Since the World Trade Organization was started in 1995, it has been given the responsibility of liberalizing and managing the international trading system. It has been given responsibilities that exceed those that the organization before it, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) had. A dispute settlement mechanism was created through the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Dispute Settlement Understanding : DSU) which was adopted during the Uruguay Round agreement signed in Marrakech on April 15 1994 that gave rise to the World Trade Organization (WTO). New areas of trade were brought into account, reflecting on how trade has been achieved throughout the past few decades. Trade in services and in agricultural products was now subject to the liberalization efforts of the WTO. With the Uruguay Round trade agreement; the WTO had an improved dispute settlement mechanism and a tightening of the GATT exemption on regional agreements. Trade liberalization under GATT has been incorporated into international trading relations since 1947. These two organizations have worked together in mutual tolerance, driven by the pursuit of distinct and independent goals, despite the numerous differences between them. A comparison of a few of these differences can be used in determining whether the European Union can pursue an independent course of action in terms of regional integration, especially with the WTO's authority extending gradually to areas such as competition, and agriculture. Mary Ferrell poses the question whether the WTO can be based on contradictory principles, and with her article Complementarity or Competition, I will critique Farrell's answer and shed some light on two distinct regulatory structures trying to attain, more or less, the same goal.
The DSU, as introduced prior, embodies the increasing integration of the WTO whose decisions turn out to be more often arduous an