The international system was supposed to have rules. But amidst the recent news about the trade war among the US, Canada, and Mexico, there was little mention of the 2018 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) – the very rules that Pres. Donald Trump negotiated from the foundation of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, he hailed USMCA as “the best and most important trade deal ever made by the USA. Good for everybody.”
But at midnight on March 4, 2025, U.S. tariffs against exports from Canada and Mexico were announced – directly violating the terms of the USMCA, although after several days Trump promised carveouts based on USMCA rules. Trump has also threatened tariffs on goods from the European Union and China.
Unilateral U.S. moves like this would be in direct conflict with the principles of not just USMCA but also the World Trade Organization (WTO) – an institution explicitly designed to prevent such unilateral tariff hikes. Yet the Trump administration has rolled these measures out (or, in some cases, threatened then deferred them) as if those agreements simply didn’t exist.
Welcome to the era of zombie internationalism
We’re now seeing a world where once-prominent global institutions, rules, and agreements continue to function, but in a hollowed-out state. This phenomenon is not altogether new. Heads of state often boast about agreements they’ve signed but avoid discussing their disuse. It isn’t even the first time that the U.S. has pulled back from the very agreements it inked – think of Pres. Richard Nixon’s surprise move in 1971 to suspend the U.S. dollar’s convertibility into gold. But when officials barely acknowledge the existence of these agreements in political discourse, it raises fundamental questions about the relevance of international economic and political institutions.
Across issue areas and around the world, agreements in paralysis are not uncommon. My own research on zombie international organizations shows that around a third of economic organizations fall into a zombie state at some point. Similarly, scholars in my recent special issue on “The Life Cycle of International Cooperation“ demonstrate how government decisions to withdraw from international organizations, economic crises, struggles for legitimacy, and shifting leadership priorities – affect the shape of not just formal international organizations but also the broader system of international law. But what would a world look like when formal organizations are little more than carcasses, and treaties are neglected, if not dissolved outright?
Weakened global institutions may persist
International organizations will not simply disappear. Instead, they will likely persist in a degraded form – hampered by noncompliance, political paralysis, and selective enforcement. For instance, the WTO’s dispute settlement system technically exists but is largely toothless without a functioning appellate body. Meanwhile, major international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank remain influential, but their governance structures are increasingly out of sync with the shifting balance of global power.
A zombie international system does not mean global anarchy. Rules and institutions will persist, but their legitimacy and effectiveness will be eroded over time. The danger is not just that old institutions weaken but that no credible replacements emerge.
Take the case of the WTO. Its decline began with the collapse of the Doha Development Round, launched in 2001 to address imbalances in global trade by prioritizing the needs of developing countries. However, negotiations dragged on for years without resolution due to deep disagreements between developed and developing economies over agricultural subsidies, market access, and intellectual property rights. By the mid-2010s, the round had effectively collapsed, leaving the WTO struggling to remain relevant as a negotiating forum.
Although a key part of the WTO agenda had failed, another aspect – the dispute settlement mechanism – remained active, providing a legal framework for resolving trade conflicts. However, by 2014, when Pres. Barack Obama ceased appointing judges to its appellate body, the system began a slow-motion collapse. With dispute settlement now frozen, the WTO barely merits mention in the current headlines even though the recent tariff imposition blatantly violates its principles.
The future of zombie agreements
So what happens to the physical presence of zombie institutions? Even in its diminished state, the WTO is unlikely to be formally disbanded. With only around 600 employees and an operating budget of approximately $230 million – a tenth the size of the smallest U.S. state budget – the WTO is relatively small by international bureaucracy standards. It pays modest rent for its headquarters in Geneva and requires little effort from its 166 member states to sustain its existence. Furthermore, since decisions within the WTO require consensus, it is unlikely that all members would agree to dismantle it. Governments tend to avoid difficult decisions, and there is little incentive to formally dissolve an institution that still could provide a framework for trade discussions.
The WTO may persist as a vestige of an earlier era – a venue for occasional meetings and a site of occasional and even meaningful cooperation. But few expect it will function as a decisive force in international economic policy.
The diverging fates of NAFTA/USMCA and the WTO
The fate of NAFTA/USMCA is less clear, primarily because it is not a fixed organization that requires effort to dismantle. The agreement evolved from a 1989 Canada-U.S. trade deal into NAFTA in 1994, adding Mexico but maintaining only nominal secretariats in each country’s capital with minimal staffing. When Trump renegotiated NAFTA and rebranded it as USMCA in 2018, this structure remained unchanged. Unlike an organization with a headquarters and bureaucracy, USMCA is a treaty – its survival depends primarily on whether governments adhere to USMCA commitments. Technically, any member can withdraw with six months’ notice. The agreement stays in effect for the other parties. But if countries ignore its principles altogether, the whole point of NAFTA/USMCA is lost.
The “afterlives” of NAFTA/USMCA and the WTO could diverge significantly. If the WTO lingers in some form and some members find it useful, its zombification might allow for low-level progress in certain areas. Should global governance regain traction and if countries see the need to reestablish global rules, the WTO’s institutional skeleton could be revived to facilitate new negotiations. Trade bargains can take years to negotiate, so retaining an existing framework could expedite future deals.
For less-institutionalized agreements such as NAFTA/USMCA, however, much depends on the credibility of signatory governments. NAFTA was a landmark in trade cooperation, with its dispute settlement and investment chapters serving as models for preferential trade agreements worldwide. However, the agreement stands on the assumption that trade cooperation was something all signatories fundamentally valued. If countries discard even the most beneficial aspects of the agreement – such as the market access that drives reciprocal trade – there is little left to sustain it, even in zombie form.
In other words, and somewhat ironically, because NAFTA/USMCA doesn’t cost much to maintain on a physical basis, it’s relatively easy to kill off. All you need to do is never speak of it again. But even if that trade deal fades into irrelevance, the damage will persist the next time the U.S. seeks to negotiate a new deal. No international agreement is truly binding; much of its strength relies on the goodwill of countries assuming that their partners are negotiating in good faith and have a vested interest in upholding the terms.
If that fundamental trust collapses – as appears to be the case with NAFTA/USMCA, an agreement that has delivered significant economic benefits to all three member countries – then the credibility of international cooperation beyond NAFTA itself will erode. Thus, one particularly pernicious “afterlife” of NAFTA/USMCA could be the impact on future negotiations. Governments with reputations for routinely disregarding established treaties may find it increasingly difficult to secure and sustain new agreements with reliable partners.
The long shadow of zombie agreements
It bears repeating that a world where economic agreements hold no weight is detrimental at every level. Businesses struggle to plan for the future, consumer confidence erodes, and enforcing contracts becomes increasingly difficult. If the global economy becomes littered with trade agreements that are routinely ignored, even future leaders will find it challenging to persuade negotiating partners that this time, their country will actually honor the commitments.
Zombie internationalism, then, is not just about the slow decay of existing institutions. It’s also about the erosion of trust in global governance itself. The future of international cooperation may be about dealing with the ghosts of old agreements – and whether they find new purpose or exist on paper alone.
This era of zombie internationalism allows for a world in which institutions still exist, but fewer and fewer countries feel bound by them. Without an effort to rework or replace these agreements with different frameworks, the global system risks becoming a patchwork of defunct commitments and unenforced rules. But what those new frameworks might look like depends on the specific issue area, and the number and type of countries willing to find common ground. In some cases, new regional alliances may take shape to bypass failing global institutions. Elsewhere, informal networks of cooperation may replace formal treaties, shifting diplomacy toward more flexible, ad-hoc arrangements. The future of international cooperation may not be a clean break from the past but a slow, stumbling transformation.
Julia Gray is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Her first book, The Company States Keep: International Economic Organizations and Investor Perceptions (Cambridge University Press, 2013), won the 2014 Lepgold Prize. Her article “Life, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International Economic Agreements” won the 2019 Best Article award from the American Political Science Association’s International Collaboration section, and her special issue on “The Life Cycle of International Cooperation” is currently available at the Review of International Organizations.
