Sign in Subscribe
By Simon Lester in Trade Remedies — — Share

A Sudden Surge of Safeguard Investigations

I don't follow domestic safeguard investigations that closely, but I noticed some coming out of places that don't do them very often (e.g., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand), so I wondered if there had been an overall increase recently. Based on this Excel spreadsheet compiled by the WTO with data from 1995-2025, along with the safeguard notifications announced by the WTO this year, the answer seems to be yes.

If I'm counting the 2026 announcements correctly, there have been 21 safeguard investigations initiated by WTO Members so far this year. This puts us on pace to see the most investigations initiated by WTO Members in a year, surpassing the 34 in 2002. The figures for 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 were 4, 12, 16, and 14, respectively. (The WTO spreadsheet doesn't have data on the GATT-era).

What to make of this development? While I'm not a fan of protectionism in general, safeguards are probably my favorite kind because they constitute – as people say, although I can't find a quote – "honest protectionism." There are no suspect methodologies or accusations of "unfair trade." Rather, safeguard measures are simply an acknowledgement that the domestic industry is having trouble competing with imports and needs some temporary protection to help it out.

It will be interesting to see if any of the safeguard measures that result from these investigations are challenged in WTO dispute settlement. Some of the past WTO disputes on safeguard measures were a source of controversy due to interpretations by the Appellate Body. With dispute settlement now having been disrupted by the blockage of Appellate Body appointments and the emergence of the MPIA, there may be an opportunity to revisit the jurisprudence. We have already seen that the MPIA was willing to revisit the AD Agreement standard of review. It's possible that a fresh look at various elements of the GATT Article XIX/Safeguards Agreement analysis could lead to new thinking as well.

Of the WTO Members notifying safeguard investigations so far this year, the following are parties to the MPIA: Australia (fabricated structural steel), Canada (certain wood goods / certain vegetable goods), the EU (grain-oriented electrical steel), New Zealand (certain aluminium extrusions), and the Philippines (ceramic tiles / rice). Depending on the outcomes of the investigations by these WTO Members, other MPIA-party WTO Members faced with the resulting safeguard measures might bring formal WTO complaints, which could give the MPIA arbitrators a chance to weigh in here.

Products covered by the other notified investigations are:

  • office paper (South Africa)
  • motor car pneumatic tyres (Russia)
  • soda ash (India)
  • certain juices, nectars and non-alcoholic beverages (Madagascar)
  • certain tableware, kitchenware, and household and packaging articles (Madagascar)
  • certain types of rice (Morocco)
  • fibreboards (Zimbabwe )
  • doors (Zimbabwe)
  • tinplate (Russia)
  • dry pastries and breakfast cereals (Madagascar)
  • plastic pipes and tubes and accessories (Madagascar)
  • polyethylene terephthalate resin (Türkiye)
  • terephthalic acid (Türkiye)
  • other paper and paperboard (Türkiye)

If there's a pattern here in the types of products being targeted, I can't make it out, and I'm not sure what explains this surge in safeguard investigations. Exports by China are surely a part of it, but there could be other factors as well.