History repeating itself in Chinese control of Rare Earths

Rare Earths Flashback: Lessons from the 2014-2015 WTO Case Against China

Key Takeaways:

1. The 2015 WTO ruling forced China to remove rare earth export quotas, but China retained control by shifting to domestic production limits and industry consolidation.
2. The case accelerated global rare earth investment, but China still dominates over 85% of refining.
3. The dispute highlighted the limits of WTO enforcement in critical minerals, with China finding new ways to exert control over supply chains.
4. Without sustained financial and regulatory support, Western efforts to break China’s dominance may fail again, as seen in previous rare earth booms and busts.

---

A decade ago, the rare earths world was rocked by a landmark trade battle that still shapes global supply chains today. The 2014-2015 World Trade Organization (WTO) case against China was a turning point, forcing Beijing to drop controversial export controls on rare earth elements, tungsten, and molybdenum. But in hindsight, did it really weaken China’s grip on these critical minerals?

Background: The Trade Dispute That Shook the Market

Between 2010 and 2014, China—then responsible for over 90% of global rare earth production—imposed export quotas, duties, and licensing requirements on these strategic materials. Officially, China justified the restrictions on environmental protection grounds, citing the damaging effects of rare earth mining. However, global buyers, including the U.S., EU, and Japan, saw this as trade manipulation, allowing China to control prices while ensuring its domestic industries had cheaper access to rare earths.

In response, the U.S., EU, and Japan filed a case with the WTO in 2012, arguing that China’s actions violated international trade rules. The WTO ruled against China in 2014, stating that the restrictions were not truly environmental but rather a form of economic protectionism. Beijing appealed but lost again in 2015, ultimately removing export quotas and duties that same year.

The Outcome: How China Adapted

While the ruling forced China to remove direct export controls, it quickly pivoted to a new strategy:

• Production Quotas Instead of Export Quotas: China shifted its focus to limiting domestic production rather than exports, keeping prices high without violating WTO rules.
• Industry Consolidation: The government merged rare earth companies into a few state-controlled giants, like China Northern Rare Earth Group, further centralizing control.
• Crackdowns on Illegal Mining: While improving environmental standards, China also ensured that only approved state players benefited from production.

The result? China still dominates rare earth refining and processing, controlling over 85% of global refined supply, even if it no longer directly limits exports.

Reflections in 2025: What Did We Learn?

The WTO case was initially seen as a victory for the U.S., the EU, and Japan, but in hindsight, it did little to change China’s strategic control over rare earths. While China was forced to lift export restrictions, it merely shifted its focus to domestic production limits and industry consolidation. This shift allowed China to maintain its dominance while avoiding further scrutiny under WTO regulations. Instead of relying on trade barriers, China strengthened its rare earth supply chain through industrial policy, technological advancements, and strategic mergers, ensuring that it remained the world’s leading supplier.

The dispute highlighted a critical flaw in Western efforts to counter China’s grip on rare earths: short-term reactions rather than long-term strategy. In the wake of the 2015 WTO ruling, Western nations and allied economies briefly ramped up investment in alternative rare earth projects. However, just as in previous rare earth supply crises, enthusiasm waned as prices stabilized. This cycle of urgency followed by neglect mirrors past failures, such as the rare earth investment rush after China’s 2010 export restrictions, which faded as soon as market pressures eased. Without sustained commitment, these efforts fall apart, leaving China with an even stronger position.

A key lesson from this case is that addressing rare earth dependency requires more than just legal victories—it demands structural change. The rare earth supply chain is not just about extraction; refining, processing, and end-product manufacturing are equally crucial. China continues to dominate these downstream processes, giving it control over pricing and supply availability. Western nations must recognize that mining projects alone will not break China’s hold. Significant government-backed financial incentives, regulatory frameworks, and industrial policy are necessary to build competitive refining and processing infrastructure outside of China. Without these, alternative supply chains will struggle to scale, and history will repeat itself.

Recent developments, such as China’s 2023 restrictions on gallium and germanium exports, show that Beijing still holds the playbook for controlling critical minerals. While rare earths were the battleground a decade ago, similar strategies are now being applied to other strategic materials. If Western nations fail to learn from past missteps, they will find themselves once again reacting to supply shocks rather than proactively securing long-term resource independence.

Final Thought: The Rare Earth Battle is Ongoing

While the 2015 WTO case reshaped global rare earth trade, it didn’t diminish China’s dominance. Instead, it taught us that securing rare earth supply requires more than legal wins—it demands long-term investment in alternative supply chains. Governments and industries must remain proactive because, in the world of rare earths, control isn’t just about who mines the materials—but who refines them.