The evolving landscape of global trade is undergoing a significant transformation as it shifts from a unipolar system dominated by the United States (U.S.) to a multipolar framework characterized by the emergence of new economic powers, particularly China, India, and Brazil. This transition is not just a mere change in economic dominance; it heralds a profound restructuring of trade patterns influenced by the establishment of strategic alliances such as BRICS+ and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).[1] As these nations assert their influence, the balance of power within the global trade ecosystem is being recalibrated, prompting a reevaluation of established norms and practices.

Concurrently, advancements in technology are playing a pivotal role in this transformation, with digital trade revolutionizing how goods and services are exchanged, fintech innovations streamlining financial transactions, and artificial intelligence (AI) optimizing supply chain management. However, this multipolar trade world does not come without its challenges; geopolitical tensions, rising protectionism, and the threat of economic fragmentation pose significant risks to the stability and predictability of international commerce. Nevertheless, this environment also presents unique opportunities for smaller economies to navigate and leverage the shifting dynamics to their advantage.

This paper aims to critically analyze these multifaceted changes, exploring how emerging economies and technological advancements are reshaping global trade patterns while addressing inherent challenges and identifying strategies for resilience and growth in a complex global economy. Through case studies and future scenarios, we seek to provide valuable insights for policymakers, businesses, and institutions aiming to thrive in this new era of global trade.

The Rise of Emerging Economic Powers in Global Trade

How are China, India, and Brazil influencing current trade patterns?

The influence of China, India, and Brazil on current trade patterns is multifaceted, reflecting both their growing economic capacities and strategic positioning within global economic frameworks. These nations have significantly impacted the World Trade Organization (WTO), challenging the established order and contributing to a breakdown of multilateralism within the organization.[2] This shift is part of a broader power struggle, as these emerging economies increasingly contest the traditional dominance of the U.S. and other developed nations. As a result, international governance organizations have undergone changes to better represent and incorporate the interests of these major growing economies. Their rise is not only altering trade relations but is also contributing to the evolution of the global economy, as they demand a more equitable role in shaping trade rules and policies.[3] The economic advancements of China and India, in particular, have been notable, with both countries experiencing above-average growth in industrial value added, which further underscores their increasing influence on global trade dynamics.[4] This ongoing evolution necessitates strategic adjustments in international trade policies and practices as the balance of economic power continues to shift toward these emerging economies.

What role do alliances such as BRICS+ and RCEP play in this shift?

Alliances such as BRICS+ and RCEP are pivotal in redefining global trade dynamics, particularly in the context of the shifting power balance between emerging economies and traditional powers. BRICS+ serves as a framework that not only expands the set of alliances for member countries but also leverages existing trade or investment agreements to foster multilateral cooperation within an enlarged group, thereby enhancing global trade integration.[5] By incorporating key regional integration blocks like MERCOSUR, SACU (South African Custom Union), and EEU (Eurasian Economic Union), BRICS+ forms a crucial “regional rim” of partnerships, facilitating a collaborative environment that strengthens the influence of member countries in global economic affairs.

Additionally, the BRICS+ initiative emphasizes inclusiveness and diversity, aiming to create alliances that are comprehensive and representative of major regions across the developing world, thus challenging existing hegemonies and contributing to a more balanced international trade order.[6] These efforts underscore the potential of BRICS+ and RCEP not only to redefine trade patterns but also to establish a new global platform for economic integration, promoting a multipolar world that diminishes the dominance of traditional Western powers. As these alliances continue to evolve, they could play a crucial role in coordinating trade strategies and fostering cooperation frameworks that bridge the gap between developing and developed nations, thereby necessitating ongoing dialogue and collaboration to ensure equitable and sustainable growth. 

How is the balance of power changing in the global trade landscape?

The shifting balance of power in the global trade landscape can be seen in the dynamics within the WTO, where emerging powers have progressively altered the traditional power structures. The collapse of the Doha Round serves as a watershed event, marking a significant breakdown in the WTO’s core negotiating function and highlighting the transforming power dynamics at play.[7] Emerging economies such as Brazil, India, and China have played pivotal roles in this transformation, effectively challenging the previously unchallenged dominance of developed countries like the U.S. and the European Union (EU). These emerging powers have consolidated their influence by forming strategic coalitions and alliances, such as the G20-T, G33, and G77+China, which have been instrumental in reshaping negotiation roles and countering the aggressive stances of traditional powers. The concerted effort by developing nations to assert their agendas underscores a new era of multipolarity in global trade, where power is more dispersed and no single entity can unilaterally dictate terms.[8] This evolving landscape necessitates renewed strategies for cooperation and negotiation, reflecting a more inclusive and equitable balance of power in the global trade system.

The Role of Technology in Reshaping Global Supply Chains

In what ways is digital trade transforming international commerce?

Digital trade is fundamentally reshaping international commerce by introducing digital technology multinational enterprises (digital economy MNEs) that are actively transforming both the manufacturing and service sectors.[9] These enterprises prioritize non-physical assets, such as data and intellectual property, over traditional physical assets, leading to a shift toward asset-light forms of international production. This shift is not only redefining the competitive strategies of businesses but also altering global value chains (GVCs) as technological advancements facilitate new forms of digital trade and disrupt traditional commercial practices.

The digitization associated with Industry 4.0 further influences this transformation by changing the nature of tasks performed by machines versus humans, which in turn affects the geographic distribution of production and the interactions among buyers and suppliers. As a result, the “lightness” attributed to digital economy MNEs might suggest a wider trend towards increased “lightness” across various industries, potentially influencing development outcomes across different regions.[10] This ongoing transformation in digital trade underscores the need for regions to adapt by fostering technological capabilities and rethinking traditional economic models to harness the benefits of a rapidly digitizing global economy. 

How are fintech innovations impacting global trade operations?

Fintech innovations are playing a fundamental role in reshaping global trade operations, much like the economic rise of emerging markets is challenging traditional powers in the WTO.[11] These innovations are not only altering the landscape of financial services but are also streamlining global trade processes. The fintech industry is striving to create a unified medium of exchange and comprehensive apps for global transactions, aiming to simplify and expedite trade operations worldwide.[12] This transformation is particularly significant as it parallels the shifts in economic power dynamics seen with the modernization and market reforms in countries like China and India.

Additionally, fintech’s influence extends to optimizing supply chain finance (SCF), introducing new business models that improve operational performance and efficiency, which is crucial for maintaining competitiveness in a rapidly changing global market.[13] As fintech continues to evolve, it presents both challenges and opportunities, necessitating strategic adaptations by global trade stakeholders to harness its full potential and maintain a competitive edge.

What influence is AI having on supply chain management?

In the complex framework of global supply chain management, AI emerges as a pivotal force in enhancing operational resilience and efficiency. The integration of AI into supply chains has been particularly influential in managing disruptions, a vital capability underscored by the recent challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.[14] AI not only bolsters supply chain resilience by improving visibility and transparency across various phases but also enhances readiness, response, recovery, and adaptability, thereby ensuring a robust continuity of operations. Furthermore, AI contributes significantly to optimizing sourcing and distribution capabilities, which are crucial for maintaining uninterrupted supply chain activities, especially in volatile market conditions.[15]

This technological advancement aids firms in mitigating risks by providing real-time insights and facilitating agile decision-making processes, thus reducing the risk of disruptions.[16] Ultimately, the strategic incorporation of AI within supply chains not only fortifies them against unforeseen disturbances but also fosters dynamic capabilities that are essential for long-term sustainability and growth. Such advancements highlight the need for continuous innovation and collaboration among supply chain networks to fully leverage AI’s potential, ensuring that businesses remain competitive and resilient in an ever-evolving global market.[17]

Challenges and Opportunities in a Multipolar Trade World

How do geopolitical tensions affect global trade dynamics?

Geopolitical tensions have introduced significant complexity into global trade dynamics, with profound implications for multilateral trade policies and economic alliances. The EU, for instance, finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with the intricacies of formulating and implementing effective trade policies amid a backdrop of escalating geopolitical strains.[18] The challenges faced by the EU in this regard are not merely superficial but are fundamental and potentially enduring, as these tensions continue to evolve and influence global trade landscapes. A critical aspect of addressing these challenges lies in maintaining unity within the EU’s trade policy framework, which acts as a shield against the destabilizing effects of geopolitical tensions. This need for cohesion is underscored by the shifting geopolitical landscape, where major powers such as China are asserting greater influence, thereby introducing new challenges and necessitating a reevaluation of existing multilateral trade agreements.[19]

Additionally, the increasing trend towards unilateralism and protectionism, particularly by influential players like the U.S., further complicates the global trade environment, necessitating adaptive strategies to safeguard international trade and investment frameworks. To navigate these turbulent waters effectively, it is imperative that global trade policies evolve to enhance resilience and adaptability, ensuring that they are robust enough to withstand the multifaceted challenges posed by ongoing geopolitical tensions.[20]

What strategies can smaller economies employ to thrive in this environment?

Considering the shifting global trade dynamics dominated by major players like China, India, and Brazil, smaller economies must adopt a multi-faceted strategy to ensure their survival and growth. A critical approach involves forming strategic partnerships and entering into trade agreements, which can enhance their market access and competitiveness on the global stage.[21] These partnerships not only allow smaller economies to tap into larger markets but also help in diversifying their economic dependencies, thereby reducing vulnerability to external shocks. Concurrently, engaging in dialogue with larger economies and international organizations is imperative to clearly articulate their unique needs and challenges within the global trade context.[22]

This dialogue can pave the way for technical assistance and capacity-building support, enabling smaller economies to better adapt to the rapidly changing trade environment. Furthermore, building coalitions and alliances is vital for amplifying their voices during negotiations, thereby gaining a stronger influence over trade policies that affect them. Such coalitions can act as a counterbalance to the dominance of larger economies, fostering a more equitable trading system. Ultimately, these strategies not only empower smaller economies to thrive in a competitive global market but also contribute to a more balanced and inclusive international trade regime.

How might protectionism and economic fragmentation impact future trade relationships?

The evolving landscape of global trade, marked by protectionism and economic fragmentation, poses significant challenges to future trade relationships. As globalization shows signs of retreat, there is an increased likelihood of protectionist measures reshaping international trade dynamics.[23] This shift is not only influenced by economic considerations but is also deeply intertwined with geopolitical factors leading to economic disintegration. Such fragmentation could result in a transition from prioritizing efficiency in global value chains to ensuring their resilience, thus altering the structure and nature of future trade relationships. For instance, the slowing growth of international trade is likely to lead to more fragmented trade relationships, complicating global economic interactions, and making it more difficult to establish cohesive trade policies. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for anticipating and navigating the potential impacts of protectionism on future trade policies, thereby ensuring that countries can adapt to the changing global economic environment.[24] This necessitates a strategic approach that balances protectionist tendencies with the need for international cooperation and integration to maintain a stable global trade system.

Impact of the Second Trump Presidency on Global Trade

How might “America First” policies affect bilateral trade deals?

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency signals a renewed emphasis on his signature “America First” policy, which reshaped global trade in his first term. With Trump’s re-election, many anticipate a further retreat from multilateral trade agreements and an even greater focus on protecting American industries and jobs. In a multipolar world, where economic influence is increasingly shared among countries like the U.S., China, India, and the EU, a second Trump presidency could lead the U.S. to prioritize bilateral deals and protective measures such as tariff barriers and quotas. Proposed policies include a baseline tariff of 10-20% on all imports, with targeted tariffs reaching up to 60% on Chinese goods, 100% on electric vehicles from China, and 50% on semiconductors and solar panels. Additionally, Trump has suggested a 100% tariff on cars manufactured in Mexico, aimed at curbing efforts by Chinese automakers to use Mexico as a hub to bypass U.S. tariffs. These measures reflect a continuation of the unilateral trade strategies seen in his first term, signaling heightened protectionism and potential trade tensions in the years ahead.

This approach may further disrupt established global trade frameworks, favoring direct, one-on-one trade agreements over large, multilateral deals. By prioritizing American economic independence and reducing reliance on international supply chains, Trump’s second term may catalyze a shift toward a fragmented, regionalized trade environment where alliances shift to adapt to a complex global landscape of competing powers.

The “America First” policy has significant implications for the negotiation and sustainability of bilateral trade deals, primarily due to their emphasis on prioritizing American interests, which may lead to complex challenges in reaching mutually beneficial agreements.[25] For instance, these policies often focus on unilateral actions, such as raising tariff barriers, which can disrupt trade dynamics and compel other nations to retaliate against the U.S.[26] As an outcome, trade partners might seek alternative relationships, potentially forming new alliances to mitigate the risks associated with these policies.[27]

This shift in global trade priorities not only affects the negotiation process but also diminishes trust among partners, further complicating both current and future bilateral trade agreements.[28] Consequently, there is a pressing need for the U.S. to balance its national interests with collaborative approaches to maintain its position in global trade networks and ensure the efficacy and longevity of bilateral trade deals.

What are the potential consequences for traditional multilateral trade frameworks?

The potential consequences for traditional multilateral trade frameworks are vast and interconnected, primarily revolving around the erosion of established mechanisms that have historically promoted global economic cooperation. A significant concern is the rise of protectionist policies, as exemplified by the Trump Administration’s approach, which could challenge the foundational aspects of the U.S-led liberal economic order built on cooperation and shared governance since the end of World War II.[29] This shift toward protectionism and unilateralism threatens to undermine traditional multilateral trade frameworks, leading to increased economic competition among nations, as countries may prioritize national gains over cooperative trade.[30]

Additionally, developing countries, which often depend on multilateral frameworks like the WTO for mediating trade disputes, could find themselves particularly vulnerable if these frameworks lose their influence. The retreat from multilateralism could also exacerbate global inequality, as it may undermine efforts to establish equitable trade and development frameworks. Moreover, the shift towards bilateral agreements and regional economic blocs could fragment the global trading system, further weakening institutions like the WTO and creating an unpredictable environment for international trade. To counter these challenges, there is an urgent need for traditional multilateral trade frameworks to adapt, ensuring they can address the pressures of protectionism, protect vulnerable economies, and maintain pathways for international cooperation.

In what ways could emerging powers like China, India, and the EU influence trade norms in response?

Emerging powers such as China, India, and the EU are poised to play significant roles in shaping global trade norms, particularly in light of shifting economic landscapes. The EU, with its robust and diverse economy, can influence trade norms by leveraging its strong internal market as a buffer against external economic shocks.[31] This resilience allows the EU to adopt a strategic approach to trade tensions, particularly by taking measured responses to proposed tariffs. Such measured responses are crucial to limiting exposure and preventing overreactions that could destabilize its economy. However, the interaction between China and the EU, especially through reciprocal measures such as symmetric tariff increases, highlights the potential for counterproductive outcomes. These actions could inadvertently escalate tensions, leading to broader economic repercussions for all involved parties. Similarly, India, alongside other emerging economies like Indonesia and Brazil, is expected to experience impacts similar to those of the established economies, further illustrating the interconnectedness of global economies and the importance of cohesive trade strategies. Therefore, it is vital for these emerging powers to navigate trade relations thoughtfully, employing targeted protective measures where necessary, rather than broad retaliations, to avoid provoking a full-scale trade war that could be detrimental to global economic stability.[32] By doing so, these powers can contribute to the creation of balanced and stable trade norms that accommodate the diverse needs of the global economy.

The global trade landscape is undergoing a profound transformation as emerging economic powers like China, India, and Brazil reshape trade patterns, challenging traditional Western dominance. This shift from a unipolar to a multipolar framework signals a crucial evolution in trade relations, with new alliances such as BRICS+ and RCEP fostering cooperation among developing nations and enhancing their influence on global trade rules. Simultaneously, technological advancements, including digital trade, fintech, and AI, are fundamentally altering how goods and services are exchanged, prompting strategic adaptations in global value chains.

However, this transition is not without challenges. Geopolitical tensions, rising protectionism, and the risk of economic fragmentation raise concerns about the stability of international commerce, posing a significant threat to cohesive trade policies. Smaller economies may face both obstacles and opportunities, as they can leverage these shifts to navigate new trade alliances and enhance their positions within the global market.

This research highlights the need for innovative approaches to cooperation and multilateral frameworks that accommodate the diverse interests of a multipolar world. Ensuring a sustainable and resilient global trade system will require continuous dialogue, adaptability, and inclusiveness, allowing all nations to participate effectively in an increasingly complex economic environment. Future research should explore how emerging alliances, and technological innovations can contribute to a more balanced, equitable, and sustainable global trade system in the years to come.

References:

• Anifa, Mansurali, Swamynathan Ramakrishnan, Shanmugan Joghee, Sajal Kabiraj, and Malini Mittal Bishnoi. “Fintech Innovations in the Financial Service Industry.” Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15, no. 7 (2022): 287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15070287.
• Aziz, Zubia. “View of ANALYZE the IMPACT of RISING COUNTRIES in the PRESENT GLOBAL CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY among CHINA BRAZIL and INDIA.” Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 2024. https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/view/1014/699.
• Brun, Lukas, Gary Gereffi, and James Zhan. “The ‘Lightness’ of Industry 4.0 Lead Firms: Implications for Global Value Chains.” In Edward Elgar Publishing, July 26, 2019. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781788976145/9781788976145.00008.xml.
• Flexport Editorial Team. “What President Trump’s 2024 U.S. Election Win Means for Global Trade and International Supply Chains.” com, 2024. https://www.flexport.com/blog/what-president-trumps-2024-u-s-election-win-means-for-global-trade-and/.
• Furculita, Cornelia. Global Politics and EU Trade Policy. European Yearbook of International Economic Law. Springer International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34588-4.
• Hoekman, Bernard M. “Sustaining Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multipolar World Economy.” Review of International Organizations 9 (2014): 241–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9187-3.
• Hopewell, Kristen. “The BRICS—Merely a Fable? Emerging Power Alliances in Global Trade Governance.” International Affairs 93, no. 6 (2017): 1377–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix192.
• Kappel, Robert. “GLOBAL POWER SHIFTS and CHALLENGES for the GLOBAL ORDER.” Accessed November 20, 2024. https://www.mugberiagangadharmahavidyalaya.org/images/ques_answer/1586068392imvfpolicypaper2_robertkappel.pdf.
• Leal-Arcas, Rafael, Abdulaziz Alsheikh, Joud Maqtoush, Norah Althunayan, Hemily Dal Berto, Leena Alsayyed, Noora Aldughaither, Asiyah Bashiti, and Basmah Afaneh. “Trade, Geopolitics, and Environment.” Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 8, no. 7 (2024): 5114. https://systems.enpress-publisher.com/index.php/jipd/article/view/5114/3245.
• Li, Jian, Zhou He, and Shouyang Wang. “A Survey of Supply Chain Operation and Finance with Fintech: Research Framework and Managerial Insights.” International Journal of Production Economics 247 (May 2022): 108431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108431.
• Lissovolik, Yaroslav. “BRICS-PLUS: ALTERNATIVE GLOBALIZATION in the MAKING?” Accessed November 20, 2024. https://bocadepozo.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2017_07-BRICS_plus-alternative-globalization-in-the-making.pdf.
• Lund, Susan, James Manyika, Jonathan Woetzel, Jacques Bughin, Mekala Krishnan, Jeongmin Seong, and Mac Muir. “Globalization in Transition: The Future of Trade and Value Chains.” McKinsey & Company, January 16, 2019. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/innovation-and-growth/globalization-in-transition-the-future-of-trade-and-value-chains.
• Norring, Anni. “Geoeconomic Fragmentation, Globalization, and Multilateralism.” Accessed November 20, 2024. urn:nbn
• Saussay, Aurélien. “The Economic Impacts of Trump’s Tariff Proposals on Europe.” Accessed November 20, 2024. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Economic-impacts-of-the-Trump-Tariff-Proposals-on-Europe.pdf.
• Seethi, K.M. “Trump 2.0 and the World Economy: The Challenges of Protectionism and Unilateralism – Analysis.” Eurasia Review, November 7, 2024. https://www.eurasiareview.com/07112024-trump-2-0-and-the-world-economy-the-challenges-of-protectionism-and-unilateralism-analysis/.
• Solis, Mireya. “‘America First’ Is a Losing Strategy on Trade.” Brookings, October 14, 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-first-is-a-losing-strategy-on-trade/.
• Toorajipour, Reza, Vahid Sohrabpour, Ali Nazarpour, Pejvak Oghazi, and Maria Fischl. “Artificial Intelligence in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Business Research 122, no. 1 (2021): 502–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.009.
• Zamani, Efpraxia D., Conn Smyth, Samrat Gupta, and Denis Dennehy. “Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analytics for Supply Chain Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review.” Annals of Operations Research 327, no. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04983-y. 

[1] Susan Lund, James Manyika, Jonathan Woetzel, Jacques Bughin, Mekala Krishnan, Jeongmin Seong, and Mac Muir, “Globalization in Transition: The Future of Trade and Value Chains,” McKinsey & Company, January 16, 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/innovation-and-growth/globalization-in-transition-the-future-of-trade-and-value-chains.

[2] Dr. Zubia Aziz, “View of ANALYZE the IMPACT of RISING COUNTRIES in the PRESENT GLOBAL CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY among CHINA BRAZIL and INDIA,” Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 2024, https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/view/1014/699.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Robert Kappel, “GLOBAL POWER SHIFTS and CHALLENGES for the GLOBAL ORDER,” accessed November 20, 2024, https://www.mugberiagangadharmahavidyalaya.org/images/ques_answer/1586068392imvfpolicypaper2_robertkappel.pdf.

[5] Yaroslav Lissovolik, “BRICS-PLUS: ALTERNATIVE GLOBALIZATION in the MAKING?” accessed November 20, 2024, https://bocadepozo.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2017_07-BRICS_plus-alternative-globalization-in-the-making.pdf.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Kristen Hopewell, “The BRICS—Merely a Fable? Emerging Power Alliances in Global Trade Governance,” International Affairs 93, no. 6 (2017): 1377–96, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix192.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Lukas Brun, Gary Gereffi, and James Zhan, “The ‘Lightness’ of Industry 4.0 Lead Firms: Implications for Global Value Chains,” in Edward Elgar Publishing, July 26, 2019, https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781788976145/9781788976145.00008.xml.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Mansurali Anifa, Swamynathan Ramakrishnan, Shanmugan Joghee, Sajal Kabiraj, and Malini Mittal Bishnoi, “Fintech Innovations in the Financial Service Industry,” Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15, no. 7 (2022): 287, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15070287.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Jian Li, Zhou He, and Shouyang Wang, “A Survey of Supply Chain Operation and Finance with Fintech: Research Framework and Managerial Insights,” International Journal of Production Economics 247 (May 2022): 108431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108431.

[14] Reza Toorajipour, Vahid Sohrabpour, Ali Nazarpour, Pejvak Oghazi, and Maria Fischl, “Artificial Intelligence in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review,” Journal of Business Research 122, no. 1 (2021): 502–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.009.

[15] Efpraxia D. Zamani, Conn Smyth, Samrat Gupta, and Denis Dennehy, “Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analytics for Supply Chain Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review,” Annals of Operations Research 327, no. 2 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04983-y.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Efpraxia D. Zamani, Conn Smyth, Samrat Gupta, and Denis Dennehy, “Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analytics for Supply Chain Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review,” Annals of Operations Research 327, no. 2 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04983-y.

[18] Cornelia Furculita, Global Politics and EU Trade Policy, European Yearbook of International Economic Law (Springer International Publishing, 2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34588-4.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Rafael Leal-Arcas et al., “Trade, Geopolitics, and Environment,” Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 8, no. 7 (2024): 5114, https://systems.enpress-publisher.com/index.php/jipd/article/view/5114/3245.

[21] Bernard M. Hoekman, “Sustaining Multilateral Trade Cooperation in a Multipolar World Economy,” Review of International Organizations 9 (2014): 241–60, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9187-3.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Anni Norring, “Geoeconomic Fragmentation, Globalization, and Multilateralism,” accessed November 20, 2024, https://urn:nbn.fi-fe2024031811700.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Flexport Editorial Team, “What President Trump’s 2024 U.S. Election Win Means for Global Trade and International Supply Chains,” Flexport.com, 2024, https://www.flexport.com/blog/what-president-trumps-2024-u-s-election-win-means-for-global-trade-and/.

[26] Mireya Solis, “‘America First’ Is a Losing Strategy on Trade,” Brookings, October 14, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-first-is-a-losing-strategy-on-trade/.

[27] Flexport Editorial Team, “What President Trump’s 2024 U.S. Election Win Means for Global Trade and International Supply Chains,” Flexport.com, 2024, https://www.flexport.com/blog/what-president-trumps-2024-u-s-election-win-means-for-global-trade-and/.

[28] Ibid.

[29] K.M. Seethi, “Trump 2.0 and the World Economy: The Challenges of Protectionism and Unilateralism – Analysis,” Eurasia Review, November 7, 2024, https://www.eurasiareview.com/07112024-trump-2-0-and-the-world-economy-the-challenges-of-protectionism-and-unilateralism-analysis/.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Aurélien Saussay, “The Economic Impacts of Trump’s Tariff Proposals on Europe,” accessed November 20, 2024, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Economic-impacts-of-the-Trump-Tariff-Proposals-on-Europe.pdf.

[32] Ibid.