 13, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce commented on the US's exemption of certain products from "reciprocal tariffs", describing it as a small step toward correcting its erroneous unilateral practice of "reciprocal tariffs".

The US's imposition of additional tariffs is a serious violation of core obligations and basic principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including tariff concession commitments and the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) principle. These measures cannot be exempted under the WTO exception clauses. As indicated by WTO case law, a trade-restricting measure that breaches WTO rules can only be justified under certain exceptions if it meets two conditions: the objective is legitimate and the means are appropriate. 

The panel in the US Section 301 tariff case (DS543) held that 301 tariffs must be closely related to goods that genuinely raise concerns about public morals in the US (such as products allegedly infringing US intellectual property rights), thereby implicitly rejecting the US's justification based on "economic pressure." As such, using tariffs or tariff threats to achieve other policy objectives lacks legitimacy within the WTO framework. 

Regarding national security measures, the panel in the Saudi Arabia Intellectual Property Rights case (DS567) ruled that such measures must bear a reasonable connection to the actual situation alleged to threaten national security. While the policy objectives and principles cited by the US, such as public health and national security concerns, might seem legitimate, its unilateral tariff measures do not meet the criteria for WTO exceptions as a specific means for achieving these policy objectives. 

The US has long employed its transactional art in international interactions and relations, leveraging maximum pressure tactics to secure advantages. Tariffs are viewed by the US as vital bargaining chips in negotiations. Previously, the US successfully achieved some of its goals with the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. For example, it updated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and forced South Korea to accept steel export quotas explicitly prohibited under the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Similarly, the US has previously used tariff threats to compel Colombia to accept conditions for repatriating illegal immigrants. Now, the US has announced sweeping tariffs on global steel and aluminum products with no exceptions, once again striking its trade partners with tariff measures. Its selfishness is laid bare.

The US government's repeated use of tariffs is damaging its economic and trade relations with partners and disrupting the global trading order. These actions have sparked growing concerns in the international community about the future of global economic growth.