It concludes that this harms the Community, because `the real reason why the political institutions do not want to have their hands tied is that they want to retain the freedom to grant special favours to certain industries, not because they are convinced that they are capable of better serving the public interest by preserving that freedom`. [54] Before accusing the Court of inappropriate protectionism, it is necessary to examine whether there are valid legal grounds for denying direct effect to the GATT. First, it must be recognised that the reciprocity of enforcement in GATT is very different from that of the Community or other international instruments to which the Court has given direct effect. [55] The United States. . . .