Among those members stands the European Community (EC) which is one of "the original members of the WTO" .
Given the possible tension between the purposes of the WTO, we must look at its concept of liberalization, the same liberalization which hinders the EC's development. How, and according to which circumstances can these two organizations coexist. This issue proves critical as one considers the above-mentioned integration of the WTO.
Farrell sheds light in several occasions on the intergovernmental nature of the WTO. She states that "the WTO remains an intergovernmental organization and is in much respect the instrument of the individual members" . In order to emphasize the critical importance of each member's will, she relies on a comparison of the processes of decision-making between the European Council and the General Council of the WTO. .
But the history of the liberalization of the International Trade System also bears witness to the intergovernmental character of the WTO. Farrell notes that "The international trading system was liberalized through the process of multilateral negotiation of tariff barriers with reciprocal concessions [ ] Liberalization was secured through a form of shallow integration, where the parties were not required to harmonize their policies as part of the agreement." .
Farrell points to the weaknesses of the DSB and more broadly of the regulatory system of the WTO, especially as compared to the EU regulatory framework. It is significant that she asserts that "apart from the addition of many new subjects to the substantive annexes, the WTO has no more real legal power than that which existed for the GATT under the previous agreements." Farrell also points to several weaknesses of the DSB which constitute substantial limits to the effectiveness of the DSB.
Farrell challenges the real effectiveness of the DSB, especially compared to other international courts such as the ECJ.
