Introduction

Alex Boome:

Good day to our audience from around the globe. Welcome to the Hinrich Foundation Trade Book Talk. I'm Alex Boome, Trade Education Program Director here at the Foundation. Today, we're in discussion with Dr. Damilola Olawuyi, co-editor of Trade Restrictions, Sustainable Development, and the Law, International and Regional Perspectives.

Our conversation will explore how trade restrictions, including blockades, sanctions, embargoes, and boycotts, affect sustainable development. We'll examine how international and regional legal systems respond, and what the Qatar blockade teaches policymakers about resilience, dispute resolution, and reform.

Co-editor Damilola is a professor of law and a UNESCO chair on environmental law and sustainable development at Hamad bin Khalifa University Law School in Doha. He's also an independent expert of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights. He holds degrees in Environmental, Energy, and International Development Law from University of Oxford, Harvard Law School, and the University of Calgary. Damilola, thank you for joining us.

Damilola S. Olawuyi:

Thank you, Alex, it's good to be here

Big Idea & Origin Story

Alex Boome:	Great. I'd start with the broadest question behind the book. Why did you and the co-editor feel this was the right moment for a full volume on trade restrictions, sustainable development, and the law?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Thank you very much. The book, Trade Restrictions and Sustainable Development, edited by myself and Dr. Ahmed Al-Sulati, aims to address a contentious issue, which is the growing impact of trade restrictions on sustainable development, particularly our ability to attain the Sustainable Development Goals by the year 2030. Over the last years, we've seen the rise in isolationism, countries adopting country-first policies, which have generally weakened multilateralism and trade integration that we need to advance the SDGs. We've also seen the rise in blockades, sanctions, embargoes, and boycotts in different parts of the world. I lived through one, which was the blockade of Qatar between 2017 to 2021, when some countries severed diplomatic ties, as well as land, maritime, and airspace blockades and travel restrictions on Qatar, which I believe resulted in one of the most significant regional crises in the 40-year history of the Gulf Corporation Council. Living through that experience for about four years made me see firsthand how blockades and trade restrictions can restrict the flow of goods and services, such as technologies, food supply, medicines, even educational resources and services needed to accelerate the SDGs. This led Dr. Ahmed and myself to pique interest in the question.
Alex Boome:	It's extremely personal to you.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	It is. If you don't mind, I would be happy to share my slide just to show you the breadth of questions we set out to answer in this book. That's Dr. Ahmed, my co-editor, and the book itself was published this year. We brought together nine chapters from academics, policy experts, and diplomats from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East to share their experience of blockades, trade restrictions, embargoes, and how those experiences affect sustainable development, and how we can address or minimize their impact going forward if we are to advance sustainability in our countries and regions. The book has nine chapters, cutting across issues of trade restrictions and national security, trade restrictions and dispute settlement, drawing direct lessons from our lived experience with the Qatar blockade. What did Qatar do? What were the legal responses? What enhanced effective and coherent responses, as we saw in Qatar's case, and what can other countries learn from Qatar's handling of the blockade? The whole aim was to first understand the impact of trade restrictions, such as boycotts, embargo, sanctions, and blockade on economic, social, and environmental development, particularly the SDGs. To understand the roles of international and regional dispute mechanisms in promoting timely resolutions to minimize those adverse impacts. What are the gaps and challenges faced by trade and dispute resolution institutions, and how can those gaps be overcome? How can countries enhance trade resilience domestically to mitigate the impact of economic blockades and restrictions in a manner that does not impact the SDGs? This is an authoritative and comprehensive book that provides the very first analysis of the linkage between trade restrictions and sustainable development, and provides tools for regulators to plan, anticipate, and address or minimize the impact of trade restrictions on sustainable development.
Alex Boome:	It's fascinating, because there's enough challenge with the SDGs as it is without things like blockades and restrictions, right?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Exactly.
Alex Boome:	Thank you. I'm looking forward to the conversation, and especially the recommendations you have for other nations to address this, especially in the environment we're in with the challenges that we're all facing at the moment in our trading environment.

Part 1: Introductory Context and Principles

Alex Boome:	Just to dig in now, for part one of the book, you really build the foundation. It starts with the trade restrictions and the sustainable development nexus. There's a lot in there. Would you frame that for us, please?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Exactly. In part one, we sought to establish the link, because someone will ask, what is the impact of trade restrictions on sustainable development? What is the link? We sought to establish that clear link. Of course, we started by explaining what trade restrictions are. For example, boycotts include when a state refuses to allow the purchase of goods and services from another country. Embargos may include the action of a state to restrict or forbid the movement of goods or services from one country to the other. Sanctions are punitive measures, most times aimed at restricting economic activities by a specific individual country or sector that is deemed problematic for many reasons. A blockade, which was the example we focused a lot on in the book, is another type of trade restriction, which aims to prevent vessels, aircraft, or all goods and services from entering the ports, airports, or coastal areas belonging to a country that has been designated as an enemy nation. In the book, we established that whatever form trade restrictions might take, whether a boycott, embargo, sanction, or blockade, they all have something in common. They restrict the ability of countries under restrictions to freely trade and welcome investment needed to advance the three pillars of sustainable development. The economic implications of restrictions include the fact that you can no longer trade, export your own goods, or receive essential goods, which may affect the economy. A prime example was when the US decided to cut off the supply of wheat to the Soviet Union in the 80s. What we found was trade distortions, because US farmers sold the goods to Canada, and Canadians in turn sold it to the Soviets. Whatever implication it was meant to create, it could only lead to trade distortion. At times, it could lead to a country losing sufficient trade flow.
Alex Boome:	Traders are very adept at finding ways around, right? But it negatively impacts the trading system and the country involved, yes.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Exactly. That is the economic pillar. Then we talked about the social dimension. When there is trade restriction, you lose access to supply, supply of food, supply of energy. We saw this firsthand during the blockade in Qatar, because for many years we would receive goods from neighboring countries, even essential food supplies and milk. The impact of the restriction was simply that many of those goods were no longer coming, which significantly affected and raised concerns about what is going to happen to food security and energy security. The social dimension includes things like how such restrictions may affect the right to life, the right to work, the right to education. People are no longer able to move, students no longer able to go to school because they're being restricted. Then you have the environmental pillar.
Alex Boome:	Hmm.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	It's significant as well. In an era where we're trying to fight climate change and address the loss of biodiversity, we need exchange of technologies, especially clean technologies. The impact of trade restrictions is that it could result in the inability to welcome technologies and environmentally preferable products that you need to address complex environmental challenges. A second aspect is we even see in some contexts, where because you can no longer receive energy supplies, people resort to biomass or other products. We established in Part 1 that trade restrictions affect the three pillars of sustainable development. If we really want to accelerate the SDGs, we need to limit trade restrictions.
Alex Boome:	Right. All of those underlying human costs bound in there, especially what resonated with me is the food, but as one of the missions of the foundation with education, the challenges of that are definitely huge. Further in part one, you were talking about the national security exceptions and regional institutions, the WTO dispute settlement system, and so on. There's a whole bunch to unpack with the WTO. I see it referenced numerous times, and it's under duress now, as we know. Could you talk a little bit more about the role of the WTO in the book and in your analysis?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Yes, we looked at the role of the WTO through different lenses. One is, are there national security exceptions on the WTO rules that may serve as a fertile ground for countries to impose unilaterally trade restrictions?
Alex Boome:	Yeah.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Secondly, what is the role of the WTO dispute settlement system generally to ensure a prompt resolution of such restrictions, given the many impacts on sustainable development? The first part about national security is a contentious issue that a lot of scholars have written about. Article 21 of GATT allows member states to take necessary actions to protect essential security interests.
Alex Boome:	Right.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	At times, it might include the use of otherwise WTO-inconsistent measures, such as discriminatory tariffs, import quotas, or bans on the grounds of national security.
Alex Boome:	Yep.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	But we have also seen WTO panels emphasize that those national security exceptions should not be used as a loophole to block trade or advance protectionism. We emphasized that national security exceptions should not become a sword to damage trade cooperation. We discussed some of the exceptions to national security exceptions that the panels have raised. For example, the WTO panel will assess the possibility of the members' articulation of its national security interests that it seeks to protect by putting in place a sanction or embargo. If there is really no clear national security interest at play, then the panels have shown a willingness to set those measures aside or describe them as inconsistent. We were able to articulate that national security exceptions should not be used as a sword to damage international cooperation, which is the essence of international law. The primary aim of international law is to enhance trade cooperation. One of the aims of international trade law is to remove barriers to the free flow of goods and services. Hiding under exceptions damages the whole motive. We then discussed how challenges within the WTO dispute resolution system itself complicate the process of a speedy resolution. Along the time when the blockade in Qatar occurred, it was about the same time that the future of the WTO dispute settlement body was up in the air. We saw how those political questions can impact the ability of multilateral systems to provide that timely and effective resolution we would like to see.
Alex Boome:	With the state of affairs of current dispute resolution, what would the outcome be for blockades in today's environment that is in quite a disarray? If there were to be other blockades, is the ability of the WTO to come to a resolution better or worse than before?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	What we saw is that the WTO has its institutional limitations, which is more pronounced when you have a multi-party trade restriction scenario like we had with the blockade. If it is two countries, perhaps it might be easier to navigate the political complexity. But when you have a situation, for example, with the Qatar blockade involving many countries, then you are faced with a lot of political questions. That's number one. Number two is that the slow pace of the reforms to the WTO dispute settlement bodies was brought to the fore. When you already have questions over the legitimacy of those systems, it becomes very difficult for them to achieve that timely and effective dispute resolution that we hope to see. What we've seen with our research is that there is a need to address those lingering questions and to reinstate the legitimacy and effectiveness of dispute resolution bodies, including the WTO system, to enhance their ability to resolve multi-party trade restrictions.
Alex Boome:	Based on international law. Great.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Yes, exactly.

Part 2: Advancing Sustainable Development in Times of Trade Restrictions - The Qatar Case Study

Alex Boome:	It is core to the book, but I'd like to shift to part two. You make arguments about the impact of blockades on the SDGs by examining Qatar's experience from your personal lens and professional academic lenses. What are some of the trade-related measures and legal and institutional imperatives of this regional integration? The EU is one approach, perhaps, and we see ASEAN as another. Could you speak to the institutional imperatives and the regional integration?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Yes, in part two, we began to examine Qatar's experience during the blockade, and what roles regional and international bodies played in the resolution. Were they effective? Were they timely? Were they efficient? And if not, what lessons could be learned? A starting point is that Qatar faced a delicate decision in the aftermath of the blockade. The country had the option to leverage its position as the leading exporter of liquefied natural gas to threaten retaliation and cut off supply. It also had the option of pursuing the military route, which international law speaks against in a world where we need peace.
Alex Boome:	Yes, yeah.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	It was a delicate situation, and we saw that Qatar chose the diplomacy option. Qatar chose to pursue a very orderly and strategic response, which included a multi-forum strategy. There are three clear paths the country followed, which offer strong lessons going forward. Number one was the option to pursue diplomatic engagement with regional organizations, like the Gulf Cooperation Council, the League of Arab States, and the Organization of Islamic Countries. Engaging with those regional organizations to ensure they can mediate and provide diplomatic solutions was very efficient because, in the long run, diplomatic solutions worked. A second path Qatar followed is the use of strategic litigation before the WTO. We talked about how even though there was uncertainty and turmoil with the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, some of the interventions provided by the WTO provided hope. This signaled that we could indeed find succor in multilateralism and the need to strengthen those institutions to maintain neutrality and effectiveness when faced with complex multi-party trade restriction environments. A third option Qatar used was strategic litigation before the International Court of Justice, especially to address some of the social dimension issues of the impact of trade restrictions on food security, water, energy, and human rights. This multi-forum strategy provided a platform to get as many international bodies to reinstate cooperation, which is the aim of international trade law. We're very glad that that approach yielded the much-needed result at the end of the day. In part two, we established the need to draw lessons on how to strengthen those institutions so they can play such roles in a timely and more efficient manner when faced with such challenges in the future.
Alex Boome:	You mentioned the strategic aspect of it, and so many parties involved. What does your research show about how to bring those parties together? It's a fairly small area with a lot of players, regional areas, and legal aspects. What were some of the strategies they were using to make this a strategic approach to this multilateral solution?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	When faced with such an unprecedented trade restriction, you either abandon diplomacy and cooperation...
Alex Boome:	Yep.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Or, you reinstate your full faith and support in solidarity, cooperation, and diplomacy, and that was exactly what Qatar did. Going through official international and regional channels that have been established to resolve trade disputes, invoking their own principles, reminding them of their responsibilities, and getting everyone to be back on the diplomatic table. That was a success story. There is a need for us to reinstate that trust in diplomacy in our world today.

Part 3: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Alex Boome:	Perfect. That leads into part three, which is very practical and forward-looking. My first question is, what reforms are needed to make these regional dispute mechanisms more effective and neutral? If you could add another layer to that, especially in today's era of fragmentation.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	It's a great question, and we examined it in two parts. Number one is the strategies that countries themselves should pursue in anticipation of trade restrictions because the world is changing. Faith in globalization and diplomacy is weakening for many reasons. The second part is how can we strengthen the effectiveness and legitimacy of multilateral dispute settlement mechanisms when faced with such situations? I will start with the first part. The lesson we were able to draw from Qatar's experience is that trade resilience has been a key part of Qatar's strategy, which enabled it to respond in that diplomatic way. Since the adoption of the Qatar National Vision 2030, Qatar has carefully integrated measures aimed at increasing import substitution and promoting homegrown goods and services, which enabled it to cope with the immediate aftermath of the blockade. Promoting localization and economic diversification enabled the country to switch. When you've diversified the economy to a point that you can be self-reliant and self-sufficient when it comes to food, water, and energy, that helps. Strategic investment in entrepreneurship, research, and education helped to manage the immediate impact. Qatar's success story in integrating trade resilience as part of national planning is something every country should try to replicate.
Alex Boome:	Excellent.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	We then moved to the second part of the question. Let's say you've done everything domestically to ensure trade resilience, but you're still faced with trade restrictions. That is what international bodies should be there for. How can we strengthen their ability to resolve those disputes? When we did a comprehensive analysis of existing mechanisms, our first recommendation is that the world is due for an international trade court. We saw how disputes in international criminal law were resolved with ad hoc tribunals and panels, which created a lot of legitimacy questions and instability, and that led to the creation of an International Criminal Court to ground the system through multilateral rule of law. It's not perfect, but it has yielded sufficient jurisprudence showing us there could be justice at the international level. We recommended the need for a similar international trade court, which will have a neutral stance separated from the political intricacies found in many trade bodies today. An international trade court could enhance transparency, neutrality, and effectiveness. It would have its own independent procedures, separated from the negotiations and approaches in existing bodies. At the regional level, we suggested the need to strengthen the procedures that regional bodies take when they are resolving multi-party disputes. We saw with the Qatar blockade how some of the regional bodies found it very difficult to balance the political nature of the conflict because some of the disputing countries are their members.
Alex Boome:	Yes, yeah.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	How do you resolve it in a way that you are not seen to be taking sides? We thought there is a lesson in that; they need to create a clear, concrete procedure that regional bodies can use to detach themselves from political considerations so they can bring solutions that are neutral, legitimate, effective, and can resolve those disputes in a timely manner.
Alex Boome:	On the regional institution level, what about on the country level? What can countries do to protect and prepare for these eventualities?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	I mentioned some of those measures, and I will describe them as the three P's. The first P being prevention. All countries should reduce isolationism. Unilateral trade tariffs weaken cooperation. We need to go back to the original aim of international trade law, which is multilateralism and cooperation. We need to prevent trade restrictions from being a recurrent feature as we currently have it.
Alex Boome:	They're coming into being a default now, rather than an exception.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Exactly. Which will not benefit anybody. It will only make it difficult for all countries to advance sustainable development. In a globalized economy, we need each other. We need critical minerals from Africa to power clean technologies. We need the technological know-how from North America, Europe, and Asia to turn these critical minerals into finished products. The global economy is connected, and we cannot continue to pretend as if isolationism has ever worked. It has never worked, and it will never work. Prevention is the first P. The second P is preparation. Every country should integrate trade resilience in their national planning and policies. Trade resilience will include economic diversification, localization, promoting homegrown research, and strengthening manufacturing, such that a country can withstand any form of shock, whether from trade restrictions, climate change, or hazards. We've seen that trade restrictions can affect all aspects of sustainable development, including food security and vaccines. Preparation is key, ensuring that institutions at home work together to advance a coherent national vision. Preparation will also include ensuring that we reform regional and international institutions so that they can play their role of providing neutral, legitimate, timely, and effective resolution of disputes. The last P is protection. The need to implement sustainability-aligned measures both during and after trade restrictions to protect people and property. To ensure that whatever we do, sustainable development does not suffer. We've seen that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. When countries bicker over trade tariffs, we often forget that the impact is severe on children, students, youth, and people that should otherwise access medicine and vaccines. Protection should be key. International law is designed to protect vulnerable people, and we must reflect that principle in all aspects of trade policy.
Alex Boome:	That gives us a really practical framework to examine that. You mentioned neutrality several times, and the challenge where a regional body might be seen as not being impartial. With all of the regional blocs coming along, how would someone reform those bodies to guard against that feeling of being partial when you might be pulled in several different directions?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	It's a great question, and I think it's a question of institutional design. Every institution and regional body should take stock of how to ensure neutrality, legitimacy, and effectiveness in handling trade disputes. The answer might be different in Africa, Europe, and the GCC. A starting point is for regional bodies to take stock and leverage the expertise of trade experts to design coherent institutions and frameworks that are accountable in their policies, processes, and outcomes. Institutional design would be key, and that requires the expertise of those versed in handling these questions. As part of that process, there is the need for these regional bodies to take steps to repair geopolitical contentions. The reason these regional bodies exist is to promote cooperation and collaboration. If that is weakening, regional bodies must go back to the drawing board and see how they can strengthen regional solidarity. If we have more regional solidarity, we can prevent a reoccurrence of trade restrictions across the world.
Alex Boome:	This is a bit beyond the book, but I think our listeners would be interested. In the post-blockade period now in Qatar, what changes has the country made in terms of their three P's, and what impact do you see that having on the SDGs?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Qatar's example shows us the importance of leveraging a national vision to articulate a current policy that links to sustainable development. There is no aspect of our work or life that is not linked to sustainable development. Benchmarking national policies with the pillars of sustainable development is a starting point, and that's something Qatar has been actively doing. The Qatar national vision has three pillars: social, economic, and environmental. That is a clear approach of benchmarking policies with sustainable development. Another thing is entrepreneurship. Globalization means we need each other and depend on goods and services from each other, but it does not mean we should not strengthen our domestic capabilities. I teach a course called Entrepreneurship Law, the aim of which is to prepare a new generation of entrepreneurs that will be able to promote self-reliance. There is a need for us to strengthen homegrown approaches and promote entrepreneurship research so we have a robust economy that could withstand all forms of shocks. Providing grants, incentives, and seed funds for entrepreneurs, which Qatar has been doing, is very important to grow the domestic economy so you have a resilient trade system.
Alex Boome:	Just as an aside, how are the students responding to this class? It sounds really interesting and perhaps challenging.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Education is meant to innovate and open new windows of opportunities. In designing the Entrepreneurship Law course, we did something totally different: there is no exam, just weekly assignments on the challenges an entrepreneur will face the moment you start your business. Different scenarios, such as receiving a fine for filing reports late or facing disruptions in the flow of goods. For 14 weeks, students face different scenarios and must find the legal frameworks to respond strategically on time and on budget.
Alex Boome:	Uncertainty in that, but…
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Exactly. A lot of students find it to be very interesting, but very challenging too. We're glad the course has received a number of awards, which shows we are doing something right.
Alex Boome:	Congratulations for that.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Thank you.
Alex Boome:	On a personal note, what was the biggest challenge you and your co-editor faced with such an intensive book?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	I must give a lot of credit to Dr. Ahmed because he was able to leverage his diplomatic skills to resolve many problems. Putting together a book like this that has an academic dimension, policy dimension, and a diplomatic dimension, and gathering stakeholders including experts involved in the dispute resolution process involving Qatar, was quite a challenge. It was difficult navigating issues and getting people to comment on their impact, but we were able to navigate them. We're very proud that the book has been well received. We launched it in Geneva, and it was a great reception.
Alex Boome:	Excellent. If you had advice for students using the book for their learning, what would your advice be as they delve into this book?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	This book provides them many examples of the challenges we now face with trade in an increasingly complex world facing geopolitical tensions, technology transformations, and energy transitions. The book enables students to understand contemporary challenges facing our trade system, which was designed based on the notion of cooperation. When that notion is missing, the trade system struggles to cope. For students and researchers in trade, investment, dispute resolution, sustainable development, and diplomatic studies, they now have a contemporary tool to examine how to balance competing interests in trade disputes and how countries can promote internal resilience.
Alex Boome:	Excellent, especially since they are going to be responsible for the next generation of international trade and dispute resolution.

Final Takeaway

Alex Boome:	Before we come to the close, do you have any other books in the pipeline that you're associated with, contributing to, or editing?
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Thank you very much. The book, Trade Restrictions and Sustainable Development, edited by myself and Dr. Ahmed Al-Sulati, aims to address a contentious issue, which is the growing impact of trade restrictions on sustainable development, particularly our ability to attain the Sustainable Development Goals by the year 2030. Over the last years, we've seen the rise in isolationism, countries adopting country-first policies, which have generally weakened multilateralism and trade integration that we need to advance the SDGs. We've also seen the rise in blockades, sanctions, embargoes, and boycotts in different parts of the world. I lived through one, which was the blockade of Qatar between 2017 to 2021, when some countries severed diplomatic ties, as well as land, maritime, and airspace blockades and travel restrictions on Qatar, which I believe resulted in one of the most significant regional crises in the 40-year history of the Gulf Corporation Council. Living through that experience for about four years made me see firsthand how blockades and trade restrictions can restrict the flow of goods and services, such as technologies, food supply, medicines, even educational resources and services needed to accelerate the SDGs. This led Dr. Ahmed and myself to pique interest in the question.
Alex Boome:	As academics, we are always involved in one thing or the other. Two initiatives stand out. We're currently developing a book on energy security and trade. We've seen an increased rise in the difficulties associated with energy trade, including the monetization of transit routes. What is the role of international law in promoting energy security in an era of realignments and trade isolationism? I look forward to discussing that one with you in the future. Secondly, water security is important in arid states in the MENA region due to geographical challenges. We are developing a book on water security, which has implications for trade as well, and it will be published by Cambridge University Press. It will be a useful tool for those interested in water security, the trade aspect of water, desalination technologies, and public-private partnerships relating to water investment.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Those are big, important subjects. It reminded me of one of the publications the Hinrich Foundation has, our annual Sustainable Trade Index. There is an SDG component in there, but also from a trade readiness and trade sustainability lens. The energy and water subjects would be relevant to that index.
Alex Boome:	Perfect.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	As we're coming to a close, we've got the three P's, which sounds perfectly packaged, though difficult to implement. Are there other recommendations you would give to policymakers, heads of nations, or regional groups? A forward-looking summary.
Alex Boome:	Trade Restrictions and Sustainable Development is a timely tool for researchers and policymakers to understand the legal ramifications and impact of trade restrictions on sustainable development. One key message we emphasize is the need to promote trade cooperation and reduce isolationism to prevent the frequency of trade clashes. If we achieve that, we would achieve sustainable development faster and advance the SDGs. We've also emphasized the need for countries to ensure trade resilience, ensuring their policies and economic diversification strategies promote their ability to cope with unforeseen trade shocks. The practical guidelines set out in the book on how to enhance trade resilience should be of interest to policymakers facing trade policy design. For arbitrators and dispute resolution experts, the book provides guidelines on how to represent a state facing trade restrictions. For international and regional bodies like the WTO, GCC, and OIC seeking to redesign their dispute resolution mechanisms to make them more resilient, this book is exactly what they need.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Fantastic. After listening to you and going through the book, there's hope. You come up with a real sense of purpose, direction, and very specific takeaways. We have full faith in cooperation and the benefits of international trade for people and promoting the SDGs, which will help society in general. I want to thank you, Damilola. It's been a pleasure talking to you, and thank you to your co-editor and the authors for making such a fantastic, useful, practical book.
Alex Boome:	Special thanks to you, Alex, and to the entire Hinrich Foundation team for providing this opportunity. Congratulations for all the great work you're doing, and for giving us a platform to share our insights with your trade audience. I really appreciate that.
Damilola S. Olawuyi:	Great, thank you. I trust the Hinrich Foundation Trade Book Talk on Trade Restrictions, Sustainable Development, and the Law has been as informative for our listeners as it is for me. Lastly, Damilola, thank you so much. Have a good day. Bye-bye.
Alex Boome:	Thank you. Bye.