; Mavroidis, in his 2008 book ‘From GATT 1947 to GATT 1994’, argues that the relationship of the GATT with the WTO Agreement and the many understandings has been resolved by WTO jurisprudence rather than by legislative fiat. Conversely, the relationship of the GATT with the other annexes has been resolved by legislative means. The WTO Appellate Body (AB) has consistently held that the WTO Agreement is one agreement and that the GATT is one of its annexes. The legal implication is that the GATT disciplines have to be construed in a manner that takes into account the WTO Agreement. In view of the above: 1) Does GATT need to take into account the WTO Agreement? Answer with reference to relevant WTO Appellate Body (AB) decisions. 2) What is the relationship between GATT and the other multilateral agreements on the trade in goods that comprise Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement? 3) Mavroidis considers that the AB will defer to the legislative solution advanced in an understanding, to the extent that it regulates an issue left unregulated or obscure in the GATT. What is the evidence to support Mavroidis’s argument?