Why do some critics refer to GATT as the "General Agreement to Talk and Talk" and how does its successor, WTO, provide a better forum for trade agreements?

What will be an ideal response?

GATT was an organization that was handling 300 trade disputes during its half century of existence. It itself had no enforcement power, and the process of dealing with disputes stretched for years. The losing party had the right to ignore the ruling. Therefore, it was referred to as more of a talking rather than enforcing body. WTO provides a forum for trade-related negotiations among its 150 members. The WTO has a Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that mediates complaints concerning unfair trade barriers and other issues between the WTO's member countries. During a 60-day consultation period, parties to a complaint are expected to engage in good-faith negotiations and reach an amicable resolution. If that fails, the complainant can ask the DSB to appoint a three-member panel of trade experts to hear the case. The panel has nine months within which to issue its ruling. The losing party has the option of turning to a seven-member appellate body. If, after due process, a country's trade policies are found to violate WTO rules, it is expected to change those policies. If changes are not forthcoming, the WTO can authorize trade sanctions against the loser. Thus, the formation of WTO took care of many of the problems that existed during GATT.