“In today’s commercial wars, trade compliance is not a burden but a weapon” states Alexandre Celse

Tariffs, sanctions, and export controls have become strategic weapons in the post-globalization era — reshaping global trade and forcing companies to rethink compliance from the ground up. In this interview, Alexandre Celse, Partner at Brocardi Celse Associés, shares his insights ahead of the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business conference “Welcome to Post-Globalization: Sanctions, Controls, Tariffs… How Are Companies Coping With This New Economic Era?” (11 September 2025). He explains why customs, once overlooked, is now at the heart of corporate strategy, and how firms must embed trade compliance into decision-making to remain resilient in an increasingly fragmented global order.

In the “post-globalization” era marked by rising tariffs, export restrictions, and sanctions, what are the most significant geopolitical and trade policy shifts you’ve observed recently—and what structural break do they represent compared to earlier norms?

Alexandre Celse – Three structural breaks stand out.

First, the time factor: never before have so many regulatory changes accumulated in such a short span since 2016 — the new EU Customs Code (to be revised again in 2028), Trump’s first tariff wave, Brexit, Russian sanctions, the CBAM, Trump’s return, and the deforestation regulation (for future implementation), to name only a few.

Second, the prism: Russian sanctions mark a new chapter. For the first time, many civilian products are affected, and the world is effectively divided into two camps — those applying sanctions and those not. This has created major challenges around circumvention.

Third, the approach: the Trump administration’s “new doctrine” on customs duties diverges sharply from World Customs Organization’s (WCO) principles and adds considerable uncertainty.

President Trump’s latest “reciprocal” tariffs indicate a renewed use of duties as strategic tools. From your perspective in customs compliance, how are these measures reshaping supply chains and the calculus of trade risk for companies?

A.C. – They have brought Customs to the forefront of compliance — an area long underestimated. Companies must now ensure traceability, robust data management, and the ability to monitor and secure daily customs clearances. Many firms are not fully prepared, which makes adapting to current uncertainties very difficult.

In this new environment, strengthening Customs fundamentals is essential. Once processes are secured, companies can move toward optimization through customs engineering, turning compliance into a lever for cost and risk management.

Sanctions and export controls have become core levers of statecraft. What are today’s key compliance challenges for firms—particularly in sensitive sectors like defense, aerospace, and automotive—and how do they practically manage these intensified constraints?

A.C. – These sectors are already among the most compliance-aware, but the tightening of sanctions and export controls requires an even higher degree of vigilance. Companies are embedding trade compliance more deeply into their organizations, often through a cross-functional approach. This includes:

• integrating customs and sanctions considerations,
• adapting procurement, sales, logistics, and distribution processes,
• strengthening ex-post audits and legal monitoring,
• updating contractual clauses,
• and enhancing screening mechanisms.

Compliance is no longer a silo; it must cut across the entire organization.

Given the increasing complexity of customs litigation and international regulatory scrutiny, what organizational adjustments are companies making to consolidate trade compliance into strategic decision-making?

A.C. – The key is to transform compliance into a decision-support tool. Trade compliance covers customs, sanctions, export controls, and sector-specific regulations, which means it involves multiple business functions. Companies are gradually establishing dedicated compliance units or governance structures, but customs issues still remain under-prioritized. Integrating customs engineering into strategic decision-making is becoming essential.

In a recent analysis co-signed by you, the notion of “contractual responsibility”—embodied in enhanced obligations for demonstrating good faith and for supply chain traceability—was presented as central to modern customs risk management. How is this trend reshaping corporate practices?

A.C. – Compliance today lies entirely with the company, which depends heavily on the reliability of information provided by suppliers and clients. Circumvention risks are vast, and contracts have become the primary safeguard. They provide evidence of good faith and legal protection.

This has been particularly clear with Russian sanctions, which are broad, complex, and difficult to implement. The latest sanction packages even introduced a mandatory “no Russia” clause for example, underlining how crucial contractual provisions have become.

From your vantage point, how are export controls and customs regulations being used—either deliberately or inadvertently—as instruments of geopolitical power? And how do companies navigate this landscape without falling into the trap of over-compliance or risk paralysis?

A.C. – The U.S. has long used export controls and sanctions as geopolitical tools. What is new is the intensity of this trend and the expansion of customs considerations beyond the traditional WCO framework. At the same time, multilateralism is weakening, resulting in a proliferation of regulations and a lack of visibility.

For companies, the priority is to manage data effectively and adopt a global, integrated approach to trade compliance. Only then can they remain agile while avoiding both under- and over-compliance.

Finally, with the UN General Assembly’s 80th anniversary approaching in September 2025, do you think multilateral institutions still offer meaningful frameworks to align trade norms—or are companies now forced to build resilience autonomously in a fragmented global order?

A.C. – Realistically, the second scenario prevails today. Yet no country — and no company — can face global challenges alone. We are entering an uncertain period, with constant regulatory change expected in the months and years ahead.

Even though the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Customs Organization (WCO) signed an agreement to strengthen collaboration earlier this year, they notably struggle to fulfil their original missions and sustain multilateralism as defined in the 1990s. In this context, companies must strengthen monitoring, resilience, and agility to adapt to a persistently uncertain global order.

ABOUT THE ESSEC INSTITUTE FOR GEOPOLITICS & BUSINESS

Created in 2024 by ESSEC, the Institute for Geopolitics & Business examines how geopolitical shocks reshape companies’ economic models.

Operating across ESSEC Business School’s campuses in France, Morocco, and Singapore, it brings a tri-continental perspective to what drives corporate competitiveness in the post-globalization era: vigilance, resilience, independence.

It feeds into ESSEC’s degree programs, executive education, and research to foster a new generation of geopolitics-proof business leaders capable of steering and growing companies amid an increasingly brutalized world.

Rooted in ESSEC’s academic excellence, the Institute draws on 4 flagship centers:

• the IRENE Center for Negotiation & Mediation,
• the Center for Geopolitics, Defense & Leadership,
• the Center for European Law & Economics, and
• the Chair Business & Industry in Africa.

Contact: Thomas FRIANG, Executive Director of the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business - friang@essec.edu