To say that there is a tension between nation State sovereignty and the instruments of global governance would be to state the obvious. However, in an increasingly interdependent world, it is crucial that this tension is managed equitably, effectively, and in a predictable and stable manner. The covered agreements of the WTO and the jurisprudence that has developed around them over the past two decades provide an excellent example of how this tension can be managed. There are two inter-related themes in WTO law and its jurisprudence which relate to the interface of sovereignty with global governance: • Coherence of WTO law with other norms of international law • Regulatory autonomy of the State to pursue legitimate non-trade concerns The Appellate Body has emphasized both principles. On the issue of regulatory autonomy in particular, there is already a substantial body of case law which has emerged from the Appellate Body over this period. A central objective of the dispute settlement system of the WTO is to provide security and predictability to the multilateral trading system while preserving the rights and obligations of Members, without adding to or diminishing them. The provisions of the various WTO Agreements reflect a balance between the interests of all WTO Members who are in various stages of development. In order to serve these goals, an objective basis for interpretation of the provisions of the covered agreements is necessary. This basis is provided by the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, and the Appellate Body in particular, has usually, though not exclusively, relied on the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for the purpose.