I would like to highlight a point, which I think is clear in the discussion of your argument. In this context it is worth to underline the paradoxical and interesting fact that complying with the law, that is respecting a ‘hard edge of international law’ rather than deferring to state regulators, actually reinforces sovereignty. Avoiding a precipitated deference to national level decision making within the WTO dispute settlement, so it seems, contributes to support the old ideal of equality even in our globalized, fluid, world.
Finally, that the WTO panelists and Appellate Body members have an awareness of the existence of law might enhance the minimum of responsibility that is to be expected from the Appellate Body: a careful analysis of ‘all competing interests’ (thanks for this expression).
About development, I would only add that the question is perhaps whether ‘development’ is as a matter of course an integrated criterion in this analysis. Is anyone out there who can answer this question?