 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 69 
10 October 2022 
(22-7296) Page: 1/13 
Dispute Settlement Body  
29 August  2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 29 AUGUST 20221 
Chairperson : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely. She wished to recall a few technical 
instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegates . If a Member was unable to take the floor 
during the m eeting because of a technical issue, the delegation  could inform herself or the 
Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proc eed to the next Agenda 
item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a 
technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the request that it be  read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting; and (ii) the 
Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 202 1 
DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, that matter had 
been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair's consultations with each 
interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the present meeti ng, she wished to inform 
delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, she continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoing ; and (iii) the representative of 
Türkiye  said that Türkiye wished to  modify  the title of sub-item 2 of the proposed Agenda  concerning  
the DS583  dispute.  Consequently, Türkiye requested  that the title of sub-item 2  of the proposed 
Agenda read as follows:  "Türkiye's  Intentions Regarding the Implementation of the 
Recommendations and Rulings of the Arbitrator s and the Panel" . Following the request, t he 
Chairperson  said that the title of sub-item 2 of the proposed Agenda  would be modified in line  with 
the request made b y Türkiye.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda , as amended . 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status repo rt by the United States  ................................ ..........................  4 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 2 - 
 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving Chi na: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Statu s 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  5 
2  TÜRKIYE – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION, 
IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS (DS583)  ..................  5 
A. Türkiye's  intentions regarding the implementation of the recommendations and rulings 
of the Arbitrators and the  Panel  ................................ ................................ ............................  5 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTR ALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; 
BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN 
REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE 
D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF  CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE 
EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA 
BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; 
ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLI C OF KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; 
MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; 
MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; 
NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH 
MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PA RAGUAY; PERU; THE 
PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT LUCIA; 
SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; T ÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.22)  ...........  7 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 30) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of th e US Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.205) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.168) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.52) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.44) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.39 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.39) 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under th is Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. As Members recalled, 
Article  21.6 required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall b e placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, the Chair invited delegations to prov ide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts. She also reminded delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each  meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' 
positions already on record."  WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 30) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 30, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 18 August 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet  to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for its most recent  status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called on the United 
States to fully implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 205) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 205, which contained the 
status report b y the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 18 August 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative  of the European Union  said that the European Union  thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement at the present meeting . The European Union  wished to 
refer to its previous statements  made on this matter and reiterated its  wish to resol ve this case as 
soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 68) 
1.10.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 168, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affe cting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  recalled that the 
European Union's  approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The 
European Union  continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, 
in the European Food Safety Authority 's (EFSA)  risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. To 
update the  WTO Membership concerning the progress of the applications t hroughout the 
authorisation process, the European Union  noted the following: all applications for food and animal 
feed uses that had been  presented to the Committees in the beginning of  2022 were adopted , and 
all those genetically modified organisms had go ne through a comprehensive and stringent 
authorisation procedure, including a favourable scientific assessment by  the EFSA. WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeti ng. The United States continued to engage with the 
European Union on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how 
the European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States 
had described  those problems in detail and noted its concerns with the EU's biotech approval 
procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations. The United 
States again requested that the European Union moved to issue final approvals f or all products that 
had completed science -based risk assessments at the EFSA, including those products that were with 
the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee . 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular  
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 52) 
1.14.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 52, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washe rs from 
Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 18 August 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May  2019, 
the US Department of Commerce had published a noti ce in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States had 
completed implementati on of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute .  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s at issue 
in this dispute .  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that  Canada wished to recall its statement made  under this 
Agenda item at the 21 July 2022  DSB meeting.   
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by  the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 44) 
1.19.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 44, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning certain meth odologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 18 August 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB . 
1.21.   The representative of China  said that  China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and its statement made at the present meeting . It was disappointing that four years 
after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still  failed to implement the 
adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States  to honor its 
obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity without further delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 5 - 
 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 39 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 39) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 39 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 39, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that  Indonesia  submit ted its status  report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia continue d to devote its best effort s to implement the 
recommendations and rulings  of the DSB in these disputes  and fully noted New Zealand and the 
United States'  concern s raised  at previous DSB meeting s. On measure 18, Indonesia ha d removed 
all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found to be inconsistent with WTO rules through the 
enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation.  With regard  to measure s 1 to 17, Indonesia wished  
to reassure that in comp lying with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, significant 
adjustments  had been made  through the amendments of the relevant M inistry of Agriculture and 
Ministry of Trade r egulations. Those adjustments include d the removal of disputed measures, inter 
alia: harvest period restriction, import realization requirements, six –months harvest requirement, 
reference price  and domestic purchase requirement . Further more, regarding the positive impact of 
the commodity balance  mechanism  in easing and providing certainty of doing business , Indonesia 
wished to inform  delegations  that in its implementation, it would  be supported by an integrated 
national database system and a transparent and streamline d permit process . Finally,  Indonesia 
commit ted to enga ging with New Zealand and the United States with a view to address their 
concerns.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States continued to have concerns  
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. The United States thanked Indonesia 
for responding to the US question about the ruling of Indonesia's Constitutional Court concerning 
the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020). That additional information would aid in the United 
States' review of the Court's decision an d understanding of the Law's effect. With respect to 
measures 1 to 17, the United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations 
presently comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that 
will affec t the regimes. With regard to the statement in Indonesia's latest status report that the 
commodity balance system is "to ensure the ease and certainty of doing business", the United States 
was interested to better understand how that would be the case. The  United States would appreciate 
if Indonesia could provide more information on how commodity balancing would make doing 
business in Indonesia easier. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully 
resolve this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to  comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number o f measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional information provided, related to 
the objective of Indonesia 's commodity balance mechanism as well as the impact of the 
Constitutional Court 's ruling on the Law on Job Creat ion No. 11/2020 . New Zealand was  assessing 
that information and w ould revert with any additional questions on th ose and other matters. New 
Zealand loo ked forward to constructive engagement with Indonesia on th ose outstanding issues.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  TÜRKIYE – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION, IMPORTATION AND 
MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS (DS583)  
A. Türkiye's intentions regarding the implementation of the recommendations and rulings 
of the Arbitrators and the Panel  
2.1.  The Chairperson  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request 
of Türkiye. In connection with this Agenda item, she drew  attention to document WT/DS583/15, in 
which Türkiye had expresse d its intentions regarding the implementation of the recommendations WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 6 - 
 
  and rulings of the Arbitrators and the Panel in the DS583 dispute . She then  invite d the representative 
of Türkiye to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of Türkiye  said that i n the DS583 dispute , the Arbitrators had issued the 
Award on 25 July 2022 and on the same day, in accordance with Article 25.3 of the DSU, the Award 
had been  notified to the DSB and the relevant Councils and Committ ees. However, pursuant to 
paragraph 15 of the agreed procedures, the Award  was not to be adopted by the  DSB. In line with 
its obligation under Article 21.3 of the DSU, Türkiye  as the responding party, and thus the Member 
concerned, wishe d to reiterate before the DSB its intentions in respect of implementation , as set out 
in the letter dated 18 August 2022. She said that i t was the intention of Türkiye  to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the Arbitrators and the Panel in this dispute in a manner t hat 
respect ed its WTO obligations and Türkiye had begun to evaluate how to do so. Türkiye  would need 
a reasonable period of time to do this. Türkiye  stood ready to discuss this matter with the European 
Union,  in accordance with Article 21.3 (b) of the DSU, at the earliest available opportunity.  
2.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that the European Union wished to thank the 
panelists, the appeal arbitrators and the WTO Secretariat for their work on thi s case. The E uropean 
Union  acknowledge d the time and efforts dedicated to this dispute both at the stage of the  panel 
and at the stage of the  appeal. The European Union welcome d the results of the appellate review 
because  it had upheld the Panel 's ruling. The appeal arbitrators had confirmed that Türkiye 's 
measure was discriminatory because it require d foreign producers of pharmaceuticals to move their 
production into Türkiye  for those pharmaceuticals to be eligible for reimbursement under the Turkish 
social security scheme. The European Union was particularly pleased with the appellate review 
proceedings , which were  based on the appeal arbitration agreement concluded between Türkiye and 
the E uropean Union . It ha d demonstrated that there was a functional and efficient alternative to 
preserve the right of appeal for the parties, similarly to the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement ( MPIA). The European Union  expect ed that Türkiye would take the necessary steps to 
promptly and fully  implement the Arbitrators ' findings. The European Union  stood ready to discuss 
and agree on a reasonable period of time for implementation.  
2.4.  The representative of the United States  said tha t the United States welcomed the agreement 
of the parties on a way forward in this dispute, which had led to Türkiye's announcement at the 
present meeting with respect to implementation of the arbitrator Award. The aim of dispute 
settlement was to facilita te the prompt settlement of a dispute between Members. Members had a 
variety of means under the DSU through which they could achieve a resolution, including pursuant 
to Article 4, "Consultations"; Article 5, "Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation"; Art icle 6, 
"Establishment of Panels"; and Article 25, "Arbitration". The United States did not object to Members 
utilizing Article 25 or other procedures to help resolve disputes. If any Member considered that use 
of the arbitration provision may assist it in  securing a positive solution, then the United States in 
principle supported such efforts. In this instance, the parties had entered into "Agreed Procedures 
for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU". The agreement had provided for an arbitration that 
incorporated many of the most troubling practices of appellate review under the Appellate Body. The 
US concerns with certain practices of the Appellate Body were well known. The United States 
encouraged Members to consider different approaches to resolving a  dispute, rather than furthering 
the Appellate Body's problematic interpretations or conduct. If a Member supported dispute 
settlement reform, then a bilateral arrangement presented a unique opportunity to explore 
alternative approaches. Nevertheless, the United States welcomed the engagement between the 
parties to this dispute that had led to the agreement. The United States also wanted to draw 
attention to another issue of systemic importance. In accordance with the parties' agreed 
procedures, and consist ent with Article 25.3 of the DSU, the arbitration Award had not been adopted 
by the DSB. Accordingly, the arbitration Award did not contain "adopted recommendations or rulings" 
within the meaning of the DSU. The United States therefore took note of Türkiye 's statement at the 
present meeting with respect to implementation of the arbitrator Award, although the United States 
did not consider such statement of intentions as required under Article 21.3 of the DSU . 
2.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and of the i nformation provided by Türkiye with respect 
to its intentions regarding the implementation of the  recommendations  and rulings  of the Arbitrators 
and the Panel in the DS583 dispute.  WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 7 - 
 
  3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; 
CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; 
CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; 
DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; 
ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; 
GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; 
ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; 
MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; 
MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW 
ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; 
PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; 
RWANDA ; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH 
AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND  MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; UGANDA ; 
UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; 
VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 22) 
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 22 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 22, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 19 August 2022 to launch the selection p rocesses for the vacancies 
of the Appellate Body members . The co -sponsors  welcome d Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica , and 
Saint Lucia  as new co -sponsors of this proposal.  On behalf of those 12 6 Members, Mexico wished to 
state the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a 
common concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the 
overall dispute settlement system , against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expi red on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth p rocess to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office  had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr.  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas  
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 3 0 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems.  
3.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the long -standing US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States supported  WTO dispute settlement 
reform and was working to achieve durable, lasting reform. The first step towards reform was to 
better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. A true reform discussion 
should aim to ensure that WTO dispute  settlement reflects the real interests of Members and not 
prejudge what a reformed system would look like. The United States was prepared for continued 
and deepened engagement with Members on that important issue. The United States and other 
Members had j ointly issued WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian 
Federation against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus", which condemned Russia's actions as a 
violation of international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of internat ional peace and WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 8 - 
 
  security. The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time 
and paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and Leaders .  
3.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to condemn 
the Russian Federation 's unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine.  It was a gross violation 
of international law and the UN Charter, and a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d 
committed to uphold.  Pertinent to the work of this body, it demonstrate d a flagrant disregard for the 
rules-based system which also underpin ned the WTO. Concerning this Agenda item, the United 
Kingdom continue d to support the launch of the process for app ointments to the Appellate Body, 
and refer red to its previous statements on this issue.  The United Kingdom want ed to see a 
fully-functioning and well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system as soon as possible. A fully 
functioning system, which  was compu lsory, binding, and impartial was to the benefit of all Members . 
The United Kingdom  encourage d Members to continue to prioritise participation in the ongoing 
discussions, with a view to reaching solutions that c ould command consensus . 
3.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal and 
welcome d Antigua and Barbuda , Dominica , and Saint Lucia as co -sponsors. Brazil  wished to refer to 
its previous statements made under this Agenda item. Brazil was  encouraged by the fact that 
informal  discussions were taking  place in Geneva with reasonable time -lines and a sense of direction . 
Working in good faith and backed by the political will expressed by Ministers at MC12, Members 
should be able to restore the WTO dispute settlement system within the deadline given by  Ministers. 
This was a matter of great urgency to which Brazil attribute d the highest priority .  
3.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union refer red to its previous 
statem ents on this matter  and thank ed all Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch 
the appointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to a 
binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully functioning WTO 
dispute settlement system  was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. This was why 
the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such a system and 
proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. This task should be addressed 
as a priority. As the European Union had  consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared 
responsibility to re solve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies as 
required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  agree d that a meaningful reform was 
needed in order to achieve th at objective. The European Union would  continue to engag e 
constructively in finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the current situation regarding 
appointments to the Appellate Body. There was a pressing need to advance work on this. The 
European Union  was pleased to be participating in the ongoing disc ussion process es in Geneva. In 
line with the  MC12 outcome document , the objective of any discussions should be to have a fully 
and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 at the latest. Following up on the statement  
made by the United States reg arding the crisis in Ukraine,  the European Union wished to reiterate 
that it stood firmly with Ukraine. The European Union  would continue to provide firm support for 
Ukraine 's overall economic, military, social and financial resilience, including humanitar ian aid. The 
European Union  resolutely condemn ed Russia 's indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian 
infrastructure. The E uropean Union  urged Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its 
troops and military equipment from the entir e territory of Ukraine,  within its internationally 
recogni zed borders. International humanitarian law, including on the treatment of prisoners of war, 
had to be respected. Ukrainians who ha d been forcibly removed to Russia had to  be immediately 
allowed to return safely. Russia, Belarus and all those responsible for war crimes and the other most 
serious crimes would  be held to account for their actions, in accordance with international law.  
3.7.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada st ood by the people of Ukraine and strongly 
condemn ed the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin. Th ose attacks 
were having a considerable humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of 
innocent people. This was not  only about an attack on Ukraine. It was about an attack on 
international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, as well as on democracy, freedom and 
human rights. Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for over two and a half 
years the Appellate Body ha d no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. 
Canada support ed the statement made by Mexico at the present meeting  on behalf of the 
co-sponsors. Canada  congratulate d Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Saint Lucia for joining th e 
proposal. Canada  invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining 
the 126  Members requesting the launch of the selection process. The critical mass of WTO Members 
supporting th e proposal clearly reflect ed the importance that they all attach ed to a fully operational WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada w ould continue to 
actively participate in solution -oriented discussions regarding  the current  situation. In short, 
Canada's  priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including 
the United States. Meanwhile, Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the MPIA as an 
emergency measure. This measure s ought  to safeguard Members'  rights to binding dispute 
settlement, including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. The MPIA was open to 
all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Membe rs to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their 
dispute settlement rights to the maximum extent possible until they collectively  found a lasting 
solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body.  Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any 
interested Me mber.  
3.8.  The representative of China  said that China wished  to join other  delegations  in welcoming the 
new co -sponsors of this proposal, namely Antigua  & Barbuda, Dominica and Saint Lucia. China  called 
on other  delegations  to join their efforts in this regard . While supporting the statement made  by 
Mexico on behalf of 126 co -sponsors, representing more than three quarters of the WTO Members, 
China  referred to its previous statements on this matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an 
independent, impartial and two -tier dispute settlement system.  The importance of a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system and the urgency of this matter ha d been widely shared 
by Members, which had led to the instructio ns from Ministers at MC12 with a specific timeline. The 
task before Members was  to translate the political willingness into concrete and practicable actions. 
Having appropriate platforms and channels enabling Members to have frank, good -faith and 
outcome -oriented discussions was crucial in facilitating th at process. China welcome d and 
appreciate d recent discussions among  Members, and w ished  to continue to work constructively with 
all Members to find solutions to break through the selection impasse and fulfi l the mandate given by 
the Minister s at the earliest date.  
3.9.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were egregious a nd unlawful. The a ct of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law  as was the targeting of civilians . Russia's invasion of Ukraine's  sovereign territory 
had implications for global peace, security, and economic stability , deeply undermining the work of 
the DSB  and the multilateral cooperation that underpin ned it. In relation to Agenda  item 3, New 
Zealand reiterate d its support for the co -sponsored proposal an d refer red to its previous statements. 
New Zealand welcome d the Ministerial Declaration achieved at MC12, which recogni zed the 
importance and urgency of addressing the current challenges and commit ted Members to discussions 
with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024. New Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to constructively engage on the 
issues with a view to addressing this situation as a priority.  
3.10.   The representative of Nigeria , speaki ng on behalf of the African Group , said that t he African 
Group wished  to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter.  The African Group  commend ed 
the delegation of Mexico for the statement made on this urgent matter  and welcome d the newest 
co-sponsors . The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The 
African Group urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU , which was to fill vacancies 
as they ar ose, so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system . This would  ensure 
predictability under  the multilateral trading system. The African Group  stood ready to engage 
constructively in future discussions so as to address the specific concerns raised against the 
functioning of t he Appellate Body with a view to finding a solution. However, th ose discussions should 
not delay the launch of the selection process to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body members. 
The African Group  therefore urge d all Members who were yet to co -spons or this proposal to do so 
as soon as possible  
3.11.   The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of  the African 
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group , thank ed Mexico for its efforts in coordinating  the proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/ 609/Rev.22  regarding the Appellate Body appointments. The ACP 
Group  noted that several Members of the ACP were also co -sponsors. The ACP Group remain ed 
concerned about the ongoing Appellate Body  impasse. Central to the integrity of the multilateral 
trading system was having recourse to the two -tiered dispute settlement mechanism as enshrined 
in the DSU. The current AB crisis was undermining trust and confidence in the multilateral trading 
system . The ACP Group cal led for the restoration of the full functioning of the WTO 's two -tiered 
dispute settlement system. This was essential to ensure that there was equilibrium across the boar d, 
to ensure the efficiency of the WTO , and to maintain the WTO 's preeminent role in t he global trading WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 10 - 
 
  system. The ACP Group  recall ed that at MC12, Ministers acknowledged challenges and concerns with 
respect to the dispute settlement system, including the A ppellate Body, and, among other things, 
committed to conduct discussions with a view  to having a fully and well -functioning system 
accessible to all Members by 2024. The ACP Group  intend ed to play an active and constructive role 
in that exercise. The ACP Group wished  to see th ose multilateral  discussions begin in as short a time 
as possible and in a manner which was balanced, open, inclusive, and transparent.  
3.12.   The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking  on behalf of t he 
Organi zation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)  said that t he OECS  wished to be associate d with 
the statement made  on behalf of the A CP Group and  extend ed appreciation to Mexico for its 
coordinating role with respect to the proposal under consideration on Appellate Body appointments. 
Since the previous  meeti ng, three OECS WTO Members ha d co-sponsored th at proposal  – Antigua 
and Barbuda, Dominica , and Saint Lucia. One other OECS member would soon signal its decision to 
join the proposal, and two other members were actively considering joining the proposal. This was 
a sign of their region 's enduring commitment to a stable, viable and predictable multilateral trading 
system with a fully constituted two -tiered dispute settlement system in which WTO Members c ould 
repose their confidence. The OECS d id not dispute the need for reform of the dispute settlement 
function of the WTO, in addition to broader reforms. OECS m inisters were part of the consensus at 
MC12 on these issues . However, the OECS  found it troubling that a single Member saw it fitting to 
cause a fundamental pillar of the multilateral trading system to collapse. From a systemic point of 
view, this was extremely  worrying , especially as small economies that rely so critically on the 
multilateral trading system . The OECS also signal ed its commi tment to playing a constructive role 
in the ongoing informal discussions on addressing the challenges and concerns of Members with 
respect to the dispute settlement system. Nonetheless, th ose discussions should not obviate the 
need to launch selection proc esses for Appellate Body appointments . 
3.13.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China welcome d the new 
co-sponsors coming on board  and wished to reiterate its concern over the Appellate Body impasse 
and its commitment to participate cons tructively in the present  discussion s to resolve the impasse, 
with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024, as set out in the MC12 outcome document.  
3.14.   The representative of Switzerland  said that  Switzerland wished to join other d elegations in 
condemning Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. Such aggression 
blatantly violate d international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle 
of the territorial integrity of States. S witzerland call ed on Russia to honour its international 
obligations, reconsider its actions, withdraw its troops and help de -escalate the situation. 
Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international law, in particular international  humanitarian  
law. Regarding the Agenda item in question, Switzerland wished to refer to its statements made on 
this matter at previous DSB meetings. Switzerland welcome d the new co -sponsors of Mexico's 
proposal - Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,  and Saint Lucia.  A fully ope rational dispute settlement 
system was in everyone's interest. Switzerland w ould continue to engage constructively in the 
ongoing discussions, and urge d Members to commit to ensuring a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system by 2024, as set out in the MC12 outcome document . 
3.15.   The representative of Iceland  said that Iceland join ed others in condemning, in the strongest 
possible terms the brutal, unjustified, and unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. 
By doing so Russia violate d international law  and undermine d the international order  and norms that 
this very organi sation was based on. Iceland condemn ed in the strongest possible way this 
unacceptable behaviour. Iceland reiterate d its unwavering support for the sovereignty, 
independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its international ly recognised borde rs, and 
stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Turning to item 3 of the Agenda , Iceland reiterate d its 
support for the co -sponsored proposal  and referred to its previous statements on this issue . Iceland  
welcome d the MC12 commitment to purs ue refo rm of the WTO  with the aim of having a fully 
functional dispute settlement system in place by 2024. Iceland called  on Members to engage 
constructively and with an open mind while addressing this important issue . 
3.16.   The representative of Norway  said that a s the DSB work directly concern ed the upholding of 
the rules -based international order, Norway  would  wish to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway 
continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on its neighbour Ukraine. Norway 
was appalled by Russia' s continued aggression, causing extensive human suffering, civilian 
casualties, and enormous damage.  Norway reiterated its  unwavering support for Ukraine 's WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 11 - 
 
  sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Turning to Appellate 
Body appointments, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -
sponsored by 126 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and 
welcome d the new co -sponsors Antigua and Barbuda, Domi nica, and Saint Lucia. Norway welcomed 
the positive commitment made at MC12 and w ould continue to engage in urgently needed 
discussions to address the current impasse. Although Norway  very much welcome d those ongoing 
discussions, Norway  was of the view tha t they d id not prevent Members  from launching the process 
for appointments to the Appellate Body . Norway also  referred to its previous  statements made under 
this Agenda item.  
3.17.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed, and warmly welcome d Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,  and Saint 
Lucia as the latest co -sponsors of th e proposal. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements 
regarding the importance and urgency o f this matter. Singapore was committed to participating 
constructively and with an open mind in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform, with a 
view to achieving results by 2024 .  
3.18.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand echoed previous speakers in thanking and 
supporting Mexico for the statement made on behalf of the 126 Members. Thailand  welcome d 
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,  and Saint Lucia on board and look ed forward to welcoming new 
co-sponsors fro m the OECS Group in the near future. Thailand  referred to its previous statements 
on this Agenda item. Thailand  attach ed high importance to restoring a fully functioning, two -tier 
dispute settlement system , which it consider ed a matter of top priority for the WTO . Thailand was  
committed to working constructively with other Members to find a prompt and meaningful solution.  
3.19.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to echo other delegations  condemning 
Russia.  He said that Russia 's aggression against Ukraine clearly infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty 
and territorial integrity, constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting use of force, 
and was a grave breach of the United Nations Charter. Japan would never accept  the unilateral 
change  of the status quo by force and condemn ed the actions in the strongest term s. This was an 
extremely serious situation that sh ook the very foundations of the international order not only in 
Europe but also in Asia. Further more, the mas s killing of innocent civilians was a grave breach of 
international humanitarian law and constitute d a war crime that was absolutely unacceptable. Russia 
had to  be held strictly accountable for such atrocious acts. Japan remain ed stand ing in solidarity 
with Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and continue d to cooperate with the Members of the 
international community , including G7 Members , to improve the situation. In relation to Agenda item 
3, Japan wished to refer to its statements made at previous DSB meeti ngs and support ed the AB 
proposal. Japan absolutely share d a sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system. 
Every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, had to take seriously  the current  situation of the 
Appellate Body. Japan's  utmost priority was to achieve a reform that would  contribute to a long -
lasting solution to the structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement system. 
Therefore, Members should discuss the reform, including how to address the concerns surrounding 
the Appellate Body. Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with all  WTO Members in discussions to 
that end. Meanwhile, in the communication WT/DS583/15 and under Agenda item 2 at the present  
meeting, Türkiye had informed the DSB of its intentions to implement the arbitration Award under 
Article 25 of the DSU. Japan welcom ed Members' use of the Article 25 -based arbitration as a means 
of dispute settlement in the current situation. The Arbitrators  had played a provisional 
complementary role to review the appealed findings of the Panel Report during the time of the 
Appellate Body dysfunction. Moreover, thanks to the efforts of the Arbitrators and the Secretariat, 
the Arbitrators'  Award had been  issued in accordance with  the 90 -day rule, which contributed to the 
prompt resolution of the dispute. Japan positively appreciate d those developments.   
3.20.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea join ed others in strongly condemning Russia 's 
armed invasion against Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN charter and international law.  
The use of force that cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any circumstances.  
Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence should be respected. With regard to  the 
item at hand, Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d its support for t he joint proposal . 
Korea  welcome d Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica , and St. Lucia as new co -sponsors and hope d to 
acknowledge new co -sponsors in subsequent meetings.  The WTO dispute settlement system ha d 
been a central element in providing security and predic tability to the multilateral trading system.  In 
this regard, Korea very much welcome d the relevant discussions that were presently  underway on 
dispute settlement reform, and highly value d the MC12 outcome document as paving the way to WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 12 - 
 
  ensuring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024.  Korea st ood ready to 
constructively engage in relevant discussions on a durable solution to enhance the functioning of the 
WTO dispute settlement system with a view to accommodating  the needs of WTO Members .  
3.21.   The representative of Indonesia  said that  Indonesia thank ed Mexico for presenting the joint 
proposal on behalf of 126 co -sponsors with Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Saint Lucia on board. 
It was a testament to the strong support by Members for a well and fully functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible. As such, while referring to its statements at prev ious DSB 
meetings on this matter, Indonesia wished to  reiterate its fervent commitment to restoring 
predictability and security to the multilateral trading system through solving the current impasse of 
the Appellate Body. For Indonesia , it should be a matt er of urgency for Members to proceed without 
further delay with the launching of the selection process es of the Appellate Body members. At MC12, 
Members ha d committed to conduct ing discussions with a view to having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute sett lement system accessible to all Members by 2024. Therefore, Members  must not lo se 
sight of the urgency of the matter and the need to work quickly to achieve those results. In this 
regard, Indonesia welcome d recent related discussion s among Members and ha d been actively 
engaged in t hose discussion s with other interested Members. Indonesia st ood ready to contribute 
constructively  to that process.  
3.22.   The representative of Australia  said that Australia join ed other  Members in continuing to 
condemn in the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. 
Australia  raised the issue in this forum because Russia 's actions  were a violation of international law, 
and the fundamental international norms on which organisations such a s the WTO were based. 
Australia  continue d to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw 
its troops.  With regard to  Agenda item 3, Australia stresse d the importance of  advancing substantive 
discussion on dispute settleme nt reform given the ongoing Appellate Body impasse  was undermining 
Members rights, inflicting commercial harm and jeopardizing the predictability and security of 
multilateral trade. Australia  encourage d all Members to continue to approach dispute settlemen t 
reform in a constructive manner and as a matter of priority. It was crucial that Members deliver ed 
on their shared objective , as agreed by Ministers at MC12 , of achieving a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.  
3.23.   The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associate d with the 
statement made  by Mexico on the proposal for Appellate Body appointments  and thank ed Mexico 
for delivering the statement on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa  also wished to be associate d 
with the statements made by the African Group and the ACP  Group . South Africa welcome d the new 
co-sponsors to the proposal,  namely, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica,  and Saint Lucia,  and hope d to 
welcome new co -sponsors in subsequent meetings. South Africa  also re iterate d its previous 
statements regarding the urgency of this matter. The fact that the Appellate Body  could not hear 
new appeal s remain ed a concern. Members ha d a shared responsibility to safeguard and preserve 
the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system and the multilateral trading system. It was the 
duty of Members to proceed without further delay with the launchin g of the selection process  of the 
Appellate Body members. South Africa  therefore urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under 
the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose and to  maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system. This w ould ensure predictability within the multilateral trading system. A fully functioning 
Appellate Body was a top priority for reform of the WTO  and South Africa  welcome d the commitment 
by Members under taken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024. South Africa was committed to the objective aim of such reform 
and w ould continue active engagement with all Members with a view to finding a la sting solution.  
3.24.   The representative of Malaysia  said that  Malaysia thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal 
on behalf  of the 126 co-sponsors and support ed the statement made by Mexico.  Malaysia also wished 
to express its strong support for launch ing the appointment process immediately. Malaysia warm ly 
welcome d Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,  and Saint Lucia as the latest co -sponsors. Malaysia also 
referred to its statements delivered at previous DSB meetings  under this Agenda item .  
3.25.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements and thanked Mexico and co -sponsors for their continuous and faithful 
commitment to the appointment processes for Appellate Body members . Russia wished to warmly 
welcome Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Saint Lucia as new co -sponsors. Russia reiterated its 
strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. Furthermore, considering the 
WTO Members' commitment expressed in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document as of 17  June WT/DSB/M/46 9 
 
- 13 - 
 
  2022, Russia called upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible. He also wished to address certain political 
declarations made by some WTO Members at the present meeting, with respect to which  he wished 
to again  stress the following. First, Members should keep to the Agenda of the meeting circulated 
on 25 August 2022 in document WT/DSB/W/704 and adopted at the pr esent meeting. The political 
discussions suggested by some WTO Members did not concern the surveillance of implementation 
of adopted recommendations under Article 21.6 of the DSU. These were outside of the 
recommendations and rulings in dispute DS583. They  also did not address the Appellate Body 
appointments problem. Second, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate expressed in different 
provisions of the DSU. None of the political issues raised by some WTO Members was within the 
competence of the DSB. Third, and ultimately, the WTO was not a political organization and Members 
should refrain from trying to address issues there that are not in the competence of the organization. 
Russia considered that some of the root causes of the crisis in the multilateral tra ding system that 
Members were facing were the actions that blocked the Appellate Body appointments as well as the 
attempts to politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the present meeting. Russia encouraged 
WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems  they already had and not to create new ones, 
unless any WTO Member had an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral trading system 
further .  
3.26.   The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 12 6 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-seventh  occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
the WTO . The fact th at a Member had concerns about certain aspects of the functioning of the 
Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this body and dispute 
settlement in general. There was no legal justification fo r blocking the AB selecti on processes, which 
was causi ng concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As Article  17.2 of the DSU 
clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should prevent the Appellate 
Body from continuing to operate fully a nd Members shall comply with their obligation under the DSU 
to fill the vacancies. The co -sponsors noted with deep concern that by failing to act at the present 
meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions against the best 
interest of all Members.  
3.27.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements on 
this matter.  Mexico reiterate d its concern regarding the prolonged impasse and the absence of a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system, which should be resolved as a matter of priority.  This 
concern ed the entire Membership, as all ongoing disputes were being affected, undermining the right 
to proceed to an appellate  stage and putting at risk prompt compliance with, and adoption of , DS 
reports.  Mexico reiterate d the importance of the agreement reached at MC12 to have a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system, which was accessible to  all Members, by 2024.  Mexico would  
continue to work constructively towards finding a real, multilateral solution and hope d that Members 
would work together to resolve this situation as a matter of the utmost urgency.  
3.28.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delegation s for their statements. She said that, a s in the past, 
the DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be 
reflected in the minutes of the present meeting.  The Chair  recall ed Members' commitment at MC12 
to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024. It was her  understanding that informal discussions in this regard 
were currently ongoing among st delegations  and she hoped that, going forward, Members would  be 
able to find a solution to this matter.  
3.29.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________  