The Uruguay Round of Agreement promised the new changes to previous dispute settlement system formed under GATT 1947. The imposition of sanction as it was under previous GATT was promised to be inoperative and was no longer to be vetoed unilaterally as per the WTO. The impartiality towards all member countries were also promised by WTO 1995 based on more legalistic approach to protect the bargaining power of member countries which was based on Market size of each individual member country thus developed countries as well as developing countries and LDC’s were to be beneficiary’s. The dispute settlement understanding was deemed to be in favour of developing countries, but the WTO documents reveal that it was actually the United States with the support of some developing countries who got the GATT’s veto rule eliminated.1 Initially few developing countries supported the new DSU but most of them were against the new DSU system as they were asking for special and differential treatment.2 As Developing Nations and least-developed nations are frequently the subject of unjust behavior by rich countries, the majority of least-developed countries, even as third parties, are unwilling to approach the DSM. (Members of the WTO that participate in the lawsuit as a third party are those impacted by the infringement, but not directly involved, that a nation submits as a complaint to the DSM. Third parties engage in a legal procedure by joining the complainant in the role of a 'next friend' in order to support the plaintiff's case.) The little usage of the DSM by the poorer developing nations is regrettable since this method may frequently achieve more progress than the negotiating consensus approach.

.