'there needs to be some pan-national body to settle [...] disputes without turning every little international [trade] issue into a full-on diplomatic dispute'

'there needs to be some pan-national body to settle [...] disputes without turning every little international [trade] issue into a full-on diplomatic dispute' Exactly. Suddenly it's ok, if we have arbitration courts with "lesser" countries, but not so much if we feel we could be playing the role that usually a third world country plays. Some topics are just scapegoat-ish. It becomes impossible to reason with people who are convinced <inser-here> is evil, will be the end of all whats sacred. Now as international treaties go, the sovereign remains the nation. Imagine the most evil conspired trade-agreement (as the scapegoaters do), only founded to use it's arbitration courts for extortion. Wouldn't it be much wiser to keep your extortion-weapon sharp and thus use the arbitration court's biased-ness only in rare cases, rather than on a daily basis?