A tool is not a strategy: technology security amidst contested global orders

Sarah Bauerle Danzman

Journal of International Economic Law2025https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaf019article
ABDC A
Weight
0.37

Abstract

In recent years, policymakers and analysts concerned for the future of global economic governance have advanced numerous proposals to constrain governments’ use of security exceptions. However, framing the current situation merely as a governance crisis may create an illusion that consensus still exists regarding the fundamental principles that should govern global economic relations. To understand whether and how the current Trump administration wishes to change the global economic order—and whether and how it may succeed—we must concentrate analytic attention beyond the tools of the administration and instead examine the objectives these tools are being placed in service of. I examine the strategic objectives of the three most recent US administrations related to international investment and trade in dual-use technology, as well as the ways in which each administration has employed, sharpened, and strengthened similar tools in service of different visions of global governance and order. I conclude by demonstrating how Trump 2.0, in contrast to Trump 1.0 and the Biden administration, is more fully challenging core principles of mutually beneficial exchange in ways that are order breaking.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaf019

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sarah2025,
  title        = {{A tool is not a strategy: technology security amidst contested global orders}},
  author       = {Sarah Bauerle Danzman},
  journal      = {Journal of International Economic Law},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaf019},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A tool is not a strategy: technology security amidst contested global orders

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.