The Boundary of Supranational Rules: Revisiting Policy Space Conflicts in Global Trade Politics

While global value chains (GVCs) necessitate effective global economic governance in providing a stable, rule-oriented international economic order for the cross-borderflow of factors, it is witnessed that there's an inevitable decline of multilateralism in the WTO in the contemporary era of deep globalization. This empirical puzzle has stimulated various theoretical explorations, including research on the multilateral trade negotiation model, North-South structural conflicts, and the absence of great power responsibility. The increasing friction between great powers around trade policy has illustrated that policy space conflicts constitute the central challenge of global trade governance. Policy space as a concept illustrates the scope and conditionality of domestic policy instruments when framed by supranational rules. By revisiting existing research, this article clarifies the nature of policy space and categorizes its conflict modes as regulatory diffusion, regulatory differentiation, regulatory competition, and regulatory conflict. The practice of global economic governance shows that deep globalization requires the convergence of diverse domestic regulations that reduce policy space; while maintaining competitive advantage of sovereign states in the global production system requires the preservation of certain flexibilities, especially in areas like interventionism, sequential reforms, or capacity building. This inherent tension causes policy space conflicts to evolve in kind with the escalation of competition among great powers in the global division of labour. Since 2017, the WTO reform agenda, US-EU-Japan trilateral coordination, and intense Trumpian trade wars have all proved that regulatory conflict has offered the dominant model. This shift has led to the decline of multilateralism and the weakening of the multilateral trading system.