While weaponised trade describes an actually-existing phenomenon, the use of the term itself by both policymakers and scholars can be deeply political – with overuse potentially eroding commitment to an international rules-based order and escalating geopolitical conflict. Having a clear sense of what does (or does not) constitute Weaponised Trade and building consensus on its core characteristics allows for illegitimate trade measures to be identified, without the risks that arise from overly general / imprecise definitions. To this end, in the second part of the paper, we articulate how Weaponised Trade relates to, overlaps with and is distinct from other mechanisms such as sanctions or boycotts. 

Recent years have seen increasing attention paid to the security dimensions of all of areas of international economic relations: trade, finance, investment and other aspects of the global economy. While there are arguments over whether this is a new phenomenon or an intensification of a longer-term trend, escalating geo-strategic conflict between the United States and China has driven the use of tools of economic statecraft for political ends. 

The wide array of sanctions and other measures implemented in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine means that many states are now participating in the weaponization of the global economy. The rise in competitive industrial and trade policy is often seen as a threat to the rules-based international (economic) order. However, the widespread imposition of measures against Russia has shown that the use of economic tools for security or other political purposes is not always viewed as illegitimate.

The term ‘Weaponised Trade’ has never been more widely deployed, especially in media and politics. Describing a nascent or escalating trade dispute as ‘weaponised trade’ can be a convenient means of capturing public attention, insofar as it alludes to a threat that is not just only economic but also potentially existential. Used in this way, the term has been used to rally for more nationalistic and protectionist policies. In times of economic uncertainty, careless or politically charged use of the term has the capacity to heighten tensions between countries, leading to heightened geopolitical instability. At a practical level, a political disagreement that is framed through the lens of Weaponised Trade may be seen as a security or defence issue, rather than a diplomatic or political issue. In this article we argue for a more nuanced definition and a more careful usage of the term Weaponised Trade. Doing so not only enhances and disciplines the discourse, but also provides greater clarity as to the substance of the term.