GATT時代之爭端解決機制與WTO時代最大之差異，係爭端解決機制之法制化，WTO將其明定為屬於強制及排他性的準司法裁決制度。DSU中並引進了「負面之共識決」(negative consensus)之制度，以避免個別之會員國對小組報告之通過予以杯葛。雖然DSU強化了執行的機制，採取立即履行的原則，但對於違反最後裁決之會員國，若採取報復措施，效果太弱，因此有必要探討是否賦予WTO對國內法院有直接效力。 以歐盟對直接效力的立場而言，可以烏拉圭回合談判為界。於此之前，歐盟法院明確拒絕否定了GATT的直接效力。於烏拉圭回合談判之後，歐盟法院原則上仍否定WTO的直接效力，惟若WTO的規定係清楚、明確且無條件的義務時，則為例外。 承認WTO協定的直接效力與否，各有其優劣。從法律的技術層面來看，WTO之協定在我國是否具有直接適用之效力，可能有些許爭議，並不難克服。我國若能主動引進直接效力制度，提供他國之進口商更直接的救濟途徑，不僅不會對國際貿易造成太大的衝擊（因我國係以出口為主），反而可能使我國的出口商於他國亦同享此一制度之保障（互惠原則）。
The utmost difference of dispute resolution mechanism between the GATT and the WTO is the in-depth of legalization. It is the WTO ruling that dispute resolution is the compulsory and exclusive quasi-judicial system of adjudication. Further, the DSU introduces the negative consensus system. Although the DSU enhances the enforceable mechanism and adopts the prompt enforceability principle, the effect upon the member who violates the final verdict will be too weak. Hence, it is essential to explore whether the domestic court should confer the direct effect upon the WTO's panel or Appellate Body decisions. Before the Uruguay Round, the EU court specifically rejects the direct effect of GATT's. Thereafter, the EU court still denies it in principle, except that obligations derived from the provision of WTO are clear, specific and with no condition. There are some advantages and disadvantages recognizing the direct effect of WTO agreement. From the technical legal perspective, whether it has direct effect in our country, there might be some disputes, but it seems not hard to resolve. If our country can introduce the direct effect system, providing the importers from other countries with more direct remedy. It would not create huge shock to international trading upon us (because our country replies upon exporting). On the contrary, it may create an opportunity to have Taiwan's exporter protected by the same system as well (reciprocal principle).
