Paraphrasing　(3rd paragraph)

Text

Some important implications of this DSU orientation are worth noting. First, trade complaints are formally raised by governments, not by the WTO Secretariat or by private individuals. （It is true that some governments like the United States routinely raise complaints in the WTO on the behest of a private industry, but the WTO takes no cognizance of that.） Although the WTO has an elaborate Trade Policy Review Mechanism （TPRM） that might flag WTO-inconsistent policies by governments, this Mechanism has no connection to the WTO dispute settlement system. The WTO is not unusual in having a state-centric dispute settlement mechanism; that is still typical of international agreements, with some conspicuous conceptions being the International Labor Organization （ILO）, the North American Free Trade Agreement in Chapter 11, and some human rights courts. Second, a government needs to assert some interest in bringing a case, but this standing requirement is interpreted liberally and may be unreviewable. The complaining government does not have to show trade harm. The third implication, and perhaps the most important one, is that a case / dispute can end with a settlement that does not correct the non-compliance. The DSU states that "the aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution of the dispute". It goes on to say that a mutually, acceptable solution "consistent with the covered （WTO） agreements is clearly to be preferred, " which of course foresees the possibility that a dispute can be settled in a way that is inconsistent with WTO rules.

The main idea of the paragraph

With the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, three important implications deserve attention： Firstly, the dispute settlement mechanism is state-centered; it does not accept complaints raised by private individuals. Secondly, the complaining government does not have to show trade harm. Thirdly, a dispute can end with a settlement that does not correct the non-compliance.

就《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》而言，有三个重要含义需要引起注意，第一，争端解决机制是以国家为中心，它不受理个人提出的与贸易相关的投诉；第二，投诉的政府不需要提出其贸易受到损害的证据；第三，争端的解决可能并没有同时纠正不遵守世贸组织规则的情况 。

句子分析

It goes on to say that a mutually acceptable solution "consistent with the covered （WTO） agreements is clearly to be preferred," which of course foresees the possibility that a dispute can be settled in a way that is inconsistent with WTO rules.

在此句中

　　1）“It goes on to say”是主句

　　2）“that a mutually acceptable solution …with WTO rules”是由从属连词“that”引导的从句，作“say”的宾语，其中：

　　①形容词短语“consistent with the covered （WTO） agreements”作定语，修饰名词“solution”
　　②“which of course … with WTO rules”是非限制性的定语从句，补充说明前面所提到的事，即“ a mutually acceptable solution consistent with the covered （WTO） agreements is clearly to be preferred”，在这个非限制性的定语从句中
　　③“that a dispute can be settled in a way that is inconsistent with WTO rules”是个同位语从句，说明“possibility”的内容，其中的“that is inconsistent with WTO rules”是另一个限制性的定语从句，修饰名词“way”

词语解释

take cognizance of

to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision 注意到e.g.

　　1）The lawyer asked the jury to take cognizance of the defendant's generosity in giving to charity.律师请陪审团注意被告对慈善事业的慷慨捐赠。

　　2）Little cognizance was taken of those events.那些事没有引起多少注意 。