Case gives clarity on the incorporation of standard terms. Credit: 3D Animation Production Company, Pixabay

How global trade is being rewritten in real time

By Carly Fields

Global trade today is at the centre of a ‘structural stress’ in which geopolitics, energy dependency and climate constraints are crashing together to reshape flows of goods, capital and policy priorities. That was the central theme of a recent wide-ranging discussion between Ilaria Maselli, head of macro and market insights at Maersk, and John Letzing, lead editor for economics at the World Economic Forum.

At the heart of their conversation, for a WEF podcast, is the strategic vulnerability of maritime chokepoints, with the Strait of Hormuz the most immediate example of how concentrated infrastructure risk can reverberate through the global trading system. 

Maselli described the Strait as “the aorta of global fossil fuel trade”, underscoring its importance to the still oil-dependent global economy.

Despite progress in reducing oil intensity, global trade remains deeply tied to fossil fuels as both a direct commodity and an embedded input in production and logistics. Maselli noted that while oil use per unit of GDP has declined significantly since the 1970s, “a lot of output in the global economy is dependent on fossil fuel”.

That dependence has become more consequential amid the current supply disruptions. Referencing recent analysis, she said “around 6 million barrels per day that are missing”, describing the disruption as “one of the biggest crises we have witnessed in the memory of capitalism”.

Physical constraints

If the Strait of Hormuz represents a single point of failure in energy trade, the industry’s ability to bypass it appears limited in the short term. Maselli said: “If you look… alternatives are not there physically.”

Shipping lines and logistics providers have improvised workarounds, including rerouting through alternative regional ports and deploying land bridges. Maersk’s regional operations, she noted, are “shipping more and more goods to other ports” such as Jeddah and Salalah, then relying on trucking networks to distribute cargo inland. However, this is inherently inefficient: A single large vessel may carry up to 20,000 containers, each requiring individual transport by truck, a scale mismatch that illustrates the limits of substitution.

The same structural constraint applies to energy supply diversification. Even where additional production exists, the scale is insufficient. 

Increased US exports, Maselli said, amount to “hundreds of thousands of barrels, not huge amounts that can by far not compensate”.

Infrastructure solutions such as pipelines could, in theory, reduce dependence on chokepoints, but these are long-term propositions. “That is something… that doesn’t happen within weeks,” she said, particularly in a conflict environment.

Chokepoints beyond Hormuz

The conversation also highlighted that Hormuz is not an isolated vulnerability. Maselli pointed to a renewed focus on maritime choke points more broadly, noting that “all of a sudden, there is a lot of discussion around these”.

The Panama Canal is a prominent example. While less structurally critical than Hormuz, it remains a key artery for containerised trade and climate-related risks are compounding its vulnerability. Maselli cited concerns over El Niño-driven drought, which previously led to reduced ship transits when water levels fell.

Unlike Hormuz, alternative routes exist for Panama, but not without cost. “Every time you have to find new routes… there is capacity constraints at some point that can be hit,” she said. This suggests a cumulative risk dynamic, where multiple disruptions, each manageable individually, could together strain global shipping capacity to a breaking point. 

Meanwhile, in the US, uncertainty still remains around tariffs, with a key deadline approaching for a 10% levy on imports, while the future structure of new tariffs remains unclear. 

This creates immediate uncertainty for exporters and importers planning supply chains and investment.

At the same time, the renegotiation of the USMCA agreement highlights diverging national strategies. Mexico has sought alignment with US trade policy, while Canada has adopted a more confrontational stance. These differing approaches underscore how regional trade blocs are becoming arenas for strategic positioning rather than purely economic co-ordination.

Balancing competing forces

Beyond North America, the global policy landscape is equally dynamic. Rising concern over China’s export strength is contributing to the spread of protectionism, as governments react to fears of domestic market displacement.

Yet there is also renewed momentum in trade liberalisation. Maselli pointed to agreements such as EU-Mercosur and EU-India that were once considered politically unattainable but have recently been concluded.

This dual dynamic—protectionism alongside new trade agreements—suggests a bifurcated global system in which blocs deepen internal integration while guarding external exposure.

Looking ahead, Maselli said the trade outlook is being shaped by three competing forces: the energy shock, an AI-driven investment boom, and ongoing fiscal support in major economies.

For trade flows, this mix creates a complex environment. Energy constraints act as a drag on growth and trade volumes, while investment in technology boosts demand for high-value goods and components. Meanwhile, fiscal support sustains consumption and import demand even as underlying conditions weaken.

The key question is where equilibrium will emerge. As Maselli suggests, the balance between these forces remains uncertain, and the adjustment process is likely to be uneven across regions and sectors.