The messages of the SAFE 2025 Framework in the context of current global challenges

"Let's not pretend things will change if we always do the same thing. Crisis is the best blessing that can happen to people and countries because crisis brings progress. Creativity is born from anguish, just as day is born from the dark night. It is in crisis that inventiveness, discoveries, and great strategies are born… Without crisis there are no challenges, without challenges life is a routine, a slow agony. Without crisis there are no merits. It is in crisis that the best in each of us emerges, because without crisis every breeze is a caress. To speak of crisis is to promote it, and to remain silent in crisis is to exalt complacency. Instead, let's work hard. Let's put an end once and for all to the only truly threatening crisis, which is the tragedy of not wanting to fight to overcome it."

Albert Einstein

I. Introduction. The current crisis in international trade law; the challenges (and opportunities) it presents

Thinking about the ideas that motivate this article, Einstein, Saramago and Henry Ford came to mind. 

You may wonder why, and that's why I feel I owe an explanation.

When thinking about the topic to be addressed, I wondered what the point was of talking about the SAFE Framework in a context of international crisis, amidst armed conflicts that are precisely threatening these values; and at a time when the rules-based international order and international organizations are also being questioned (more so than by armed conflicts due to unilateral measures applied by the United States government) for their ineffectiveness in satisfactorily addressing these crises.

And I decided that yes, this was precisely the moment to put into words reflections recently generated and shared in different forums regarding these topics (1)There are quotes from prominent figures that can help us illustrate the core of what we want to convey.

As a summary of the current situation and its background, we can highlight aspects presented by the doctrine in various fields.  

Thus, a very good diagnosis of the background was developed in separate presentations by Economists Osvaldo Rosales and Dante Sica in the ALADI al día conference series, dated 18/06/2024, under the theme “Integration or Fragmentation” (2)

The authors point out that we have witnessed the conflict/war between Israel and Iran, while the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues (to which, nowadays, the United States/Israel – Iran war has been added).

We have just come through the COVID pandemic and are in a bad economic period in the world, with little growth or stagnation of economies, a situation continually aggravated by armed conflicts, the latest of which has had a great impact on oil prices.

On the other hand, for years we have been witnessing trade and technological disputes between the United States and China, a situation that determines that international trade is oriented towards one side or the other, often not for strictly commercial reasons, but as part of those geopolitical strategies. 

And we are witnessing an era where international agreements are seen, as Rosales pointed out, as agreements between Governments and not between States; that is, the tendency to sign agreements with states with whose governments there is political affinity. 

This, in my opinion, empties International Treaties of spirit and meaning, whose vocation, like that of any norm, is to transcend the political signs or currents or sympathies of the rulers of the moment. (3)

Furthermore, there is a significant development of protectionism which, let's be honest, has always existed to some extent, but which has manifested itself with great stridency in the previous Trump administration and in the current one, through the unilateral imposition of tariffs contravening basic principles of the GATT (most favored nation; transparency, elimination of quantitative restrictions, etc.). (4)

Added to the above is the persistence of climate disasters and, undoubtedly, the challenge posed by the so-called "Technological Shock".

I truly believe that we are witnessing a strident and dizzying crisis, in a context where the norms, systems and legal structures that regulate International Trade created 30 years ago are not proving sufficiently suitable to address the current reality, given the magnitude and speed of the changes verified in this period of time. 

Within this context, questions and departures from this legal framework arise, which are not new, and have historically been verified with respect to the various multilateral and regional agreements. (5) but with a magnitude that requires addressing
.

It is in situations like those described that international organizations must intervene to guide action and resolve conflicts. However, as Basaldúa rightly points out, the WTO negotiation rounds are not achieving tangible results—except for the approval of the Trade Facilitation Agreement—and the WTO Dispute Settlement System is not working. (6) It is paralyzed, as its appeal bodies are blocked by the lack of appointment of members by the United States (this, without prejudice to the fact that the duration of the Dispute Settlement processes – which can take around 14 months – is too long for the interests at stake).

Thus, the first thing that came to my mind in relation to these issues is the word CRISIS (yes, in capital letters), and the need to think of it in terms of OPPORTUNITY in terms of the well-known Einstein quote from the beginning. 

In that sense, I understand that the way out of this crisis is through work on the “duty of duties,” and with Saramago, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1998, I would like to maintain that: “We were presented with a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and with that we thought we had everything, without realizing that no right can exist without the symmetry of the corresponding duties. With the same vehemence and force with which we claim our rights, let us also claim the duty of our duties. Perhaps in this way the world will begin to be a little better.” 

What does this imply? It means that states understand that international disputes, and the issues facing humanity today, can only be resolved through a collective effort, strengthening the rules-based multilateral system.

However, current challenges require the development of new capabilities, different from those that motivated the creation of this multilateral system in the first place, making it necessary, now as before, to submit to the decision of impartial bodies when there are controversies and to abide by their decisions. 

In light of the current challenges, expressly recognized by the World Customs Organization (WCO), I wish to demonstrate that the SAFE 2025 framework, within the same context, conveys the same fundamental message. This is because it requires Customs to focus on fulfilling the essential obligations of States, while simultaneously challenging their inherent limitations, developing flexible practices, deepening their cooperation with the private sector, embracing its diversity, and reviewing their own duties, thereby "stretching the boundaries" of their current capabilities. 

It is this same temperament that is required today in the international order, since extraordinary situations require the development of extraordinary capabilities, appealing to creativity, self-knowledge (and self-criticism) on the part of Governments, and the conviction of the need for profound changes in the existing international legal system.

We'll leave Henry Ford for last.

II. A bit of (necessary) history. The purpose of the WTO and a minimum common denominator of rules

The rules-based multilateral trading system emerged after World War II due to the need to establish a new regulatory system for international trade, in order to promote the economic recovery of countries devastated by the war, providing employment opportunities through trade liberalization – as a reaction to the protectionism prevalent between the two wars – and based on fair competition, without discrimination.

In this way, the States Parties to the GATT 1947 enshrined the conviction that the common good was achieved through the conclusion of agreements based on reciprocity, the substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers, and non-discrimination.

The system evolved through successive rounds. Thus, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created in the Uruguay Round of 1994, strengthening the institutional and regulatory framework through the approval of most of the fundamental agreements that now make up the GATT-WTO system (TRIPS, TRIPS, Dispute Settlement, Value, etc.).

Today the Doha Round, which began in 2001, is underway, and in several aspects it is stalled, but under which the Trade Facilitation Agreement was approved.

Notwithstanding the questions surrounding the current system, what cannot be doubted in my opinion is the need to restore and strengthen the rules-based multilateral system.

Indeed, without a legal order that establishes basic rules to be followed by the different states and an effective and efficient system for resolving disputes, which is accepted and respected by the international community, the path of "the law of the strongest" will be consolidated, which is unacceptable at this stage of the history of humanity.

It could be argued that this situation has been consolidating in various aspects, not only in international trade (one need only consider the UN's impotence in the face of major humanitarian crises, or the inability of nuclear energy regulatory bodies to enforce non-proliferation agreements, etc.), and we might agree. But this does not make it appropriate or acceptable. On the contrary, it dictates that it is time to give clear mandates to governments to fulfill their duties toward their citizens and toward other states, adhering to the law as a fundamental element of the legitimacy of their own sovereign power over their citizens and inhabitants in general.

Faced with a reality in CRISIS, we must act in a way that overcomes the current situation, with a flexible and innovative approach, with guidelines that I understand can be validly extracted from the SAFE 2025 Framework, which I will briefly mention, depending on the scope of this document. 

III. The SAFE Framework, its origin and its pillars

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and later in Madrid and London, the need to strengthen security in international trade and prevent it from being a tool for terrorism became evident. 

Thus was born, first as Soft Law within the framework of the World Customs Organization (WCO), the SAFE Framework (“SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade”), originally adopted in 2005, and later incorporated into international standards (such as the much-cited WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (2014)) (7) Furthermore, the various States have incorporated into their domestic legislation the support mechanisms for the three pillars: i) Customs-Customs; ii) Customs-Private Sector; and iii) Customs-Other Governments/Intergovernmental Agencies. Thus, the different States have enacted regulations on risk-based control, intergovernmental and intragovernmental cooperation, trade facilitation, authorized economic operators, their recognition and benefits, etc.

The SAFE Framework has evolved through revisions, incorporating new threats, business models and technologies, until reaching its most recent update in 2025.

It further develops the logic of data-driven customs, risk management, and expanded cooperation with other public bodies and the private sector. But also, as we anticipated in the introduction, we have found in SAFE 2025 messages that, when carefully considered, we believe are key to understanding the needs of the present moment and acting accordingly. (8).

As a preview, it suffices to point out the headline chosen by the WCO in the publication of SAFE 2025: “Responding to emerging challenges and paving the way for a safe and resilient global trading environment…”. 

This acknowledges the existing crisis, by speaking of challenges – specific to the global supply chain, but with guidelines that can be key to addressing the international trade crisis outlined at the beginning – and invokes the need for RESILIENCE in the global business environment. 

Let's focus on that concept, as a trigger for what follows. 

According to the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), one of the meanings of the word resilience is:“The capacity of a living being to adapt to a disruptive agent or an adverse state or situation” (9).

And adapting, according to the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Doubts of the RAE (Royal Spanish Academy), implies: “To accommodate or adjust to something or someone, making the necessary modifications'. " (10)

It is clear that resilience is what is needed in these times, and that it inherently involves adaptation and transformation. And this, as we will see, has been clearly stated as a key message of SAFE 2025 for Customs.

IV. The challenges (of change) that SAFE poses for Customs

The core of the challenges posed to Customs by SAFE 2025, (11) is clearly established in Chapter IV: Customs Pillar – Private Sector of the SAFE FRAMEWORK, as expressed in: “As government agencies that control and manage the international movement of goods, customs administrations are in a privileged position to provide greater security to the global supply chain and contribute to socioeconomic development through revenue collection and trade facilitation.” (12)

And continues: “Given its unique authority and experience, Customs can and should play a vital role in securing and facilitating global trade. However, a comprehensive approach is required to optimize the security of the international trade supply chain while ensuring continuous improvements in trade facilitation. Therefore, Customs should be encouraged to develop cooperative agreements with other government agencies.”.

Awareness of the challenges of the present is made explicit in one of the objectives and principles of SAFE 2025, which promotes “to improve the role, functions and capabilities of Customs to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century.” (14)

Along with other provisions that we will cite below, in our opinion, a clear message emerges to the Customs Administrations regarding compliance with the primary objectives of security, revenue collection and trade facilitation, and the stimulation of socio-economic development (generating the environment conducive to it), as well as the incentive for the "partners" of the commercial community to join the Authorized Economic Operator program (in Uruguay "Qualified" - OEC).

This, taking into account their diversity, promoting their development and incorporation (according to their abilities) into the program, and also with active collaboration, even supplying information that is in their possession, to the extent that it is practicable.  

In short, it requires Customs (as the implementing arm of the States and in coordination with other agencies) to strictly fulfill its essential duties, with efficiency and effectiveness. (15), and also with flexibility To establish and implement regulations with differentiated requirements, taking into account the diversity of the private sector, in order to attract more participants in the logistics chain, including small and medium-sized enterprises. This, in addition to strengthening institutional ties with other customs administrations.

Therefore, since we are interested in highlighting the role of States in relation to the well-being of their inhabitants, and for reasons of space, we will focus here on the Customs-Private Sector Pillar, emphasizing the requirements of flexibility and compliance with the SAFE 2025 objectives.

Thus, Annex IV outlines the following fundamental concepts: 

• Customs Administrations must adopt a transparent and proactive attitude in the area of ​​customs operations, which can be modernized, adjusted and further improved for the benefit of the international trading community. In this regard, Customs should proactively consider how, based on their current or projected resources, they can help trade complete its operations as efficiently as possible (16).

• It's time To raise the global visibility of customs as a key player in ensuring the economic and physical well-being of the nations they serveprotecting the flow of trade throughout the global supply chain. To the extent that WCO members can develop Flexible approaches to OAS program developmentThey will be able to better manage the growth and necessary modifications in the AEO programs (Authorized Economic Operator; in Uruguay, Qualified Economic Operator – OEC – in Uruguay) developed at the national level. (17)

Thus, Customs, in Saramago's terms, is required to assume "the duty of its duties." This requires profound flexibility in various aspects. First, by reviewing its own processes, internally establishing the necessary modifications to meet current requirements, and, in parallel, strengthening interactions across the three pillars. 

As an example of this necessary openness, interaction and flexibility, with the pillar of relationship with the private sector, we can point to the following:

• Improved communication between the OEC and the customs administration.
• Adopt efforts to educate Customs personnel regarding the risks associated with the international trade chain, including internal threats, in coordination with the OECs.
• Notify the OEC contact person about the procedures that Customs has in place to identify and respond to suspicious incidents.
• At the request of the OECs and if practicable, familiarize them with customs information and relevant processes, in order to assist in the proper training and research of the OECs.
• At the request of the OECs and if practicable, prepare educational material and expert guidance on the identification of suspicious cargo, available to relevant OEC personnel; such guidance should include risk warnings as documented in the WTO risk management compendium.
• To assist, at the request of the OEC, and if practicable, in the recognition of potential security threats from the perspective of Customs. 
• Allowing CABs to implement alternative means of compliance to meet specific security requirements that are not practical or compatible with a particular business model, to the extent that the alternative means provide equal or equivalent security benefits.
• Advise transport operators on potential locations for concealing illegal goods on such means, where appropriate and legal, according to your customs perspective and experience..
  
  

These requirements, which as outlined are quite reasonable, must be properly contextualized to understand the magnitude of the challenge posed.  

Flexibility and fluidity of communication with the private sector, sharing information and collaborating with its development, establishing differential treatments, as requested by SAFE 2025, are not inherent to the functioning of the Administration, whose activity is heavily regulated.

Without prejudice to specific examples of openness and collaboration between Uruguayan Customs and the State, which I have proudly recounted in various forums over the years (18) Meeting the requirements of SAFE 2025 will require all Customs agencies to develop extraordinary skills in terms of flexibility, communication, and addressing different situations and requirements from the private sector, without compromising their fairness.  

In my opinion, it also requires confirming the role of the State as guarantor of the assets that SAFE 2025 intends to protect and promote (included in the essential tasks of the State) and implies such organizational and legal maturity that it allows – with flexible and innovative regulatory scenarios (since Administrative activity cannot cease to be a legally regulated activity, depending on the purposes it serves) – the different treatment of the various situations of the OEC or those aspiring to be such, thus generating an area of ​​discretion (naturally regulated), which enables the level of communication, diversity of approaches and collaboration that SAFE is promoting.

It is for all the above reasons that I understand that the messages of SAFE 2025 are so accurate in terms of detecting what current times require of Customs Administrations in particular, and of States in general: intense work, self-review, professionalization, flexibility and creativity as tools of resilience required to adapt to such a changing and challenging world. 

V. Repeat after me: a rules-based multilateral system. A necessary review of the rules and the legal and institutional system governing international trade.

With the 30th anniversary of the creation of the WTO having been commemorated last year, it is essential for us to bring these reflections – this time in conjunction with SAFE 2025 – to focus on the rules-based multilateral system.

As Basaldúa has indicated: “Trade requires security; it presupposes trust and respect for one’s word, loyalty, and adherence to commercial practices and customs. But trade must be equitable to guarantee peace and stable relations. In each state, every ruler is obligated to pursue the common good of his people… Since the sum of the various states constitutes the international community of nations, no head of state can presume to establish or base the common good of his people on the ruin or destruction of others, whose common good also deserves to be respected and promoted. Therefore, international solidarity and the pursuit of the international common good must prevail among nations.”(19)

And with the analyses previously carried out here, we must return to the current situation of international trade and law and the crisis mentioned, which is not new, but which is manifesting itself in the most diverse aspects and postulates as imperative the need: i) on the one hand – and once again – to reaffirm the unavoidable existence of a multilateral system based on rules, with Organizations that can administer it effectively, and; ii) on the other hand, the inevitable review of international rules (which in some aspects are not adequate to define the current problems) and the structures and functioning of the bodies that administer them, in the case that concerns us the WTO. 

Nor am I innovating at all by saying this, since the various analyses in this sense are not new, nor is the adoption of some alternative paths to the solutions of the treaties (20)

But implementing these solutions requires precisely what SAFE 2025 is asking for.

It requires that States assume, for the benefit of their inhabitants – the sole reason for the existence of Public Administrations – that, in their actions as such and in their reciprocal relations, the “duty of duties” is reinforced, with all that this implies (even in the sense of accepting decisions of impartial third parties, since deviations from the norms occur).

In this regard, and as an example of one of the analyses that exist on the subject, I will merely cite Alan Wolf, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Deputy Director-General of the WTO, who has made some proposals so that it, in his words, “does not fall into irrelevance.” 

Thus, it has proposed the following measures (only some of the proposals are cited as examples).

1. 1. Explore ways to reconclude agreements within the WTO that not all members participate in.
   2. Do not allow vetoes by non-participants 
   3. Re-establish a dispute settlement mechanism that is binding on all members. 
   4. To establish an effective governance structure for the Organization similar to that of the World Bank.  
   5. That the WTO have an independent financial base so that funding cannot be used as a covert method for individual members to control the agenda.21)

These mentions are included merely to illustrate the real possibility of arriving at innovative solutions regarding existing norms, structures and modes of operation, which, as we have pointed out, requires will, boldness and creativity.  

If we resign ourselves to the "law of the strongest" as the mechanism for action within the framework of International Trade (and, in general, within the framework of International Law), that is what we will have. If, on the other hand, States—faced with the evidence of the negative consequences stemming from disregard for the rules-based multilateral system—understand that it is time to review current agreements, structures, and operations, and unite their wills, accepting the "duty of their duties," then this will be possible. 

As Henry Ford said:  “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.”.

---

Notes and References

1.XI Conference on Customs Law of the University of Buenos Aires and XIV International Conference on Customs Law of the Argentine Institute of Fiscal Studies.

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCRzVePftdg.

3. This last point, in my opinion, requires another type of analysis, which I have recently carried out in the local context of my country, and which has to do with the scope and duties of the public function. FIGUEREDO, F. (2025).

4. On the principles of the GATT, recently, BASALDÚA, R.(2025), pp. 83 et seq. 

5. BASALDÚA, R. (2026).

6. On the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding. BASALDÚA, R. (2007), pp. 529 to 559.

7.Internalized in Uruguay under Law 19.414 of 30/06/2016.

8. Naturally, the approach we propose today is based on a partial approach to SAFE 2025, insofar as we understand it to be illustrative of the substantial ideas to be conveyed here.

9. https://dle.rae.es/resiliencia

10.https://www.rae.es/dpd/adaptar

11.https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/facilitation/instruments-and-tools/tools/safe-package/safe-framework-2025_en.pdf?la=en.

12. SAFE FRAMEWORK June 2025, p. 7.

13. Punta Cana Resolution on the Role of Customs in the Security Context. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.wcoomd.org/media/wco/public/global/pdf/about-us/legal-instruments/resolutions/resolution-of-the-wco-policy-commission-on-the-role-of-customs-in-the-security-context.pdf?la=en

14.MARCO SAFE, p. 8.

15.In this regard, SEGALLA REIS, R. (2025)

16.SAFE FRAMEWORK Annex IV/1.

17.SAFE FRAMEWORK Annex IV/2.

18. Such as an institutionalized procedure for prior consultation on regulations, the creation of working groups for specific issues – as is the case with the development of the OEC program – being an “open door” Customs, responding to concerns from the private sector regarding trade facilitation, etc. 

---

Bibliography

BASALDÚA, Ricardo Xavier. The World Trade Organization and the Regulation of International Trade. Lexis Nexis Argentina, 2007 (pp. 3-4 and 529-559). 

BASALDÚA, Ricardo Xavier. Reflections on the principles emanating from the GATT. In Revista Debates de Derecho Financiero y Tributario – Year V- No. 14 – MARCH 2025, pp. 83 et seq. Chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.derecho.uba.ar/institucional/centro-estudios-der-tributario/revista/revista-Tributario-Ed0014.pdf

BASALDÚA, Ricardo Xavier. The troubling crisis of the WTO. In Customs Law Review. No. 1A (2026). pp. 28-34. https://www.customslawreview.com

FIGUEREDO OMODEI, Flavia. Guarantees of the rights of those subject to administration before the customs and justice administration. In Revista de Derecho de la Universidad de Montevideo. Year XXIV (December 2025). No. 48. https://revistas.um.edu.uy/index.php/revistaderecho/article/view/1600/1977

SEGALLA REIS, Raquel. Customs efficiency and digitalization: what the WCO expects from Customs in 2025 and what we expect from it. In https://aduananews.com/eficiencia-aduanera-y-digitalizacion-que-espera-la-oma-de-las-aduanas-en-2025-y-que-esperamos-de-ella/.

WOLFF. Alan W.M. (2025). The WTO at 30: The return of higher tariffs. How should the world trading system respond? https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/2025/wto-30-return-higher-tariffs