The aim of this thesis is to determine whether the dispute settlement institutions of the WTO and the NAFTA meet the standard, to compare the two systems, and to evaluate them. An issue that should be dealt with first is the question of comparability. Is it possible to compare the WTO and the NAFTA regarding their conflict resolution procedures? Or are they too different because one agreement works on the global level and the other on a regional one? Their institutions and their scope may differ, but they are still conducive to comparison because the underlying structure of these two international treaties is quite similar. Secondly, even if major differences existed, the analysis of the dispute settlement regimes is conducted in a very narrow field. It is intended to find out the principles of how the agreements deal with conflict resolution. Since the area to be examined is very limited, a comparison would not be hindered by structural differences. The topic has been chosen for several reasons: both the agreements are new, and both have had "predecessors". It will be interesting to see whether their draftees considered the "flaws" of other trade agreements and improved the dispute settlement systems accordingly.