I have a couple of points.
I agree that international dispute settlement generally takes time, and this is an attempt to have a short form. Part of that, I think, even though it may not be intuitively satisfying, is around the push for many years to try to get some transparency into the objections and to bring people out into the open. What the panel process at least does is allow for the “name and shame” kind of option. Most countries don't actually want to be labelled in this way, and it does provide an option for getting some of it dealt with relatively quickly.
The second point I'd make is that it is true that it would be better to get an objection to a quota done as quickly as possible. I'm not so sure, and I defer to biologists on this, that all of the damage and the irretrievable part is done necessarily in the first year an objection goes in to a quota that is exceeded by a certain amount. The irretrievable damage that has been done to the east coast fisheries took some time more than that. The process in fact may still serve a useful purpose in that context, even if it's, as Professor McDorman said, by no means perfect.