Europe is loaded for the bear.

Last August, Brussels drafted what it calls an “anti-coercion instrument” (ICA). It’s a regulation motivated by Europe’s belief that trade is “increasingly armed”. A document who explains why the AIT is necessary cites the “weakened role” of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the “rise of protectionism and the increasing deployment of the economy as a geopolitical tool”. But will the ICA help or hurt?

If you haven’t heard of ICA Europe, you’re not alone. It didn’t get much attention until China launched a trade war with Lithuania. The background story is that Lithuania invited Taiwan to open a de facto embassy in Vilnius. Beijing took offense to this and imposed import and export bans on goods and services from Lithuania, and even those from other countries that use Lithuanian inputs. The European Union (EU) responded by deposit a WTO case against China at the end of January.

Few are optimistic about taking this dispute to Geneva. European Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis had to confess that “we see no other way forward”. Zhao Lijian, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, warned that the WTO would not be much help because “[t]he problem between China and Lithuania is a political one, not an economic one. Although the EU makes a strong case, Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the European Center for International Political Economy, predicted that China is likely to prevail by invoking national security or public morality as an exception.

This is precisely the type of situation that the AIT is supposed to remedy. The regulation states that if a third country is found to be “interfering with the legitimate sovereign choices” of the EU or a member state, through “explicit”, “disguised” or “silent” economic coercion, Brussels can retaliate with wide range trade and investment sanctions. The problem is that the AIT is not yet finalized.

Brussels talks a lot about China in ACI materials. He literally uses China’s trade intimidation against Lithuania as his case study, while pointing to China’s trade squabbles with Australia and Canada as proof of concept. But make no mistake, the AIT is meant to cast a wider net.

Two intriguing themes recur in Europe’s narrative on the AIT. The first is US Section 301. It’s done Exhibit B, just after China’s feud with Lithuania. In fact, Washington’s “threats” to use this unilateral stick to change Europe’s policies on digital trade are cited as an example of “explicit” economic coercion.

The second is a listing cutting-edge issues where Europe says the ACI can help: namely, “climate change, taxation or food security”. This list is worrying. Take food security. Is this an import or export problem? The Commission suggests the latter, but it is overkill. The EU is a defendant in the largest ongoing food safety dispute at the WTO since endocrine disruptors for antimicrobials (AMR). In fact, the fight against AMR will largely take place in third markets, so again, is Europe on the defensive or the offensive?

Speaking of the WTO, it is not mentioned once in the regulations. Of course, the AIT refers to rights under “international law” and certainly admits that the EU could decide to pursue WTO dispute settlement. But those references are mostly about how the sanctions might end, not how they would start.

The plot thickens. Europe recently issued another regulation to deal with the “weakened role” of the WTO, given the disappearance of the Appellate Body. It’s called Regulation 2021/167and it speeds up EU retaliation against a country that appeals a WTO panel ruling in this “legal vacuum” or refuses to commit to one of its agreements preferential trading.

So, add in Regulation 2021/167 a working ACI, and the UE will be locked and loaded. Not just in terms of relations with China, but with all countries. This is what happens when the rules-based trading system begins to unravel.

Whenever the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference takes place, Russia will certainly be the topic of conversation in Geneva. But in addition to debating whether Russia should be suspended or expelled, participants should see the AIT for what it is: a wake-up call. The 1930s are as recent as a state of mind.

Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Commercial Diplomacy at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Follow him on Twitter @marclbusch.