 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 61 
19 April 2022 
(22-3122) Page: 1/15 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 February 2022  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 FEBRUARY 20221 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the virtual meeting of the DSB and said that he wished to recall a few technical instructions regarding 
this virtual meeting. If a Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a 
technical issue, the delegation could inform himself or the Secretari at 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 proceed to the next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the 
open item after the technica l 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 Chairman  made a short statement regarding 
item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. 
He said that, as Members recalled, that matte r 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 meeting, he wished to inform delegations that he continued to consult with each 
interested party o n this matter and that those consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agen da.  
 
 
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 report by the United States  ................................ ........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 2 - 
  2 AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by China  ................................ .............................  6 
3 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHA NISTAN; ANGOLA; 
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'IVOI RE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; 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; KAZA KHSTAN; 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; 
SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; T UNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; 
UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.21)  ................  7 
4 ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .......................  12 
 
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 24) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.199) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.162) 
 
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.46) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by th e United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.38) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.33 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.33) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members  recall ed, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be p laced 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  invite d delegations to provide  
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts . The Chair  also remind ed 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 e ach 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/4 61 
- 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 24) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 24, 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 before addressing the present Agenda item, 
the United States would comment on the atrocious situation that it saw happening on the ground in 
Ukraine. The United States said that it stood with Ukraine. The United States condemned Russia's 
further  invasion of and continuing military assault against the sovereign nation and people of 
Ukraine, and condemned this violation of the core principles that upheld global peace and security. 
The United States would continue to support the Ukrainian people as they defended their country 
from this unprovoked attack and commended the true and tremendous courage it was seeing from 
the Ukrainian people, the armed forces, and Ukrainian leaders. The United States had expressed its 
views before and after the UN Securi ty Council vote and wished to refer Members to its previous 
official statements for more details. Turning next to the present Agenda item, the representative 
of the United States said that the United States provided a status report in this dispute on 
17 February 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 re spect 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 tha nked the United States for  its most recent  status 
report and its 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.1 99) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/ Add.19 9, which contained the status 
report by 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 State s had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 February 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 reso lution 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 made at the present meeting . The European Union  
wished to refer to its previous statements  and reiterated that it wished to resolve 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 62) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 162, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 4 - 
  continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. To update the WTO 
Membership conce rning the progress of the applications throughout the authorisation process, the 
European Union  noted the following.  First, the Appeal Committee meeting had been  held online on 
10 February 2022. The Commission had referred two draft decisions authorising g enetically modified 
oilseed rape 73496 and genetically modified cotton GHB811. The vote was taking place by means of 
a written procedure.  Second, the written procedure on the vote on the draft decision renewing 
genetically modified cotton GHB614 (which had been presented at the online Appeal Committee 
meeting of 20 January 2022) had resulted in "no opinion ". It was then for the Commission to decide 
on the adoption of this Implementing Decision.  Third, the written procedure on the vote on the draft 
authorisi ng genetically modified soybean GMB151 (which was presented at the online Standing 
Committee meeting of 20 January 2022) resulted in "no opinion ". This decision had been referred 
to the Appeal Committee o n 3 March  2022. Finally, the Standing Committee meet ing had been  held 
online on 16 February 2022. The Commission had presented a draft decision authorising a genetically 
modified soybean. The vote on this draft decision was taking place by means of written procedures.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States continued to engage with the 
European Union in good faith 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 these problems in detail, at nearly every monthly meeting of the 
DSB since the European Union had begun submitting reports on the status of it s implementation. As 
the United States had noted on multiple occasions, including in the most recent bilateral 
consultations in December 2021, its concerns related to delays at every stage of the approval process 
resulting from the actions or inactions of the European Union and its member States at the Standing 
Committee or Appeals Committee. The United States  again requested that the European Union move 
to issue final approvals for all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at the 
Europ ean Food Safety Authority, 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 counte rvailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 46) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 46, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impleme ntation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 17 February 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of l arge 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consul t 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 " measures 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 25 January 2022 DSB meeting . 
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 5 - 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 38) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 8, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommenda tions in the 
case concerning certain methodologies 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 17 February 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 
recomm endations of the DSB .  
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report  and statement at the present meeting . It was disappointing that more than three years 
after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the 
adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States to hono ur its 
obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity with WTO rules without any further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 33 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 33) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 33 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 33, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the D SB's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had submit ted the status report pursuant 
to Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia reiterate d its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes. On measure 18, as reported in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found  to be  
inconsistent with WTO rules throug h the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With 
respect to measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished to  reassure that significant adjustments, in complying 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, ha d been carried out through the amendments 
of the relevant Ministry of Agriculture  and Ministry of Trade  Regulations. Those adjustments include d 
the removal of disputed measures, inter alia , harvest period restriction, import realization 
requirements, six –months harvest requirement, and reference price. Indonesia commit ted to 
engaging with New Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
As stated at the previous DSB meeting, the United States had learned that Indonesia's Constitu tional 
Court had ruled that the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020) was unconstitutional and had 
ordered the government to revise the law. The United States questioned how that ruling affected 
Indonesia's implementation of the DSB recommendation conc erning measure 18. With respect to 
measures 1 -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 would affect 
the regimes. The U nited States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand2 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 of measures  remain ed 
non-compliant.  Further to questions asked at previous meetings of the DSB, New Zealand  currently  
sought  clarity  on how the most recent import r egulations w ould impact the import licensing  process 
 
2 The statement b y New Zealand,  who participated remotely and was unable to connect for technical 
reasons , was read out by the representative of the Secretariat.  
 WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 6 - 
  and how this relate d to the implementation of a new Commodity Balance  mechanism.  Specifically, 
New Zealand sought  clarity on which products were included in the commodity  balance mechanism; 
what was the method for calculating the commodity balance;  and when the implementing regulations 
would be released for specific product  commodity balance mechanisms.  New Zealand was  also 
interested in which products no longer need ed import  recommendations, and whether they were 
limited only to products that w ould be included in the commodity balance mechanism.  New Zealand 
invite d Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM CHINA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by  China  (WT/DS60 3/2) 
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
25 January  2022 and had agreed to revert to it, should a requesting Member wish to do so. He then 
drew attention to the communication from the China contained in document WT/DS603/2 and he 
invited the representative of China to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of China  said that o n 13 January 2022, China had respectfully requested 
that the DSB establish a panel with standard terms of reference to examine the matter set out in 
document  WT/DS603/2, and made  its statement at the DSB meeting held on 25 January 2022. At 
that meeting, Australia had opposed th e request and , therefore , the establishment of the panel had 
been deferred. The issues raised by China in its panel request highlight ed a series of continuous and 
long-standing failures by Australia in meeting its obligations under the relevant WTO Agreements. 
The trade remedy investigations and the decisions made against China' s exporters lacked a factual 
basis, were opaquely explained, and were legally undisciplined. China respect ed the right of WTO 
Members to take remedial actions against dumped and subsidised imports in a manner consistent 
with the WTO rules. However, this did  not mean that a Member could disregard the rules and disrupt 
the balance of rights and obligations that ha d been crafted by the covered agreements. China 
attache d great significance to the rules -based multilateral trading system in stabilizing the 
international trade and economic order and regu lating international trade and economic relations. 
Trade remedy actions that were inconsistent with WTO rules w ould undermine the security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system that facilitate d international trade, thereby adversely 
affecti ng all Members. As China had explained during the 25 January 2022  DSB meeting , the panel 
to be established w ould be presented with examples of cost "invention " and "fabrication " in normal 
value determination on the part of the Australian investigating auth ority. These practices denied the 
exporters concerned the rights to be adjudged using their own in -country costs . The methodologies 
adopted by Australia concerning due allowances and profit calculations ha d inflated normal value 
determinations. Further, th e panel w ould be required to consider the initiation of a countervailing 
investigation without evidence, and the imposition of a countervailing duty where there was no 
subsidy to countervail. Therefore, China reiterate d its request that the DSB establish a  panel, with 
standard terms of reference, to examine the matter raised by China in WT/DS603/2.  
2.3.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia was disappointed that China ha d proceeded 
with its second request for a WTO panel to be established in relation to this matter. Australia's trade 
remedies system was independent, transparent, non -discriminatory and evidence -based. Australia 
was confident that it had  complied with its WT O obligations in initiating and conducting the 
investigations, and in imposing the duties, in relation to railway wheels, deep drawn stainless steel 
sinks and wind towers imported from China, and countervailing measures on deep drawn stainless 
steel sinks imported from China. The ability to take legitimate remedial action against dumped and 
subsidised imports form ed part of the critical balance of Members' rights and obligations provided 
under WTO rules. Australia w ould robustly defend this matter before a WTO panel. As always, 
Australia  remain ed ready to resolve this matter through bilateral discussions with China.  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard ter ms of reference.  
2.5.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , the European Union , India, Japan , Korea , Norway , 
the Russian Federation , Singapore , Switzerland , Chinese Taipei  and the United States  reserved their 
third-party rights to participate in the Panel's pr oceedings.  WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 7 - 
  3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
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 ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSA U; 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 ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; 
SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUST OMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; 
TURKEY ; UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 21) 
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21 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. 21, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 February  2022, to launch the selection  processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. The countries in question  welcomed the Philippines as a 
new co -sponsor  of the proposal.  On behalf of those 12 3 Members, Mexico wished to state the 
following. The extensive number of Members submit ting 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 th e 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 expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy resulted from the resignatio n 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 process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office ex pired 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 t o 
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 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee i ssue 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 underlined that Members should 
consider the urgency of the situatio n. 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 the United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States continued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more t han 16 years and across multiple US Administrations. The United States believed that 
Members had to undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. The 
dispute settlement system could and should support rather than undermine t he WTO's negotiating 
and monitoring functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions with Members on 
these important issues . 
3.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t his Agenda item concern ed a shared 
priority to restore a fully  functioning and improved dispute settlement system as a key tenet of the 
rules-based international trading system. When speaking of the rules based international order, the 
United Kingdom  also c ould not ignore Russia' s assault on Ukraine, which was an unprovoked, WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 8 - 
  premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state. The U nited Kingdom  and its international 
partners st ood united in condemning the Russian government's reprehensible actions, which were 
an egregious vio lation of international law and the UN Charter.  As a Permanent Member of the UN 
Security Council, Russia ha d a particular responsibility to uphold international peace and security. 
Instead, it was violating the borders of another country and its actions were causing widespread 
suffering.  The Russian Government ha d shown that it was never serious about engaging in diplomacy 
– it had deliberately worked to mislead the world, in order to mask its carefully planned aggression.  
Russia had to  urgently de -escalate and withdraw its troops. It had to  be held accountable and stop 
undermining democracy, global stability, and international law.  
3.5.  With regard to  this Agenda item, the United Kingdom said that it continue d to support the 
launch of the p rocess for appointments to the Appellate Body, and wished to refer to its previous 
statements made under this agenda item . A fully functioning dispute settlement system benefi tted 
all Members. Restoring and improving the system should therefore be a shared  priority. The United 
Kingdom  encourage d Members to engage in substantive discussions to enable a fully functioning 
and well -functioning system.  The U nited Kingdom  stood ready to play its part  and looked forward to 
working further with  Members to achieve a  successful outcome.  
3.6.  The representative of India said that India refer red to its previous statements on this matter 
and reiterate d its serious concerns regarding the DSB's inability to commence the AB selection 
processes. Since 11 December 2019, the Appell ate Body had no longer been available for review of 
panel reports. The defunct Appellate Body ha d created many problems for Members.  The binding , 
two-stage,  impartial dispute settlement system, which was the central element in providing security 
and predictability to the multilateral trading system, was a core priority for India. All WTO Members 
had a shared responsibility to resolve this matter as soon as possible and to fill the outstanding 
vacancies a s required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. India s tood ready to engage in constructive 
dialogue with Members to resolve this matter.  
3.7.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil once again thank ed Mexico for presenting the 
proposal on behalf of its many co -sponsors . Brazil referred to its previous statement s under this 
Agenda item. As Brazil had  noted in the previous regular DSB  meeting, t his impasse ha d lasted  too 
long and was causing significant prejudice to Members individually and to the WTO as a whole . Brazil 
hoped that concrete engagement wit h a view to resolving this issue m ight begin to take place soon. 
Brazil very much look ed forward to it.  
3.8.  The representative of Canada  said that b efore addressing the appointment of Appellate Body 
members, Canada w ould make a brief statement on the situation in Ukraine. Canada condemn ed 
the outright attack on Ukraine. Th ose unprovoked attacks were a clear violation of sovereignty, 
territorial integrity and existing obligations under international law. With r egard to the appointment 
of Appellate Body members,  Canada said that,  for over two years , the Appellate Body ha d no longer 
had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. Canada support ed Mexico's statement and 
share d the concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting . Canada  commend ed the 
Philippines for having joined th e proposa l and invite d WTO Members who ha d not yet sponsored the 
proposal to consider joining the 123  Members requesting the launch of the selection process. The 
critical mass of WTO Members supporting th at proposal clearly reflect ed the importance they all 
attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. 
The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals was of g reat concern. Canada reiterate d 
its interest in contributing to discussions focused on finding solutions regarding the functioning of 
the Appellate Body. Canada's  priority remain ed finding a multilateral and lasting solution for all 
Members, including the  United  States. In the meantime,  Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d 
approved the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA), as an emergency 
measure. The purpose of that measure was to safeguard their rights to binding dispute settlement, 
including the possibility to appeal in disputes between them. The MPIA was open to all WTO 
Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard their 
dispute settlement rights to the maximum extent possible until Members  collectively f ound a 
permanent solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA 
with any interested Member.  
3.9.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , said that  the African 
Group refer red to its previous statements and commend ed the delegation of Mexico for its statement 
on this urgent matter. 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  to fill WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 9 - 
  vacancies as they ar ose so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. This w ould 
ensure predictability within the multilateral trading system. Finally, the African Group encourage d 
all Members to engage constructively with each other in addressing the specific concerns raised 
against the functioning of the Appellate Body with a view t o finding a solution. The African Group  
urged all Members who were yet to co -sponsor th e proposal to do so as soon as possible.  
3.10.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Achieving an expeditious reform of the dispute 
settlement system that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to its structural and functional 
problems was Japan's  utmost priority. Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO Member, as the 
owner of the system, restart ed constructive discussions on such a reform, including on how to 
address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with 
all WTO Members to that end.   
3.11.  The representative of Korea  said th at Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d 
its support for the joint proposal.  Korea  also wished to refer to its previous statements made on this 
matter at previous DSB meetings.  Korea echoed others in saying  that the WTO dispute settlement 
system was essential for providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.  
Korea st ood ready to engage constructively in relevant discussions to find a solution to enhance the 
functioning of the dispu te settlement system and to work together with other Members building on 
what they had  achieved in preparation for a Ministerial Declaration for MC12 on this matter.  
3.12.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter.  New 
Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to constructively engage on the issues with a view to 
addressing this situation as a priority, in order to restore a fully func tioning dispute settlement 
system. New Zealand  joined others in welcoming the progress made at the end of the previous  year 
towards setting clear parameters and time -frames for advancing this important work. New Zealand 
was ready to continue th at momentum and get to work . 
3.13.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of all co -sponsors, and call ed upon more Members, like the Philippines, to join th at proposal. 
China  referred to its previous statements made on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm 
commitment to an independent and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system. The paralysis of 
the Appellate Body posed serious challenges to the multilateral trading system, and more  and more  
cases ha d been appealed into the void. This severe situation not only deprive d Members  of the  right 
to defend their interests, but also jeopardize d the security and predictability of this rules -based 
organization. China  called upon all Members to  prioritize the resto ration  of the Appellate Body 
function, and to engage constructively in the solution -based consultation with a view to breaking the 
selection impasse at the earliest date. The MC12 was scheduled to take place soon  and China s tood 
ready to work with all Members in th at regard .  
3.14.  The representative of Norway  said that, like  some previous speakers , Norway  wished  to use 
this opportunity to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway condemn ed Russia 's attack on its 
neighbour , Ukraine. Th at attack was unjustified, unprovoked, and irresponsible  – a clear breach of 
international law. Norway reiterated its  unwavering sup port for Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial 
integrity within its internationally recognised borders.  
3.15.  Turning  to item 3 of the Agenda  of the present meeting, Norway  said that it fully support ed 
the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by  123 Members, to launch the process 
for appointments to the Appellate Body. Norway wished to refer to its  previous  statements  made  in 
that regard. Norway  hoped that  the previous  week's decision to hold MC12  during the week of 
13 June 2022, in Geneva, would  provide impetus and help focus Member's  work. 
3.16.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional dispute settlement system was in the 
interest  of all Members.  It was essential that constructive discussions took place quickly, in order to 
find concrete solutions to resolve the impasse that Members had  been facing for too long. 
Switzerland remain ed ready to work towards th at objective and call ed on all Members to do the 
same.  WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 10 - 
  3.17.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  at past DSB meetings with regard to the same  Agenda  item. Indonesia again  availed itself of 
this opportunity to urge all Members to deliver their serious attention, willingness, and commitment 
towards  the immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members.  
3.18.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed, and warmly welcome d the Philippines as the latest co -sponsor of this 
proposa l. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements on this matter and look ed forward to all 
Members, including the United States, commencing constructive discussions with a view to restor ing 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system .  
3.19.  The representative o f Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of the co -sponsors a nd express ed its support for the statement delivered . Malaysia  also 
warmly welcome d the Philippines as the  latest  co-sponsor of th e proposal. Malaysia re ferred to its  
statements delivered at the previous DSB meeting and , once again , stated its strong support for a 
fair, open and non -discriminatory rules -based multilateral trading system. Members had to  ensure 
that the two -tier dispute settlement system remain ed an essential pillar of this institution. It  was 
the responsibility of all WTO Member s to preserve the system and maintain the credibility and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system.  
3.20.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished to  refer 
to its previous statements and thank ed Mexico and  the co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful 
commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. The Russian Federation 
warmly welcome d the Philippines as a new co -sponsor. Russia reiterate d its strong support for 
launching the appoint ment processes immediately. At the same time, the Russian Federation call ed 
upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible. The Russian Federation also wished  to stres s that Members  
should refrain from discussing in the WTO and its bodies issues and events which were out of the 
scope of the WTO and were the focus of other international organizations and diplomatic agencies .  
3.21.  The representative of Turkey  said that Turkey  thank ed Mexico for placing  this item on the 
Agenda  of the present meeting. Turkey welcome d and thank ed the Philippines as a new co -sponsor 
of the proposal. Turkey  believe d that a functioning Appellate Body was at the core of a 
well-functioning dispute settlement system. Therefore, it was important that the two -stage character 
and binding nature of the dispute settlement system were safeguarded. In this respect, Turkey 
referred to its previous statements and recall ed the urgent need t o start the selection processes for 
the vacancies of the Appellate Body , in accordance with the DSU . 
3.22.  The representative of Australia  said that first Australia wished to join others in condemning 
Russia 's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine. Austra lia strongly support ed Ukraine in 
opposing Russia' s hostilities. Th ose actions remind ed Australia  of the importance of investing in and 
protecting the global rules and norms that underpin ned multilateral cooperation in organisations 
such as the WTO . As Members had  prepared for MC12 the previous  year, all Members had recogni zed 
the urgency of resolving the challenges facing the dispute settlement system.  For Australia, there 
was no more important reform priority.  The present  inability of the system to deliver binding 
resolution of disputes ha d already impaired Members ' rights under the WTO agreements and caused 
commercial and systemic harm to Members'  collective interests. Australia  welcome d the 
rescheduling of MC12 to June 2022, but Members could not a fford to wait until then to start 
substantive discussions on the reforms required for a fully and well -functioning system. Rather, 
Australia  encourage d all Members to begin th at work immediately  – by channelling their constructi ve 
energy into a concrete process for achieving th at shared objective.  
3.23.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he United States, the United Kingdom, 
Australia, Canada, Norway and Russia ha d made brief references to the sad situation  in Ukraine. In 
that regard, the European Union wished to refer to its statement  made at the General Council  
meeting  the previous  week and to the public statements by the European Union on this matter. The 
European Union had condemned in the strongest poss ible terms Russia's unprecedented military 
aggression against Ukraine. This constitute d a gross violation of international law and undermine d 
European and global security and stability. The E uropean Union  stood firmly by Ukraine and its 
people as they face d this war. In relation to this Agenda item, the European Union wished to refer 
to its previous statements  made  on this  matter . Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer 
guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trad e disputes. WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 11 - 
  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 appoin tment of the members of the Appellate Body. 
This task had to be addressed as a priority. As the European Union  had consistently noted, WTO 
Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve 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 E uropean Union therefore 
renew ed its call on all WTO Members to engage in constructive discussion s as soon as possible in 
order to restore a fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system. The European Union  thank ed all 
Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointmen t processes.  
3.24.  The representative of Ukraine  thank ed all Member s who support ed Ukraine  for its unity in 
response to the aggression  of Russia. Every morning, Ukraine would b egin by condemning this 
Russian aggression until Moscow stop ped the war against Ukraine and stop ped this brutal violation 
of international law. The DSB is part of international law . Ukraine emphasize d that only together  
could they  cope with the Russian aggression.  
3.25.  The representative of Hong Kong, China3 said that Hong Kong, China  welcome d the Philippines 
as a co -sponsor of  the proposal. Hong Kong, China reiterate d its grave concerns over the Appellate 
Body impasse, and the importance of having constructive discussion s to resolve the impasse as soon 
as possible. Hon g Kong, China st ood ready to participate in any such discussion.  
3.26.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 3 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-first occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
the WTO . The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain asp ects 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 for the current blocking of the selection 
processes, which was causin g 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 and Members shall comply with t heir 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico 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 represe ntative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished referred to its previous statements and 
continue d to harbour a deep concern and sense of urgency regarding the fact that the Appellate 
Body was not operational. For more than two years, Members ha d been requesting that this proposal 
be adopted so as to preserve their right of appeal, as set out in the DSU. All ongoing disputes were 
being affected because the dispute settlement system was not fully operational, and this was putting 
at risk prompt compliance with, and  the adoption of, DSB reports. This was also affecting Members' 
right to a binding dispute settlement  mechanism. At present,  more than ever, after 24 appeals into 
the void , it was important and a priority to work towards a real, multilateral solution. Mexico 
remain ed ready to work constructively and hope d that the next Ministerial Conference w ould be an 
opportunity to send a positive signal  in this regard.  Mexico  called on Members who ha d not yet done 
so to join th e AB proposal . 
3.28.  The Chairman  said that t his matter was very important for all Members . He noted that t he 
current situation was not satisfactory for the vast majority of Members. There were some Members 
who ha d shown a willingness to undertake reforms in order to re store a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system. As Members were aware , this matter ha d been discussed  in the context of the 
preparations for MC12 , which  had been  scheduled  to take place in December 2021,  but had been 
postponed due to the new COVID variant . Members  had since  taken a decision as to when  the 
Ministerial Conference should take place. It was true that the work that Members had to  undertake 
to prepare th at Conference w ould also focus on the issue of reform an d, in particular  a reform of the 
dispute settl ement system. He hoped that Members could  find solutions through consensus in order 
 
3 The statement b y Hong Kong, China,  who participated remotely and was unable to connect for technical 
reasons , was read ou t by the representative of the Secretariat.  
 WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 12 - 
  to open the path to resolving the problems faced by  Members , in a collective spirit , involving all WTO 
Members , in order  to reach  a mutually  agreeable  solution  for all.  
3.29.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
4.1.  The outgoing Chairman  said that, before proceeding with the election of the new Chair, he 
wished to make a short statement. He thanked the DSB delegates for their cooperation. He noted 
that there had been some difficult situations during his tenure, but each time, delegates had 
managed to find solutions to the matter at hand. However, the fundamental question that required 
political involvement remained and Members still had to find a so lution thereto.  While Members had 
solved many problems, one problem remained, namely, the restoration of a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system. Other aspects of the DSB work had been successful until now.  He noted that in 
December 2021, one panel r eport had not been appealed, which meant that a dispute was resolved 
through the panel of first instance. He also wished to highlight that in two cases, the parties had 
sought mediation to overcome their dispute after the panel issued its report. One case concerned 
the Philippines and Thailand in the context of the mediation process led by Ambassador Mina of 
Australia (DS371). Discussions and consultations were also underway between Morocco and Tunisia 
to find a mutually acceptable solution to their dispute  (DS578). He understood that, Members were 
seeking solutions that would allow them to resolve disputes in a more systematic and efficient way. 
Preparations for the needed reforms should be part of the discussions that would  take place in the 
lead up to  MC12. Finally, he said that it had been a pleasure to work with all DSB participants during 
his tenure. Turning to the election of the next Chairperson of the DSB, the outgoing Chairman 
recalled that, at its meeting on 23 and 24 February 2022, the General Cou ncil had taken note of a 
consensus on a slate of names for Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies, including the DSB. On 
the basis of the understanding reached by the General Council, he proposed that the DSB elect, by 
acclamation, Ambassador Dr. Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme of Botswana, as Chairperson of the DSB.  
4.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement and so agreed .  
4.3.  The incoming Chairperson  thank ed all Member s for the trust that they ha d placed in her by 
electing her as Chair of the DSB. She was  conscious of her new responsibilities in chairing this Body 
and would  do her best to carry out her duties to the satisfaction of all Members. She intend ed to 
engage with all Members and work in an open and constructive spirit to ensure the proper function ing 
of this important WTO Body. In this regard, her door was open to any delegation wishing to discuss 
any matter related to the work of the DSB. She would be available , together with the Secretariat , 
to be of assistance to all Members , upon request.  She looked forward to working with Members  and 
hoped that her experience as a lawyer, judge and WTO panelist w ould help her in discharging her 
duties as Chair of the DSB for 2022.  Finally, she thank ed the outgoing Chair, Ambassador Didier 
Chambovey, who ha d skilfully guided the work of the DSB over the p revious  year. She said that he 
had now moved to the highest function of  the WTO, the General Council, and she wished him  every 
success in his new responsibilities, during which he could count on the  full support of her and her  
delegation.  With these words, she said that would invite delegations who would wish to make 
statements under this Agenda item.  
4.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union  thank ed the outgoing 
Chair fo r his work  and warmly welcome d the new Chair. The European Union wished  her well in this 
important and challenging role. In the  present  difficult times, it was all the more important that the 
DSB continue d to properly exercise its functions , as set out in  the DSU. The European Union  trusted 
in the new Chair's commitment to ensuring that , and she could  count on the full support of the 
European Union in that regard.  
4.5.  The representative of Colombia  said that , for Colombia, the DSB was very important for the 
functioning of the WTO. Colombia  congratulate d her as the new Chair of the DSB and wish ed her 
every success in this work. She had  the full support of Colombia's delegation  for successful  and 
constructive work in the DSB, which was essential for the WTO. Colombia also  thank ed Ambassador 
Chambovey for his able handling of his task  as Chair of the DSB , and wished him  every success a s 
Chair of the General Council.  WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 13 - 
  4.6.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada warm ly thank ed Ambassador  Chambovey for 
his work as Chair of the DS B over the p revious  year. Canada  appreciate d the effort that he had put 
into th at important task, and wish ed him success in his new role as Chair of the General Council. 
Canada also warmly welcome d Ambassador Molok omme to the role of Chair of the DSB. Canada 
looked  forward to continuing to work with her and  the DSB Members in order to support the 
rules-based multilateral system.  
4.7.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan express ed its sincere gratitude to the outgoing  
Chair of the DSB  for his fast and reliable coordination and leading all DSB meetings, including  under 
certain  difficult situations. Japan w ould continue to contribute constructively to  the work with other 
WTO Members under the new Chair  of the DSB.  
4.8.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea  thank ed the outgoing Chair  for his  leadership, 
dedication and serenity in these challenging times as Chair of the DSB , and sincerely wished him  
every success in his next role as Ch air of the General Council.  Korea  also warmly welcome d the new 
Chair.  With her extensive experience and distinguished career in law, Korea  expected her to guide 
the DSB in a professional and constructive manner, especially in the run-up to MC12.  Korea look ed 
forward to working closely with her and said that she could count on  Korea 's full support during her 
tenure as Chair  of the DSB.  
4.9.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States would like to take the 
opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Molokomme on her election, and to extend its welcome to 
her as she assumed the Chairmanship of the DSB. The United States very much looked forward to 
working with her over the coming year. The United States also would like to thank Ambassador 
Chambovey for his many contributions to the work of the DSB during the previous year. The United 
States wished him well as he embarked on the Chairmanship of the General C ouncil . 
4.10.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway  thank ed Ambassador Chambovey for the 
always skilful and steady way he had  conducted his Chairmanship. Norway believed that t he General 
Council w ould be in good hands. Norway also welcomed the  new Chair of the DSB  and assured her 
that she would  always have Norway's full support.  
4.11.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia congratulate d Ambassador Molokomme 
on her  appointment as the Chairperson of the DSB for 2022. Indonesia look ed forwa rd to working 
closely with her and st ood ready to engage constructively in the DSB . Indonesia also  conveyed its  
sincere and deepest appreciation to Ambassador Chambovey for his exceptional leadership and 
guidance of the DSB i n 2021. Indonesia wished him ev ery success in his  role as the Chair of the 
General Council.  
4.12.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation thank ed 
Ambassador Chambovey for his hard work and significant contribution as the DSB Chairperson 
through challenging times. The Russia n Federation  congratulate d Ambassador Chambovey on his 
new role as the Chairman of the General Council and wishe d him the very best of luck in his new 
capacity. The Russian Federation also welcome d Ambassador Molokomme as new Chair  of the DSB.  
The Russian Federation looked  forward to work ing together in the present challenging times and 
wished her every success as Chair of the DSB  for 2022.  
4.13.  The representative of Hong Kong, China4 said that Hong Kong, China warm ly welcome d the 
incoming  Chair and assured her t hat she would  have Hong Kong, China' s full support in the coming 
year. Hong Kong, China also thank ed Ambassador Chambovey for his able leadership in the past 
year in the DSB and wish ed him every success in his new role as the GC Chair.  
4.14.  The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico sincerely thank ed Ambassador Chambovey for 
his work  as the Chair of the  DSB, which ha d sometimes been challenging. Mexico wished him  success 
in his new role as Chair of  the General Council. Mexico  welcome d the new Chair of the DSB  and 
assured  her that Mexi co was open to  working closely with her. 
 
4 The statement b y Hong Kong, China,  who participated remotely and was unable to connect for technical 
reasons , was read out by the representative of the Secretariat.  
 WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 14 - 
  4.15.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil  thank ed the outgoing Chair, Ambassador 
Chambovey, for his leadership and able steering of the DSB over the p revious  year. Brazil wished 
him great success in Chairing the  General Council over the next year. Brazil warmly welcome d the 
new DSB  Chair,  and assured her that she would a lways be able to count on Brazil's support in 
discharging her new functions in the DSB.  
4.16.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed Ambassador Chambovey for his excellent 
leadership and work as Chair of the DSB  over the previous year . As the  MC12 was now scheduled 
to be held in June  2022, the Chairmanship  of the General Council was important and essential for a 
successful MC12 as well  as the future development of the multilateral trading system. China wished 
him every success in his new position as the Chair of the General Council. China welcome d the new 
Chair of the DSB  and looked forward to working closely with her towards  the work o f the DSB  so as 
to achieve progress in the major issues concerning  dispute settlement reform.  
4.17.  The representative of Tunisia  said that Tunisia wished to join the previous speakers in 
extending warm congratulations to Ambassador Molokomme for her appointment as Chair the DSB. 
Tunisia wished her every success in her task and trusted in her legal expertise and rich diplomatic 
experience.  Tunisia noted that s he was al so an excellent Chair of the TPRB and she had also worked 
on the Informal Working Group on Gender Inequality . Furthermore, she had had great success in 
coordinating the work of the African Group. This was testimony to her determination to move forward 
the issues on the WTO's agenda. Tunisia also congratulated Ambassador Chambovey on his 
appointment as Chair of the General Council. His skilful diplomacy and determination had been  
outstanding and will be of great asset for his work  in the General Council. Tun isia thanked 
Ambassador Chambovey for the way he had chaired the DSB over the previous year. Tunisia also 
wished to underscore Ambassador Chambovey's respect for the rules and the way he had always 
tried to find compromise during his  tenure.  Tunisia was pa rticularly grateful for his good offices in 
the dispute between Tunisia and Morocco, and the way in which he steered negotiations between 
the two parties in order to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Tunisia remained ready to work with 
both Ambassador C hambovey and Ambassador Molokomme as they guided the work of these two 
important bodies of the WTO.  
4.18.  The representative of India said that India wished to join other delegations in thank ing 
Ambassador Chambovey for skilfully  handling the important responsibility as the Chair of the DSB  
over the previous  year. India wished him all success in his new role  as Chair  of the General Council. 
India also congratulate d the incoming Chairperson Ambassador Molokomme and welcome d her to 
this new and difficult role. India ha d full confidence that she would  be able to fulfil the responsibility 
with skill and flair and look ed forward to working with her. 
4.19.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom thank ed Ambassador  
Chambovey for his leadership and guidance over the previous  year and welcome d the new Chair  of 
the DSB . The United Kingdom  wished her every success going forward.  
4.20.  The representative of Nigeria  said that Nigeria thanked  Ambassador Chambovey for his  hard 
work and the skilful  way he had  conducted his work as DSB Chair over the p revious  year. Nigeria 
also warmly welco med Ambassador Molokomme on her appointment. Nigeria  wished her every 
success and look ed forward to working with her. 
4.21.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wishe d to congratulate the new Chair of the 
DSB. Thailand p ledge d the full cooperation of its Mission . Thailand express ed its gratitude  to the 
outgoing Chair for his excellent work as Chair of the  DSB and wished him every success as the 
General Council Chair.  
4.22.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore sincerely thank ed Ambassador 
Chambovey for his excellent and skilful stewardship of the DSB in 2021 and wish ed him all the best 
in his  new role as Chair of the General Council. Singapore also warmly welcome d Ambassador 
Molokomme as the new Chair of the DSB and assure d her of Singapore' s full support.  
4.23.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia join ed others in warmly welcoming 
Ambassador  Molokomme  to her n ew role as Chair  of the DSB , and in extending its sincere thanks to 
Ambassador Chambovey for his hard work and able leadership in chairing the DSB over the past WT/DSB/M/4 61 
- 15 - 
  year. Australia extended its best wishes to Ambassador Chambovey as he took  up the role of the 
Chair of the General Council  for 2022.  
4.24.  The representative of Turkey  sincerely thank ed the outgoing Chair  for his work, effort s, and 
leadership. Turkey wished  him every success in his new position.  Turkey congratulate d the incoming 
Chair on her election . Turkey believed her  experience and leadership w ould help to solve existing 
and future issues  in the DSB.  Turkey was  ready to engage in any work she would  carry out , with its 
full support.  
4.25.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that Chinese Taipei thank ed Ambassador 
Chambovey for his skilful leadership over the previous year  as the Chair of the DSB. Chinese  Taipei  
wished him all the best in his new capacity as Chair of the General Council. Chinese Taipei  also 
congratulate d Ambassador Molokomme on her election  as the new Chair  of the DSB and look ed 
forward to working with her in the coming year.  
4.26.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala congratulate d Ambassador Molokomme  
for her appointment as Chair person  of this important body and look ed forward to working 
constructively with her during her tenure. Guatemala also  thanked Ambassador Chambovey for his 
leadership and his excellent, skilful guidance as Chair of the DSB . Guatemala congratulated him on 
his appointment as  Chair of the General Council and wish ed him  every success.  
4.27.  Deputy Director -General , Mrs  Angela Ellard , thank ed Ambassador Chambovey for his 
leadership and his steady hand over the previous  year. She noted that she had only been in  the 
WTO for the past eight months , but she could see strong evidence of that. All that he had done was 
really appreciated.  She also  thank ed and congratulate d Ambassador Molokomme  for her 
appointment as  Chair of the DSB. Her impressive skills and experience would  serve  her well in the 
DSB and DDG Ellard  looked forward to working closely with her. 
4.28.  The in coming Chairperson  thanked all delegations and the DDG for the kind words, welcome 
to herself  and tribute to the outgoing Chair man. 
4.29.  The DSB took note  of the statement s. 
_________  