As one of the world's three largest economies, the European Union has long advocated for international trade liberalization, a stance rooted in the European intellectual tradition linking trade with peace. After World War II, EU trade policy was guided by liberal ideology, viewing market openness as essential to prosperity, democracy, and peace. Following the 2008 financial crisis, despite challenges from unilateral protectionism and the international economic order, the EU maintained its liberal stance, promoting hyper-globalization. However, in the second decade of the 21st century, shifts in the EU's internal and external environments led its trade policy to pivot from multilateral free trade toward "open strategic autonomy." This shift reflects the EU's strategic response to new globalization challenges and marks a significant adjustment in trade policy. This article analyzes the manifestations, drivers, and constraints of this shift, emphasizing the importance for China—as a key EU trade partner—to understand its implications for EU-China relations and China's strategic space.

1. The Traditional Paradigm of EU Trade Policy: Multilateral Free Trade

The traditional paradigm of EU trade policy was based on multilateral free trade, emphasizing international openness as a fundamental institutional pillar. Multilateralism was seen as a means to achieve a rules-based international order, pursue European interests, and manage power balances. The EU leveraged its market power to promote its rules and standards through multilateralism. Post-WWII, EU trade policy shifted from "embedded liberalism" to "neoliberalism," emphasizing full internal market mobility and market access mechanisms as tools for global trade regulation. The 1996 "Market Access Strategy" and subsequent "Managed Globalization" and "Global Europe" strategies reflected the EU's strategic shift toward globalization and liberalization. After the financial crisis, the EU continued to adhere to a neoliberal trade policy framework while placing greater emphasis on reciprocity and adapting its trade policy to the crisis context.

2. The Geoeconomic Shift in EU Trade Policy Under "Open Strategic Autonomy"

In the 21st century, facing internal structural changes and international system transformation, the EU reignited debates on "strategic autonomy." As a supranational entity, the EU's role is marked by inherent tensions and inconsistencies, and the polysemous and ambiguous nature of "strategic autonomy" made it a central concept in policy discourse. In 2021, the European Commission's report An Open, Sustainable, and Assertive Trade Policy established "open strategic autonomy" as the core guiding principle of trade policy, emphasizing the EU's capacity for autonomous decision-making and shaping an international order aligned with its strategic interests and values through global governance. This framework encompasses three dimensions—"openness," "sustainability," and "assertiveness"—aiming to maintain global connectivity, address global challenges, and counter unfair trade practices.

However, as "strategic autonomy" extended into the economic domain, policy controversies emerged. Critics warned that overemphasis on strategic autonomy could lead the EU toward inward-looking policies, distancing it from the multilateral open trade system. The EU's "open strategic autonomy" framework seeks to balance an open economy with strengthened strategic autonomy, yet this inevitably introduces protectionist tendencies and imposes constraints on traditional free trade principles.

Amid structural shifts in the global economic and trade landscape, the EU's measures to enhance strategic autonomy have evolved into key tools for pursuing and defending geoeconomic interests and serving higher geopolitical objectives. This shift from traditional liberalism toward using economic tools for geopolitical goals has been termed the EU's "geoeconomic turn" or "geoeconomic revolution" in academic research.

The geoeconomic shift in EU trade policy manifests in two ways: First, trade policy has become increasingly securitized, with the EU systematically integrating national security considerations into its economic policy framework and rapidly developing innovative institutional tools to address complex geopolitical-economic challenges. Second, trade policy has grown more unilateral, with the EU expanding its trade defense toolkit to safeguard economic security and promote its values. These measures signify the EU's establishment of a systematic geoeconomic policy framework to navigate an increasingly complex international economic and security environment.

3. Drivers of the Geoeconomic Shift in EU Trade Policy

Since the 21st century, U.S.-China competition has polarized the international system, exerting systemic pressure on the EU and forcing trade policy adjustments. The COVID-19 pandemic and shifts in Europe's internal political landscape further accelerated this geoeconomic turn. Facing strategic crises from U.S.-China rivalry, the EU seeks to reduce dependence on critical materials and technologies through supply chain restructuring and diversification. The European Council on Foreign Relations highlights autonomy in health, economy, security, digital, and climate as core to building a strategic Europe. Globalization's complex economic interdependencies constrain Europe's strategic freedom, while U.S. asymmetric control and sanctions capabilities—evident in secondary sanctions on European firms—underscore Europe's vulnerabilities. The EU must adopt geoeconomic measures to counter global power competition.

The multilateral trade system faces institutional failure, with the WTO under geopolitical strain and trade rules strategically sidelined. U.S.-China trade friction has reshaped their economic relations, with ripple effects on third economies like the EU. U.S. unilateralism and protectionism undermine rules-based multilateralism, pressuring the EU to enforce extraterritorial sanctions and eroding key EU achievements. The pandemic exposed globalization's fragility and the political risks of asymmetric interdependence, while the Russia-Ukraine war revealed Europe's overreliance on single-country energy supplies. These crises deepened EU awareness of strategic autonomy gaps, heightened economic vulnerability concerns, and provided a historic opportunity for rapid policy reforms.

The EU's policy shift clashes with its historical trajectory and dominant ideology, yet its swift adoption of geoeconomic measures reflects profound internal political changes. External pressures convinced member states of the need for reform, while internal political shifts—such as expanded European Commission powers and Brexit—facilitated this transition.

4. Constraints on the Geoeconomic Shift in EU Trade Policy

While global political-economic changes drive the EU's geoeconomic turn, a gap persists between its influence and actual power. Structural vulnerabilities limit the effectiveness of unilateral trade policies, potentially weakening geoeconomic projection. Close EU-China economic ties constrain the EU's unilateral measures, as Chinese countermeasures reduce policy flexibility and autonomy. Internal disagreements among member states on "de-risking" strategies undermine policy coherence. U.S. strategic realignment and protectionism also temper the EU's shift, as the EU prefers cooperation with the U.S. on shared China concerns while deepening commercial ties with China.

The EU's legal framework further constrains its policy shift, as discriminatory practices conflict with traditional non-discrimination principles. Inconsistent policy objectives demand coordination across economic, technological, environmental, and security domains. The pursuit of autonomy also clashes with the EU's long-standing commitment to openness, multilateralism, and international cooperation, risking friction with market efficiency principles.

5. Conclusion

Traditionally, EU trade policy operated independently of foreign and security policy, guided by technocratic governance and free trade. Since 2010, the resurgence of geopolitics and geoeconomics has driven the EU to geoeconomic strategies to safeguard economic security and resilience. Under "open strategic autonomy," the EU has accelerated unilateral trade defense tools for geopolitical goals. Yet, international pressures and internal legal frameworks limit policy efficacy. Tensions between autonomy and openness require the EU to avoid protectionism. As a trade partner, China must recognize the uncertainties of this shift, deepen reforms, expand cooperation, and foster deeply intertwined economic ties to mitigate potential negative impacts.