The World Trade Organization forms part of a successful undertaking to build institutions for a “free world” whose roots can be traced back over half a century. The constellation of international institutions created after the Second World War – the UN, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now the WTO – has proved successful in spurring development and spreading democracy. Never before in human history have so many people enjoyed the freedom of the market-place and the ballot box. Recent criticisms of the WTO as being undemocratic and infringing developing countries’ sovereignty miss the point. There is no meaningful “democratic deficit” in the WTO unless one takes the position that governments do not legitimately represent their citizens and their interests. The WTO is not imposed on countries, but they choose to participate in an open, rules-based multilateral trading system for the simple reason that it is overwhelmingly in their interest to do so. Two fundamental principles – the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of consensus decision-making – underpin the equal rights of WTO members and ensure that member state sovereignty remains intact. However, despite its successful history, the WTO system is also confronted with new challenges: decision-making processes have come under review after recent difficulties with starting a new round of trade negotiations, and efforts have been made to enhance transparency and inclusiveness. The proposal to allow consensus to be overruled on basic policy questions has also been raised, but should by no means be implemented. It would undermine the democratic nature of the organization if policies were to be imposed on unwilling members. The second challenge to the WTO is to increase capacities so that all governments are equipped to participate in WTO processes as effectively as they would like. One key objective is to empower the officials of developing countries to better identify their negotiating objectives and to analyse the many proposals coming from other partners. Another goal is to help member governments make better use of dispute settlement. The Advisory Center for WTO Law marks the start of a true legal aid center on an international scale. Despite some imperfections, the WTO gives even the smallest and poorest countries far greater leverage and security than they would ever have outside the system. Multilateral negotiations allow weaker countries to pool their collective influence and interests – as opposed to bilateral or even regional negotiations in which they have virtually no negotiating clout. A system which replaces the role of “power” in international trade relations with the “rule of law” is invariably to the advantage of the smallest and weakest countries. Overall, the alternative to the WTO system would be a less open, less prosperous, and more uncertain world economy.