The contemporary global trade regime has influence that is greater than that of its state members. Under the 1994 Marrakech Agreement that created the WTO, member-states commit themselves (with no reservations allowed) to alter their national statutes and procedures to comply with suprastate trade law. Even the US Supreme Court has recognized, in a 1999 judgement, the higher authority of WTO rules. The Trade Policy Review Body of the WTO conducts periodic surveillance of member governments’ commercial measures. Alleged violations of WTO rules are submitted to a Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), where panels of experts reach decisions that are binding unless every state party to the global trade regime (including the initial complainant) votes to overturn the advice. In the first nine years of the WTO’s existence over 300 trade disputes were tabled for DSB consideration. Many more WTO-related cases have been settled through informal negotiation and pressure. Formally, of course, states have had the ‘sovereign prerogative’ whether or not to join and comply with the WTO. However, the forces of a globalizing economy, coupled with the prevailing neoliberal discourse that extols trade liberalization, have heavily constrained this supposed ‘free will’. Indeed, to date no state has outright rejected the Marrakech Agreement.