LONDON — Britain has confirmed plans to join an international trade dispute system — a move that risks riling up its U.S. allies, while bringing Britain closer to the EU.

Ministers announced on Wednesday night that the U.K. would sign up to the World Trade Organization’s Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA).

The mechanism was set up in 2019 as an alternative to the WTO’s appeals court, the Appellate Body, which has been paralyzed since the United States blocked new judicial appointments. The dispute system includes 27 WTO members, including the EU, Canada, Australia and China — but notably not the U.S.

In a release touting its new Trade Strategy, due Thursday, the U.K. government said joining the MPIA was a demonstration of its commitment to an “effective rules-based international trading system.”

The move is likely to go down a treat with the EU, a key proponent of the mechanism. But the news may not be received so well by the Trump administration

“Brussels will be happy to see that the U.K. is joining the MPIA — many see this as long overdue,” Emily Lydgate, co-director of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex Law School told POLITICO.

“China is also a party to MPIA, so the U.K. is continuing to walk a tricky line between making trade deals with Washington D.C. and working constructively with other important trade partners.”

Change in tone

The U.K.’s decision to join the MPIA marks a change in tone from its previous stance on the WTO trade dispute system, which was in line with the U.S. position, said Lorand Bartels, a professor of international law at the University of Cambridge. 

“The U.K. used to say that the reason it was not joining [the MPIA] was that it wanted to focus on durable reform of the WTO dispute settlement system,” he said. “This was also the stated view of the U.S. and it seems plausible that the U.K. was aligning with the U.S. on this issue not only out of conviction but also to maintain the relationship.”

Bartels said it was not clear if the move would affect the U.S. relationship. “It is possible that the U.S. is less concerned now about the MPIA than it was,” he said. “But even if this is not the case, the U.K. must now have decided that trade relations with the U.S. are sufficiently stable for it to be able to sign up to the MPIA anyway.”

“There is an alternative explanation,” Bartels added, “which is that this was a ‘reset’ deal-breaker for the EU, and the U.K. chose the EU over the U.S. But that seems less likely.”

Priorities elsewhere

But Simon Lester, President of WorldTradeLaw.net and a fellow at the Baker Institute, cautioned against reading too much into the U.K.’s decision, which he describes as a “commonsense way forward so that it can take full advantage of WTO dispute settlement.”

“It is possible that some people in Brussels and Washington may try to read into it a broader statement related to U.K. alliances and alignment,” he added.

“I think it is probably a mistake to view it this way, though, as the impact of the U.K.’s decision to join the MPIA is fairly narrow, and is much more limited than, say, the substantive trade deal that the U.K. government recently signed with the Trump administration.”

A senior consultant familiar with the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s stance on WTO matters said: “Their position is that they’re immune to pressure at the moment on restoring the appellate body. Until China, the EU and India come forward with meaningful WTO reform, proposals are not going to move.”

The consultant, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, added: “While they won’t love the U.K. announcement, they’ve got bigger issues on their plate — not least all the bilateral deals which are meant to be done in the next two weeks.”