This article explores the issue of normative conflict in the context of multilateral agreements administered and implemented by the WTO, GATT, and TRIPS. Any discussion of the normative dispute between treaty provisions must necessarily make a critical distinction between the apparent conflict on the one hand and the real conflict on the other. The apparent conflict here is that, at first sight, there appears to be a contradiction in one or more of the contents of the above conventions, and this type of conflict can be resolved through adaptability by means of interpretative means. But it is the real conflict that represents a disparity in which conflicting rules cannot be reconciled, and therefore can only be interpreted or resolved through means of dispute settlement. However, the real dispute within the WTO is unanswered, as some views go to the impossibility of conflict within the WTO as a legal issue in the implementation of the multilateral conventions, since the normative and institutional environment of the WTO the provisions of the conventions overlap to the real conflict situations.However, this environment may not allow, and may reject, the adoption of a judicial approach to resolving the dispute within the WTO because it is incompatible with the WTO's teleological nature as a single undertaking of rights and obligations. Based on this, the dispute within the WTO may not be real at all; it is often seen as a mere apparent conflict; it will sometimes be avoided. This study will analyze this ambiguity and lead to a clear vision of the WTO approach to the interpretation of the relevant treaties.The role of the interpretative approach in resolving the dispute between the provisions of the agreements within the framework of the World Trade Organization: An analytical study.