Introduction
Since the very first appearance of humanity, individuals that were belonged to the society did not live separately and naturally; but they followed a system of rules among their groups or communities. As time goes by, these basic rules are enforced and adjusted as the foundation of modern term "law". We can understand law is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions. It forms politics, economics and society in several ways and provided as a major social judicator with the purpose of arbitrating the relations between people in specific country or area. Because of the development of communication, people did not only trade or have relations in their country or area. They also exchanged and interacted with people in different regions. As the consequence, the need of international trade law and an institution that has enough power to, regulating exchange of capital, goods and services across international borders or territories became very significant. After many efforts and discussion, as well as the evaluation and revision, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was officially born, basically collected the contribution of previous agreement which was General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). As general director Pascal Lamy opened his speech for WTO public forum in 2008, the World Trade Organization can be defined as the unique international organization that can deal with the trade rules between various nations. Moreover, WTO has the strategic importance and the underestimated influences to those nations. This paper tend to discuss the critical assessment whether creation of the WTO introduced any significant improvements from GATT in regulating international trade. It will deal with some literature review about GATT and WTO, following by the analysis of improvements from GATT to WTO that referenced to the decisions of the Dispute Resolution Body in WTO.
Main Body
The World Trade Organization has its beginning as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to which it developed into the successful descendant organization in January of 1995. With the purpose of better understanding the development of the WTO, some brief literature review of GATT is necessary. The GATT has been defined as "a remarkable success story of postwar international organization that was never intended to become one" [1] . As the development of international trade, the world touched with the need for a comparable international institution for trade. Therefore, in 1945, the International Trade Organization (ITO) was attempted to create in order to embark the fundamental regulations for international trade and other international economic matters. But it did not receive the supported from most countries because they were afraid of being concerned of internal economic issues by an external institution. In the deficiency of an international organization for trade, in 1948 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was created with the purpose of handling problems concerning various countries trade relations. In the beginning, GATT consisted as a set of rules for nondiscrimination, distinguishable processes, and resolution of disputes in international trade. GATT operated based on the theory that each member country belonging to GATT would have the encouraging treatment to other members with respects of importing or exporting rather than non-member countries. Eventually, the GATT advanced into an association that supported consecutive rounds of international trade negotiations with a solution relatively concentrate on a cutback of established high tariffs. GATT held a total of eight rounds, with the first round named Geneva Round started in April 1947 including the tariffs reduction among twenty-three countries with the value of trade was approximately $10 billion dollars [2] . After two years, in 1949, the second round called Annecy round including thirteen countries with the exchanges of nearly 5,000 tariff concessions and the third Torquay round in September 1950 with thirty-eight countries increased this number to 8,700 concessions cutting. Geneva II was the fourth round held in January 1956 with twenty-six countries introduces additional admission of Japan with more than $2.5 billion in tariff reductions. The fifth round names Dillon happened in September 1960 with the same number of countries as previous round and reduced as twice value of tariff concessions which was $4.9 billion. Kennedy was the name of sixth round occurred in May 1964 was one of the most rounds with 62 countries member. Besides tariffs reductions reached $40 billion dollars, in this round, GATT also concerned the anti-dumping regulation to prevent various predatory pricing from taking actions. After nine years in September 1973, the seventh round named Tokyo reached the peak with 102 countries reduced more than $300 billion dollars in tariff reductions as well as discussion of both tariffs and non-tariffs measurement. During its existence, the GATT accomplished the liberalization of trade for approximately 50,000 products categories, total in two-third of the value of the trade between its participants. In details, GATT negotiations has reduced the trade barriers, increased improved dispute resolution mechanisms, better stipulations arrangement with subsidies and a more open description of rules for imports organize. However, in spite of its success, GATT became less effective and less major impacts overtime. Many nations built up number of new implementation for administering and distorting trade flows and nontariff tools that were not covered up under the GATT regulations. After many years of frequently controversial concessions, the Uruguay Round settlement was finally approved in 1994. The Uruguay Round started on 1986. It was the most determined round, in suspense to increase the capability of the GATT to significant latest categories such as intellectual property, agriculture, services, capital and textiles with the participants of one hundred and twenty three countries in the round. Agriculture was fundamentally exempted from earlier accords as it was provided particular position in the areas of import quotas and export subsidies, with single slightly limitations. On the other hand, by the time of the Uruguay round, numerous countries reflected on the exemption of agriculture to be satisfactorily conspicuous that they declined to sign a new agreement without some movement on agricultural products. These fourteen countries came to be classified as the "Cairns Group", and contained regularly small and medium sized agricultural exporters such as Brazil, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Indonesia. The conformity on agriculture of the Uruguay Round maintains to be the most considerable trade liberalization agreement in agricultural products in the history of trade negotiations. The objectives of the agreement were to develop market admission for agricultural products, decrease domestic sustain of agriculture in the appearance of price distorting subsidies or quotas, getting rid of over time export subsidies on agricultural products and to complement to the scope that possible hygienic and phytosanitary evaluations between various member countries [3] . As part of this agreement, an officially new institution, the World Trade Organization was formed, which now is the umbrella organization accountable for administrating the accomplishment of all the multiparty conformities negotiated in the Uruguay Round and those that will be negotiated in the near. The GATT has stopped to perform as the separate institution and has become division of the WTO, along with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), agreements on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), and trade-related investment measures (TRIMS), and manages a large multiplicity of international trade and investment agreements. According to WTO Web site, WTO is simply define as "a place where member governments go, to try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other" [4] . As of July 2008, the WTO had 153 members, with Cape Verde as the latest member [5] .
But what are the differences and improvements of WTO comparing with its previous foundation GATT? This is the necessary answer that needed to be discussed clearly. Firstly, about the structure, GATT was just a set of rules and regulations that were signed in a conference and it was without any institutions or sub-institutions while WTO can be seen as the permanent institutional structure. We can look at the structure of WTO as the following chart:
Picture 1: The WTO Structure. Source: WTO Website. Adapted in November 30th at the following link: http://iitrade.com/images/ORGANIZATION%20CHART_clip_image002.gif
The headquarter is ministerial conference with the direct control of General Council including three sub-institutions which are Council for Trade in Goods, Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Council for Trade in Services. This fundamental division helps the organization work more specialized, more focusing and less risky.
Secondly, GATT focus uniquely on trade in goods where as WTO has wider scope. Besides managing trade in goods, after the Uruguay Round, WTO takes responsibilities for Trade in Services and Intellectual Property Right aspects. They are relatively the large improvements of WTO comparing to GATT because nowadays, services industries such as tourism, hospitality, banking, etc are increase in economic value, especially in developed countries; and the development of science, technology, human idea, etc creates an urgent requirements for the protection of intellectual property rights.
Thirdly, GATT used fragmented approach in which some parts applied more narrowly. In details, the general perception was that GATT substantive rules, as applied to trade in agricultural goods, were much weaker than as applied to trade in other goods. In particular, GATT Article XVI.1, which concerned the use of domestic subsidies including any form of income or price support, was largely an entreaty, exhorting GATT member countries no to use domestic subsidies in a manner that caused serious harm to the interests of their trading partners. In fact, the use of domestic subsidies was far more prevalent in agricultural production than in any other sector of the world economy. In addition, no GATT rules compelled any of its members to offer concessions on, or to bind, agricultural tariffs. But with the WTO, those problems were solved relatively [6] .
Lastly, the preliminary evidence shows that the WTO dispute settlement system is a important development over its GATT precursor. The GATT dispute system was based completely on GATT Article XXIII, under which any GATT contracting party that regarded as that any advantage accumulating to it under the agreement had been invalidated or damaged, could refer the subject for examination and declaration by the all contracting parties and by the consensus. The concept that a dispute between two parties over application of the GATT Agreement could be effectively determined before a meeting of all GATT contracting parties was, of course, impracticable. GATT representatives according to the grapevine supposed that Article XXIII would offer the large agenda for dispute settlement, but that specific processes would be exercised in negotiations. As a consequence, the GATT created a system of adjudication by boards of judges selected by the parties to the dispute all the way through formalized procedures. Regardless of the several efforts to improve and fine-tune the system, GATT dispute settlement has some very fundamental imperfections, the majority of which are the outcomes from the principle that dispute settlement in the GATT was fundamentally a process of decision making, rather than a more traditional process of adversarial adjudication. And the newborn of WTO with the Understanding on the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes offers many improvements. Now, a contracting party is no longer closed off the creation of a panel because the rule involving consensus has, in effect, been stood on its head. This rule successfully composes dispute settlement automatic upon the storing of the complaint because; after all, there can be no consensus not to set up a panel without the complaining party. Consequently, the new rule preserves the traditional GATT idea of consensus decision making. The new "automatic" rule effectively spots a move from the consensus model to the controversial model. In addition, the panel reports also can no longer be blocked by a single party with the adoption days maximized to 60 days. Moreover, the functions of the panels are now more clearly defined as making decision.
Even though it is impracticable to examine, the more automatic dispute settlement system may also cultivate earlier and more reasonable settlements of possible disputes. Since the WTO Agreement came into practice, there have been satisfactory settlements of various potentially nettlesome trade disputes without having to rearrange to the official dispute settlement process. Therefore, we can say that the formation of WTO has promoted resolution of disputes. For instance, the case of United States Gasoline can be taken as the illustration. On 23 January 1995, Venezuela complained to the Dispute Settlement Body that the United States was applying rules that prefer some gasoline imports but treat badly with some others, and formally requested consultations with the United States. And since on 29 January 1996, the dispute panel of WTO has announced its final report. The United States adopted the appeal. The Appellate Body completed its result, and the Dispute Settlement Body approved the report on 20 May 1996, just one year and four months after the complaint was first lodged a protest.
The United States and Venezuela then took six and a half months to go to the final agreements on what the United States should do with the gasoline importers. The agreed period for put into practice the solution was 15 months from the date the appeal was completed.
This case has occurred because the reason that United States applied very tough requirements and rules on the chemical components of imported gasoline than it required for gasoline companies from domestic. Venezuela said this was unreasonable because US gasoline quality even did not have to meet the same standards so the actions of US proved that it was violating the "domestic treatment" principle and could not be examined under various exceptions of normal WTO rules for health and environmental preservation measures. The dispute panel final reports are agreed with Venezuela. Finally, the United States must agree with Venezuela that it would modify its regulations within 15 months and on 26 August 1997 it reported to the Dispute Settlement Body that a new regulation had been signed on 19 August [7] .
Conclusion
While there has been much discussion about the improvement in the substantive rules governing trade of WTO and its previous foundation GATT, there are the initial evidence indicates that the WTO dispute settlement system is a significant improvement over its GATT predecessor. After processing several evidences and illustration, we can figure out that the WTO introduced many significant improvements from GATT in regulating international trade, especially in improving Disputes Settlement Body, therefore also promoting the Disputes Resolution Body.
