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).