This legal principle has ensured that there has been a significant considerations for nations that have cultural practices that may not be allowable at the scale of a large nation. The text states an example of Innuit cultures being allowed to sell “seal” and “seal products” for cultural, educational, or ceremonial purposes. A larger EU nation would not be afforded the same protections by the WTO because they do not have the same cultural ties to the practice that the Innuit nation would. It is an understandable condition, but it often difficult to distinguish when a large nation has legitimate cultural considerations that would afford exception to an international rule in the WTO. Litigation is often required to afford some resolution that is nearest the desires for the individual nation. Often, these cultural considerations may be a vehicle to continue practices that would be consideration unlawful in other circumstances. They are afforded as considerations to indigenous populations as an opportunity for that nation to continue existing in their culturally relevant status that they wouldn’t otherwise possess without that practice or custom offering. It is often difficult to provide a unilateral approach to the many trading practices of the hundreds of nations in the WTO, therefore participation by national officers, policy, and legal experts are necessary to ensure that many of the hiccups in producing international standards can continue at the speed that provides opportunities for the national markets, and ensures that harms are not being produced by those same participants in a global market. While not always successful, participation and adherence to WTO rulings provides a glimmer of hope in this lofty goal.