WTO is clearly more effective than GATT is in its conflict-resolution system.
It is not enough simply to get some general agreement on, say, the terms under
which bananas will be produced and traded; because even if a satisfactory
general agreement can be reached at one of the periodic international meet-
ings, individual countries may disobey. Under GATT such acts of disobedience
were adjudged by a panel of experts who not only had to be unanimous in their
decision, but the offending country also had to agree to be tried. The WTO
allows majority decisions, and the consent of countries to being judged is not
required. Thus, it is now worthwhile for a country suffering from another’s
discrimination against its product, to make a complaint. The WTO heard over
300 cases in the first five years of its existence, roughly as many as GATT had
dealt with in its entire existence.
The problems that face the WTO in fact are of a different nature. It is
increasingly seen, somewhat unfairly, as the main body responsible for eco-
nomic globalization in a world where globalization has become deeply suspect
to many radical political movements. This became apparent when the first
international meeting of the WTO, held in Seattle (USA) in 1999, had to be
broken off because of the sometimes violent protests taking place throughout
the city. Subsequent meetings of international organizations, including the G-
8, the World Economic Forum and theEuropean Union, attracted similar
protests, with varying degrees of violence, ostensibly in protest at the trade
policies of the developed world.
World Trade Organization