How do the World Trade Organisation agreements impact upon the laws and legal systems of the WTO member states?

Article XVI § 4 of the Marrakech Agreement has put an end to the “grandfather clause” which, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), allowed the Member States to invoke a previously existing domestic law to escape their GATT obligations. It provides that: “Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements”. Thus, this article defines how the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements should impact on WTO Member States.

The WTO was created on January 1st 1995 following the ratification of the Marrakech Agreement. This organization succeeded the GATT 1947 then modified by the GATT in 1994. The GATT and then the WTO were not only agreements but also organizations governing the international trade law. Since 1947, eight rounds of negotiations took place and it is the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) which led to the drafting of the WTO Agreements. The WTO Agreements are diverse; we shall mention some of them such as the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes These WTO Agreements, as well as GATT 1947 and 1994, are the constituent of the WTO Agreement.

[...] Nevertheless, we may argue that a stronger impact of WTO Agreements upon its Member States would be beneficial for international trade and for the achievement of WTO’s objectives. Finally, we might wish that WTO Agreements would not only be a tool of negotiations but also an effectively binding international agreement. Bibliography: - The Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (1994) - Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes”, Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement - The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) - The Uruguay Round Agreement Act 1994 - Treaty on the European Union. [...]

[...] ) among WTO Member States, we can easily understand that these exceptions greatly reduce the scope of the impact of the MFN principle upon Member States’ legal systems. As a consequence, under these exceptions, the MFN principle cannot be invoked by individual members. Secondly, when the MFN principle should come to apply, its impact is generally of a lesser importance due to the Member States’ reluctance to grant WTO Agreements direct effect into their legal systems. Indeed, we may take the example of the ECJ Banana case[53]. [...]

[...] Finally, we may question the inconsistency of the EU’s position about the impact of the WTO Agreements in its legal system. There are good grounds for thinking that the impact of WTO Agreements in the EU’s legal system is determined by the ECJ’s will which is guided by economic and political interests. Actually, we may regret that WTO Agreements are not as binding as they should be regarding their status of international agreements (see article 300§7 of the EC Treaty). [...]