 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/48 5 
12 December 2023 
(23-8522) Page: 1/21 
Dispute Settlement Body  
27 November 2023   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 27 NOVEMBER 20231 
Chairman: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . He reminded delegations that the 
technical instructions for the remote participation remained the same as was the case at the previous 
meetings ; (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 would 
recall , that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's 
consultations with each interested party regarding that Agen da item . At the present meeting, 
he wished to inform delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to consult 
with each interested party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoin g; (iii) the 
representative of Antigua and Barbuda  said that, under "Other Business ", Antigua and Barbuda 
wished to make a statement regarding the dispute on: "United States – Measures Affecting the 
Cross -Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services " (DS285) ; and (iv) the representative of 
India said that, under "Other Business ", India wished to make a statement concerning the joint 
communication by Egypt, India and South Africa contained in document JOB/DSB/7  titled:  
"Reflections on the Reform of the WTO Dispute Settlement System ". 
 
The DSB took note of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, 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: 
Statu s 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  ................................ ................................ ...................  4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the Uni ted States  ................................ ................................ ............  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proc eedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............................  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horti cultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
2  COLOMBIA – ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BELGIUM, GERMANY 
AND THE NETHERLANDS (DS591)  ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 2 - 
 
 
A. Statement by Colombia  ................................ ................................ ...............................  6 
3  EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF BIODIESEL FROM 
INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia  ................................ .....................  7 
4  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL P ANELISTS ................................ ................................ ....................  8 
5  ADOPTION OF THE 2023 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY 
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  8 
6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; 
CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'I VOIRE; 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; LAO PEOPLE'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; MYANMAR; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEA LAND; 
NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS; 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.26)  ................  8 
7  STATEMENT BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA REGARDING THE DISPUTE ON: 
"UNITED  STATES — MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS -BORDER SUPPLY OF 
GAMBLING  AND BETTING SERVICES" (DS285)  ................................ ..............................  15 
8  STATEMENT BY INDIA REGARDING THE JOI NT COMMUNICATION CONTAINED IN 
DOCUMENT JOB/DSB/7 TITLED: "REFLECTIONS ON THE REFORM OF THE  WTO DISPUTE 
SETTLEMENT SYSTEM"  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 
 
 
 
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 44) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.219) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.182) 
 
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.66) 
 
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.58) 
 WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 3 - 
 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.53 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.53) 
 
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 would recall, 
Article  21.6 required that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be 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 Chairman wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He 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. " 
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 44) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 44, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the i mplementation 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 provided a status report in 
this dispute on 16 November 2023, 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 marg ins 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 th at would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the 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 r ecommendations 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. 219) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 219, 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 States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 16 November 2023, 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 made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and said 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 . WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 4 - 
 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 82) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 182, 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  recall ed that the EU approval system was not 
covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The EU continue d to propose for vote 
authori zations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safe ty Authority 's risk 
assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe.  On 19 October  2023, the Commission had presented 
to the Appeal Committee a draft decision renewing the authori zing for the placing on the market of 
a GM oilseed rape2 for food uses. The vote had resulted in "no opinion ". It was now for the 
Commission to decide on the adoption of the draft decision. On 24 October 2023, the Commission 
had presented to the Standing Committee a draft decision authori zing the placing on the  market of 
a GM maize and a decision renewing the authorisation for placing on the market of a GM oilseed 
rape3 for food and feed uses.  The votes had resulted in "no opinion ". The draft decisions would be 
referred to the Appeal Committee during the meetin g of 28 November 2023.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union ( "EU") for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States continued to engage with 
the EU on these issues, and had provided recomm endations on several occasions as to how the EU 
could  address the undue delays in its approval procedures.  The United States ha d described these 
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 most recent of which took place 
on 22 June 2 023. The United States appreciate d that, from October 2022 through October 2023, 
the European Commission had approved eight new agricultural biotechnology p roducts and 
reapproved the use of five additional products. Despite this progress, the United States again 
request ed that the EU move to issue final approvals for all products that ha d completed 
science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety Au thority, 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. 66) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 66, 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 washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in thi s dispute on 16 November  2023, 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  large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed . Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)) . With that action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders . The United States would cons ult 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 thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at th e present meeting . Korea,  once again , urged the United States to take 
prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s 
in this dispute . 
 
2 GM oilseed rape GT73.  
3 GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and sub -combinations and oilseed 
rapes Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3  (renewal).  WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 5 - 
 
 
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to recall its statement made under this 
Agenda item at the 26  October 2023 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. 58) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 58, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 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 16 November  2023, 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 latest status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . China was disappointed that more than five 
years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States still fail ed to implement 
the adopted ruling s and recommendations in this dispute. Therefore , China,  once again , urged the 
United States to honor its obligation 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 . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add.53 – WT/DS478/22/Add.53)  
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.53 – WT/DS478/22/Add.5 3, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation 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 provided its status report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished to state  that it had implemented the rulings and 
recommendations of the DSB in these disputes by enacting Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the 
Government Regulation in lie u of Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation to address Measure 18 regarding 
self-sufficiency. Indonesia also reiterated that it had adjusted its importation policy to address 
Measure 1 -17 with the enactment of the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Trade Regu lations. 
Indonesia believed that these adjustments had eliminated the harvest period restriction, import 
realization requirement, six -month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic purchase 
requirement so that it was in line with the DSB's ruling s and recommendations. Indonesia 
acknowledged the concerns raised by New Zealand and the United States with respect to Indonesia's 
import licensing regime and commodity balance mechanism. Indonesia wished to ensure the 
complainants that this mechanism serv ed as a tool to facilitate trade, provide ease, and expedite 
importation through an integrated national database system without creating additional burdens on 
imports. Indonesia wished to reaffirm its readiness to continue engaging in discussions with New 
Zealand and the United States to find solutions for these disputes and related matters.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. With respect to measures 1 -17, the 
United States had asked several times and would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations 
now comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would 
affect the regimes. The United Stat es noted that measures 9 and 17 were, respectively, the 
horticultural products , and animal and animals products import licensing regimes as a whole. As the 
United States had expressed before, it continued to have concerns about Indonesia's administration 
of these regimes. To enable the United States to understand and evaluate Indonesia's claim of WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 6 - 
 
 
compliance with the DSB recommendations, the United States had requested that Indonesia provide 
the regulations that comprised Indonesia's current import licensing  regimes, in addition to any draft 
regulations that might affect the regimes. As of 23 November 2023, the United States had not 
received a response from Indonesia. The United States was also not in a position to agree with 
Indonesia's claim of compliance r egarding Measure 18 because it was still reviewing Indonesia's 
statement that Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in lieu of Law 
No. 2/2022 on Job Creation removed Measure 18. The United States remained willing to work with 
Indon esia to fully resolve this dispute.  
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thanked Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledged Indonesia's commitment to comply fully with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. As outlined at previous meetings of the DSB, New Zealand remained concerned about 
a number of measures. New Zealand would still appreciate understanding better the regulations that 
now underpinned Indonesia's import licensing regimes as a result of the relevant legislative 
adjustments, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New  Zealand 
continued to have concerns about the administration of these regimes, including a lack of 
transparency regarding allocation criteria and applicable timeframes. New Zealand also remained 
interested in better understanding how the new commodity bala nce would in fact operate to simplify 
and facilitate trade in affected products. New Zealand looked forward to further constructive 
engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter  at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  COLOMBIA – ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BELGIUM, GERMANY 
AND THE NETHERLANDS (DS591)  
A. Statement by Colombia  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Colombia, an d he invited the representative of Colombia to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of Colombia  said that on 10 March 2023, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) and 
Article 25.4 of the DSU, the European Union and Colombia had notified the Chair of the  DSB that 
they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for Colombia to implement the recommendations 
of the Award of the Arbitrators (WT/DS591/ARB25 and WT/DS591/ARB25/Add.1) in the dispute 
"Colombia - Anti-Dumping Duties on Frozen Fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands"  
(DS591) would expire on 5 November 2023. In other words, 10 months and 15 days  from the day 
of the issuance of that Award to the Parties on 21  December  2022. Since the reasonable period of 
time was established, Colombia had conducted a detailed administrative review of the original 
determination. Colombia was now pleased to inform t he DSB that, on 21 November 2023, it had 
issued Ministerial Resolution No. 286 officially concluding the administrative review and publishing 
its results. Colombia would submit a status report to the DSB, as provided for in Article 21.6 of the 
DSU, prior t o the DSB meeting in December 2023. The recent aforementioned Ministerial Resolution 
No. 286 fully implemented the DSB rulings and recommendations based on the findings of the panel 
and the MPIA panel in this dispute. Colombia also acknowledged and appreci ated the E U's flexibility 
with regard to the issuance of this Resolution a few days prior to the official expiry of the reasonable 
period of time. As discussed with the EU, this was necessary to enable its agencies to fully address 
all the comments receive d from the EU and other stakeholders. The issuance of the Ministerial 
Resolution came after more than 10 months of ongoing and coordinated efforts by the directorates 
of Colombia’s Ministry of Commerce, which had carefully reviewed the terms of the Award a nd 
followed them to the letter, resulting in a significant reduction in the dumping margins applicable to 
European companies. Therefore, Colombia considered that it had already implemented all its 
obligations under the Award of the Arbitrators (WT/DS591/AR B25 and WT/DS591/ARB25/Add.1) 
and that this dispute had been resolved su ccessfully. Colombia thanked the European Union for its 
constructive engagement throughout these proceedings, including the implementation phase. As 
Colombia had stated on previous occ asions , Colombia was pleased that the MPIA procedure had 
been used for the first time in this dispute. This demonstrated the usefulness and effectiveness of 
the procedure , and underlined the urgent need  to restore the Appellate Body to its full capacity in  
order to fulfil the desire of the vast majority of WTO Members to have  a functional appellate review. WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 7 - 
 
 
Colombia looked forward to continuing to work with all WTO Members on this important issue with 
a view to restoring the WTO dispute settlement system to its full functionality  MC13.  
2.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that the European Union thanked Colombia for 
its statement made at the present meeting . Nevertheless, the European Union was disappointed by 
Colombia 's failure to implemen t the recommendations of the Arbitrators ' Award by the end of the 
reasonable period of time, which had ended on 5 November  2023. Given the particularities of this 
case, the reasonable period of time was more than sufficient to implement all Arbitrators ' findings. 
The European Union took note of Colombia 's statement made at the present meeting . The European 
Union reserve d its right to express its views on the matter at a later stage. The European Union 
regret ted that Colombia ha d so far not provided any stat us report in this dispute, inconsistently with 
its obligations pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. This obviously ma de it even more difficult for the 
European Union to assess Colombia 's progress in the implementation of the recommendations and 
rulings in the Arbitrators ' Award. The European Union  urged Colombia to respect its obligations under 
Article 21.6  of the DSU and, in particular , to provide a status report with respect to this dispute as 
soon as possible.  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  EUROPE AN UNION – COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF BIODIESEL FROM 
INDONESIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS618/2)  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
26 October  2023 and had agreed to revert to it, should a requesting Member wish to do so. He then 
drew attention to the communication from Indonesia contained in document WT/DS618/2 and  he 
invited the representative of Indonesia to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that o n 11 August 2023, Indonesia had requested 
consultations with the European Union ( "EU") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article 30 of 
the SCM Agreement, a nd Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, concerning the imposition of countervailing 
duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia. The consultations had taken place in Geneva on 
4 October  2023, however it ha d failed to resolve th is dispute. At the previous regu lar DSB meeting, 
Indonesia had filed its first request for the establishment of a panel. Now, Indonesia wished to 
reiterate its right to protect its national interest and urge d the European Union to bring its measures 
into conformity with the WTO provision s. Indeed, despite EU 's assertion that its measures were 
WTO-consistent, Indonesia remain ed firm that the measures were inconsistent with EU 's 
commitments under the WTO rules. Therefore, Indonesia was requesting the establishment of a 
panel pursuant to Art icle 4.7 and 6 of the DSU.  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union regret ted Indonesia 's 
decision to request a WTO panel on countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia. 
Indonesia was of course entitled to bring this matter to dispute settlement in the WTO, but the 
European Union firmly believe d that the measures at stake were fully justified. The European Union 
was therefore confident that it would prevail in this dispute, and that its measures would be found 
to be in accordance with the WTO law. The European Union stood ready to preserve the availability 
of appeal review thr ough the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) and stood  
ready  to work towards  this with Indonesia.  
3.4.  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 stan dard terms of reference.  
3.5.  The representatives of Argentina ; Canada ; China ; Japan ; Norway ; the Russian Federation ; 
Singapore ; Thailand ; Türkiye ; the United Kingdom  and the United States  reserved their third -party 
rights to participate in the Panel 's proceedi ngs. WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 8 - 
 
 
4  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/725)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/725 which contained one new 
nomination proposed by Chile for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. He proposed that the DSB 
approve t he name contained in document WT/DSB/W/725.  
4.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
5  ADOPTION OF THE 2023 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY 
(WT/DSB/W/723)  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that , under this Agenda item, he was submitting for adoption the draft text 
of the 202 3 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/ 723. He said that he was 
doing so pursuant to the Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO Activities and for Reporting 
under the WTO, contained in document WT/L/105. This Report covered the work of t he DSB since 
the previous Annual Report contained in document WT/DSB/8 4. In other words, it covered meetings 
of the DSB from 20 December 202 2 through 26 October 2023. The Report contained a factual  
summary of DSB meetings during the period under review. As  in the past, following the adoption of 
the Annual Report at the present meeting, the Secretariat would update the Report under its own 
responsibility in order to include the actions taken by the DSB at the present meeting. Subsequently, 
the updated Annual  Report would be submitted for consideration by the General Council at its 
meeting scheduled for 14 and 15 December 2023. Consequently, the Chairman proposed that the 
DSB adopt the draft Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/ 723 on the 
understanding that it would be further updated by the Secretariat.  
5.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Report of the DSB contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/723 on the understanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.4 
6  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; 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 ; LAO PEOPLE 'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ; L ESOTHO ; L IECHTENSTEIN ; M ADAGASCAR ; M ALAWI ; 
MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; 
NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; 
PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS ; 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. 26) 
6.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations . He drew attention  to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 26 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Guatemala , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 6, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 6 September  2023 to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body  members . On behalf of those 1 30 Members, Guatemala wished t o 
 
4 Subsequently, the Annual Report of the DSB was circulated in document WT/DSB/ 85. WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 9 - 
 
 
state the following . This Agenda item and the extensive  number of  Members submitting the joint 
proposal reflected a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body  and, more generally, 
in the functioning of the dispute settlement system . The joi nt proposal sought to : (i) start seven 
selection processes ; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee ; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the 
submission of candida tes; and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation s within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates . The co -sponsors 
invited and urged all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and 
multilateral trading systems . 
6.3.  The representative of the United States  said that,  before beginning with its statement, the 
United States recall ed that the United States and other Members ha d jointly issued WT/GC/244, 
"The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of 
Belarus, " which condemn ed Russia 's actions as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and 
fundamental principles of international peace and security.  The United States reiterate d its support 
for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time.  The United States paid tribute to the heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and Leaders. With respect to the current Agenda item, 
Members were aware of the longstanding US concerns with WTO dispute settlement.  Those concerns 
remain ed unaddressed, and th e United States did not support the proposed decision.  The United 
States believe d that fundamental reform was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system.  The goal for the United States was not to return to the old system.  Rather, the 
United States was seeking a system that would be  fair and would revitaliz e the agency of Members 
to settle their disputes.  A system that preserve d the policy space in WTO rules for Members to 
address their critical interests – most notably on matters of e ssential security.  And a system that 
support ed, rather than undermine d, the WTO 's role as a forum for discussion and negotiation to help 
Members address new challenges. As WTO Members continue d working to better understand each 
other 's interests in WTO dis pute settlement, the next task of reform was to ensure that any future 
system would meet  the interests of all Members to the greatest extent possible.  The United States 
had been working with Members to advance this goal, and look ed forward to continued engagement.  
The United States was committed to working towards a fundamentally reformed and improved 
system.  As Members continue d to engage, the United States welcome d the exp erimentation of 
Members in finding alternative means to resolve their disputes, such as the increased adoption of 
panel reports, including through agreements to adopt that ha d been reached prior to circulation of 
a panel 's report; arrangements between spec ific Members to permit review of a report; and 
intensified discussions to find solutions to disputes, including in the case of the United States.  These 
varied approaches reinforce d Members ' primary interest in a system that support ed parties in the 
resolut ion of their disputes.  The United States share d that objective and look ed forward to engaging 
further with those Members that also saw value in an improved and reformed dispute settlement 
system that was accessible to all.  
6.4.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that  Bangladesh wished to thank Guatemala for 
presenting the proposal on Appellate Body appointment s contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/REV.26. With regard to the restoration of the Appellate Body, Bangladesh, as a co -
sponsor of the proposal  was requesting that the DSB take a decision to launch the selection 
processes immediately to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. In order to ensure the security 
and predictability of this multilateral trading system, Members had to launch the process f or 
Appellate Body appointments as a top priority and without further delay. Bangladesh request ed 
Members to engage immediately in discussions on Appellate Body appointments. This was an 
urgency, also expressed by the Ministers at MC12. Bangladesh was ready  to continue constructive 
discussions in that regard.  
6.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors to call for the selection of new Appellate Body members without 
further dela y and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda item. The dispute 
settlement mechanism ensure d the fulfillment of the rights and obligations of all Members and 
guarantee d that their commitments would be either respected or enforced. Deliberately preventing 
the rules -based system from its fundamental pillar of binding dispute settlement was a double loss 
for developing countries. First, developing countries  were more negatively affected by power 
dynamic s. Second, Members were witnessing a period in which developed nations resort ed to 
unilateral trade measures of questionable consistency with their WTO obligations with no system to 
effectively challenge them. For Brazil, having a fully and well -functionin g two -tier binding DS system 
accessible to all Members by 2024 was of the utmost importance. Brazil called again on all Members WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 10 - 
 
 
to deepen their engagement in the DSB restoration workflow, with a view to concluding discussions 
on the remaining and most impo rtant issues by MC13.  
6.6.  The representative of Canada  said that, first , Canada wished to say that it continue d to strongly 
condemn Russia 's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. Th ose hostile acts were a 
flagrant violation of international law and  the rules -based international system, upon which 
organizations such the WTO were based. Canada express ed its solidarity with the Ukrainian people. 
Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to 
be free  to determine their own future. Canada call ed on Russia to immediately cease all hostile and 
provocative actions against Ukraine, and to withdraw its military forces from the country. Turning 
back to this Agenda item on the appointment of Appellate Body members, Canada thank ed 
Guatemala for its statement made on behalf of the co-sponsors. The critical mass of WTO Members 
supporting this proposal clearly demonstrate d the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational 
Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada reiterate d Members ' 
objective of having a fully operational and well -functioning dispute settlement system, accessible to 
all, by 2024. Canada would continu e to participate actively in discussions aimed at finding solutions 
to the current situation. Canada 's priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all 
Members, including the United States. In the meantime, the Multi -Party Interim Appe al Arbitration 
Arrangement (MPIA), provide d access to binding dispute settlement that include d the possibility of 
appeal in disputes between its participants. There were now 53 WTO Members endorsing the MPIA. 
Canada had  witnessed the positive impacts of th is arrangement in the context of several disputes 
and invite d all WTO Members to consider participating in the MPIA. Canada was available to discuss 
the details of the MPIA with any interested Members.  
6.7.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of the 130 co -sponsors. China referred to its previous statements made on this urgent matter, 
and call ed upon more Members to join th e AB proposal. Like others, China reiterate d its firm 
commitment to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, which ha d not only 
facilitated prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members, but had also provided security 
and predictability to the multilateral trading system. To ensure that such obje ctives continue d to be 
fulfilled, China believe d that the most urgent task was to immediately launch the selection process es 
and fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. This was a treaty obligation of all WTO Members. No 
prerequisite should be attached t o it. China would continue its constructive engagement in the 
ongoing discussion o n DS reform, and call ed upon all Members to engage in this exercise in good 
faith and with pragmatic, outcome -oriented spirits. Before concluding, China wished to take this 
opportunity to encourage more Members to join the MPIA as a contingent measure to safeguard 
their right to appeal until the Appellate Body was restored. China stood ready to discuss with any 
interested Members and would be ready to provide further informati on as necessary . 
6.8.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by 
Guatemala, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, supported by 
130 Members. A fully functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was critical 
to maintain the rules -based multilatera l trading system and for the credibility of the WTO as a rules -
based organi zation and was a top priority for Norway. Norway referred to its previous statements 
made under this Agenda Item. Norway continue d to engage in the ongoing discussions to address 
the current impasse. Norway again thank ed Mr. Molina and other delegations for the ir tremendous 
efforts laid down in the past months. The Annual Report of the Dispute Settlement Body adopted at 
the present meeting also clearly show ed that Members value d and continue d to make use of the 
dispute settlement mechanism. Norway also wished to use this opportunity to remind Members of 
the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) . The Arrangement was open for WTO 
Members to join for as long as the Ap pellate Body remain ed unable to function fully. As the work of 
the D SB directly concern ed the upholding of the rules based international order, Norway also found 
it appropriate and pertinent to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway continue d to strongly  
condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on Ukraine. Russia 's war of aggression against Ukraine 
constitute d a gross violation of international law, the rules -based system which also underpin ned 
this Organization  and the work of the DSB.  
6.9.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand continue d to condemn unequivocally 
Russia 's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Th ose actions were egregious and unlawful: the 
use of force to change borders is strict ly prohibited under international law, as was the targeting of 
civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory ha d deep WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 11 - 
 
 
implications for global peace, security, and economic stability.  New Zealand continue d to stan d firmly 
alongside its Ukrainian partners and against any steps by Russia that risk ed a further escalation in 
this conflict. In relation to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal 
co-sponsored by 130 WTO Members and wished to refer to its previous statements  made  on this 
matter.  Reform of the dispute settlement system remain ed a key priority for New Zealand and it 
was heartened by the progress and momentum in the ongoing discussions.  While there was more 
to be done, the consolidated draft text under consideration was testament to the quality and the 
pace of the work to date.  New Zealand thank ed all those delegations involved in the drafting process 
for the collaborative spirit in which this ha d been undertaken. New Zealand urged all Members to 
continue engaging constructively and pragmatically in order to advance this well ahead of MC13, 
consistent with the shared priority placed in restoring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system acce ssible to all Members. New Zealand also wished to  take this opportunity to invite those 
Members who ha d not joined the MPIA to consider doing so.  The MPIA provide d an avenue to 
safeguard access to an appeal level of review, while Members  worked collectivel y towards reform.  
6.10.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group, wished to thank 
Guatemala for its statement. The African Group reiterated its support for a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system that was accessible to all Mem bers by 2024 , in accordance with the mandate 
from Ministers at MC12. The African Group 's priority remained to find a long -lasting solution to the 
impasse that all Members could agree to in order to restore confidence of Members in the multilateral 
trading system, as well as strengthen the negotiating function within the WTO. The critical mass of 
WTO Members that had co -sponsored the proposal for Appellate Body  appointments indicate d the 
importance that they all accord ed to a fully functioning dispute settle ment system. Members were 
reminded by the 2023 Draft Annual Report of the significant activities of the DSB, particularly the 
DSB's approval of 11 new nominations proposed for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental 
and Non-Governmental Panelists and the establishment of four panels during  the period under 
review. The foregoing activities by the DSB, including the process whereby two panel reports had 
been adopted, as indicated in the Report, demonstrate d the critical importance of the dispute 
settlement system for the functioning of the WTO and its overall contribution to a rules -based 
multilateral trading system. The African Group believe d that process issues could always be 
addressed with substance and therefore the appointment s of Appellate Body members should be 
delinked from reform objectives. Finally, the African Group stood ready to engage constructively in 
the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform in order to restore a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system by 2024 and as agreed at MC12.  
6.11.  The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the ACP  Group , 
thank ed Guatemala for presenting  the joint proposal under  this Agenda  item. Whilst the ACP Group 
on a whol e was not a co -sponsor of the current proposal, there were 45 ACP  Group  members which , 
under their own responsibility, were co-sponsors . The rule of law was not an arid legal doctrine but 
the foundation of a fair, certain, predictable and just multilateral trading system. In this regard, the 
ACP Group remain ed concerned that WTO Members were unable to benefit from the full functioning 
of the dispute settleme nt system (DSS). The WTO dispute settlement system wa s essential for 
maintaining a rules -based international trading system, resolving conflicts in a fair and orderly 
manner, and fostering an environment where the rule of law prevail ed over the rule of mig ht. 
Therefore, the ACP Group support ed the call for the launch of the selection process es for Appellate 
Body appointments so as to restore the full functioning two -tier binding dispute settlement in the 
WTO. The ACP Group called on the WTO Member which con tinued to block these appointments to 
join the other 163 WTO Members that wished  to see the system restored.  
6.12.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that it had  been Hong Kong, China 's top priority 
to restore a two -tiered, binding and fully -functionin g dispute settlement system in the WTO. Hong 
Kong, China continue d to join other Members in reiterat ing its concerns about the A ppellate Body 
impasse, as well as its commitment to work constructively with all WTO Members to restore a fully 
and well -functio ning dispute settlement system accessible to all by 2024 as mandated in the MC12 
Outcome Document.  
6.13.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for presenting the 
proposal on behalf of 130 WTO Members and wished to be associate d with the statement  made  by 
Guatemala.  Indonesia also wished to refer to its previous statements made on this Agenda item. 
Indonesia deeply regret ted that this unprecedented circumstance of non -functioning appeal 
continue d to exist while the numb er of disputes continue d to rise. If this situation persist ed, it would WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 12 - 
 
 
result in an imbalance of rights and obligations among WTO Members. While Members were working 
intensively to discuss  informally on possible way s forward in dispute settlement reform, Indonesia 
wished to place Members ' attention on the urgency of the immediate launch of the selection 
process es to fill Appellate Body members vacancies, as mandated in Article 17.2  of the DSU , to 
maintain the two-tier dispute settlement system in place. Wi th MC13 fast approaching, again, 
Members should intensify their work in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner toward a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024, as set out in the MC12 
Outcome Document.  
6.14.  The represen tative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statement , 
which Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore reiterate d its previous statements  made  on this 
matter  and emphasize d its commitment to participating constructively in ongoing discussions in 
order to deliver lasting and durable dispute settlement reform.  
6.15.  The representative of Japan  said that, f irst, Japan wished to touch upon the situation in 
Ukraine. Japan strongly condemn ed Russia 's aggression against Ukraine and its attacks against 
civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urge d Russia , once again , to stop the 
aggression and immediately withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its int ernationally 
recognized borders . Japan would  also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of imposing severe 
sanctions against Russia and providing robust support to Ukraine, in cooperation with the 
international community. Turning to this Agenda item, Japan wished to refer to its statements  made  
at previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan absolutely share d the sense of 
urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system and ha d set as the utmost priority to achieve 
that reform. For that purpose, Japan welcome d the intensive discussions in the informal process on 
DS reform . With a view to having a fully and well-functioning DS system by 2024, as agreed at 
MC12 , Japan would work actively and constructively with all WTO Members.  
6.16.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be  associate d with the 
statement made by Guatemala on the proposal  for A ppellate Body appointments and thank ed 
Guatemala for its statement  made  on behalf of the co -sponsors.  South Africa reiterate d its previous 
statements made regarding the urgency of this matter. When Members had agreed to bind 
themselves to the Uruguay Round Agreements, it was on the understanding that their rights would 
be protected by a predictable, binding , rules-based system underpinned by a two -tier dispute 
settlement mechanism. The assurance that their trade relations would be subject to ru les rather 
than soft power was a fundamental element of the bargain struck and the continued dysfunctionality 
of the A ppellate Body undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperil led the 
multilateral trading system . A fully functioning A ppellate Body was a top priority for WTO reform and 
it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system . South Africa welcome d 
the commitment by Members undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement syst em accessible to all Members by 2024. S outh Africa would work actively and 
constructively with all Members to find a lasting solution to the current impasse that would ensure 
an effective dispute settlement system . 
6.17.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body. The United Kingdom wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and continue d to encourage all remaining Members 
to join in su pport. Achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members was in the interests of all Members who value d a predictable, rules -based trading system. 
The United Kingdom continue d its active participation in the Member -led discussions on dispute 
settlement reform and was encouraged by the progress made. The United Kingdom continue d to call 
on all Members to engage pragmatically and find solutions that would command the support of al l 
Members. The United Kingdom continue d to condemn President Putin 's war against Ukraine in the 
strongest terms. The United Kingdom again recall ed that Russia 's actions were a repudiation of the 
principles of the UN Charter and of the purpose and principle s of this Organization. The United 
Kingdom stood with Ukraine and would continue to do everything it could to support Ukraine 's heroic 
resistance to this assault on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
6.18.  The representative of Korea  said that  Korea echo ed other delegations and  reaffirm ed its 
consistent position on Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected. As for the  Agenda  item, Korea thank ed Guatemala 
and the co-sponsors for their co ntinuous support in favour of launching the Appellate Body selection WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 13 - 
 
 
process es. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and wished to refer  to its previous 
statements made on this matter . The WTO dispute settlement system enhanced the security and 
predictability of the rule -based multilateral  trading system in response to the needs of WTO 
Members. With that in mind, Korea welcome d Member s' continuous engagement  in ongoing 
discussion s for dispute settlement reform and very much appreciate d all the efforts that they were 
making  to fulfil the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document in achieving a fully  and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system  accessible to all Members by 2024.  
6.19.  The re presentative of Australia  said that, f irst, Australia wished to note that it condemn ed in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Australia 
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organi zations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to this A genda item, fixing the dispute settlement system remain ed Australia 's highest 
reform priority.  With little more than two months before MC13, time was fast running out to achieve 
Members ' shared objective  of having a fully and well -functioning dispute settl ement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024.  Australia was pleased with the progress made  by Members  in 
the ongoing informal discussions, but there was still more work to be done. Australia would continue 
working actively and constructively, and urge d all other Members to do the same so they could 
maintain the momentum to meet the MC12 mandate. As they worked towards this goal, Australia 
continue d to encourage Members to join the MPIA, which serve d to highlight the value Members 
placed on a binding, enfo rceable dispute settlement system. Australia was open to discussing the 
MPIA with any interested delegation.  
6.20.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made  on this matter  and thank ed Guatemala and the co-sponsors for 
their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of Appellate Body members. 
The Russia n Federation  reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes 
immediately.  Also, the Russia n Federation considered  that the problem with the Appellate Body 
impasse was the core issue around which the discussions on DS reform should be conducted. Without 
solving it, the restoration of the fully and well -functioning, two -tiered dispute settlement system was 
unachievable, which l eft the consideration of other elements of possible reform meaningless.  
Concerning certain political statements made by certain Members  at the present meeting , 
unfortunately , Russia was forced to remind Members that the DSB had its own tasks and mandate , 
as set out in different DSU provisions. The political issues raised by some WTO Members neither 
concern ed any of the issues contained on  the Agenda of the prese nt meeting, nor were within the 
competence of the DSB. Most importantly, the WTO was not a political organization and Members 
should refrain from trying to address the issues that were not in the competence of the Organization. 
In contrast, under Article 17.2 of the DSU , the DSB did not just have the mandate, but obligation  
regarding this matter. Accordingly, the situation with the blockage of the Appellate Body 
appointments was the one to be addressed  and the solution to this matter  would strength en the 
multilateral trading system. Hence, the Russia n Federation  encourage d WTO Members to focus on 
resolving the problems they already ha d and not create new ones.  
6.21.  The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand wished to reiterate its previous position  on 
this matter  as it continue d to support and co -sponsor the proposal by Guatemala. Thailand agree d 
with other co -sponsors that it was urgent  to appoint  the Appellate Body members and  Thailand fully 
support ed the restoration  of the Appellate Body . While Thailand was committed to discuss the 
dispute settlement reform, it was,  at the same time, also committed to restor ing the Appellate Body 
so that the WTO 's dispute settlement system could be fully functioning by 2024.  
6.22.  The repr esentative of Pakistan  said that Pakistan  wished to support the statement made by 
Guatemala on behalf of the co -sponsor of WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26.  A well -functioning dispute 
settlement system , in Pakistan 's view, was a system that addresse d the issues and cha llenges 
identified by Members without compromising on agreed principles. However, Pakistan 's priority was 
to ensure a fully operational Appellate Body. A dysfunctional system would not serve their 
rules-based system in the present environment that require d certainty and predictability.  
6.23.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia expressed support for Guatemala 's 
statement , which represented the 130 co -sponsors of the revised joint proposal, contained in 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26, to launch the selection processes  and to fill the  vacancies in the Appellate WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 14 - 
 
 
Body members. The immediate launch of the selection processes of vacancies of the Appellate Body 
were most crucial. Malaysia wished to reiterate its support in finding solutions with the view to 
restoring the fully functioning dispute settlement system, in particular the two -tiered dispute 
settlement system, which must be ensured  to remain as the central pillar of this institution. Such a 
system had demonstrated its effectiveness in facilitating prompt and fair resolution of disputes 
between Members and provided security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. While  
Malaysia hoped that the current ongoing informal discussion would contribute towards the fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system, accessible to all Members by 2024, as mandated by 
Ministers at MC12, Malaysia would also urge all Members who ha d yet to support this proposal , to 
do so, so that they could commence the selection processes immediately. Malaysia also wished to 
refer to its previous statements on this matter.  
6.24.  The representative of Ukraine  said that this challenging year was a reminder  for Ukraine of 
the importance  of the collaboration amongst Members to achieve a comm on goal such as  "to 
preserve the basic principles and to further the objectives underlying this multilateral trading 
system " as it was laid down in the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World 
Trade Organization. Ukraine believe d that restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system 
and appointing members of the Appellate Body were crucial issues and might be realized only by a 
meaningful reform. Ukraine was ready to make extensive efforts by actively being involved on 
initiatives for the achievement of a mutually agreed solution in order to renew guaranteed access to 
a binding, two -tier and independent resolutio n of trade disputes. Taking this opportunity, Ukraine 
wished to make a statement regarding the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. 
Russia proceed ed with its everyday shells in Ukraine and commits terrorist acts against civilians and 
its critical infrastructure. The residential areas, port infrastructure, grain warehouses, airfield 
network  and industrial enterprises were under constant air and missile strikes. With such obvious 
terrorist attacks , Russia directly destroy ed Ukraine 's supply chai ns and logistics, significantly 
reducing Ukraine 's exports and trade which ha d long-term negative effect s. The terrifying  
consequences of the Russian military invasion increase d constantly acquiring larger scales, becoming 
more global, going beyond Ukraine , affecting significantly more than the economy and trade. Ukraine 
was grateful to its partners for their reliable, powerful, united support and call ed upon WTO Members 
to deprive the aggressor state - Russia - of all its possibilities to commit the crime of aggression 
against Ukraine and to undermine the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
6.25.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland condemn ed Russia 's military 
aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. This was a flagrant violation of international law, 
most notably the prohibition o f the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States.  
Switzerland call ed on Russia to tak e military de -escalation measures, end hostilities and immediately 
withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian territory.  Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect 
international law, in particular international humanitarian law.  Turning to this Agenda item, 
Switzerland thank ed Guatemala for  placing  this matter on the Agenda of the present meeting and 
wishe d to refer to the statements made by Switzerland on this matter at  previous DSB meetings.  
Switzerland shall continue to participate constructively in the dis pute settlement reform process and 
called on all Members to continue their engagement.  Switzerland encourage d all Members to join 
the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) . The MPIA was a pragmatic and 
effective way to preserve Members ' rights until the Appellate Body impasse was resolved. 
Switzerland 's priority remain ed, of course, to find a multilateral solution that would ensure that the 
dispute settlement system was fully functioning . 
6.26.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union reiterate d its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation 's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violate d the UN Charter and disregard ed the rules -based internation al order. It undermine d 
international security and stability, and ha d no place in the 21st century. The European Union 's 
support for Ukraine 's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of self -defence  was 
unwavering. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression and 
withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia had to cease actions endangering the civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people.  Regarding 
this Agenda item, t he European Union wished to refer to its previous statements  made  on this matter 
and thank ed all Members that have co -sponsored the proposal  to launch the  AB 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 WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 15 - 
 
 
system was crucial. That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the present 
proposal. The European Union believe d that restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system 
and appointing members of the Appellate Body was a key priority. This task was a shared 
responsibility of WTO Members. In order to achieve this objective, the EU agree d that a meaningful 
reform was needed. The European Union support ed a reform that would preserve the core features 
of the dispute settlement system. The European Union treated very seriously the commitment, made 
at MC12, of having a fully and well -functioning system by 2024 and it was committed to continuing 
to work towards meeting that goal. The European Union welcome d the progress that ha d already 
been achieved in the ongoing discussions and that was reflected in the draft text. The European 
Union hoped that Members could continue constructive discussions with a view to finali ze the text 
by December  2023. In the meantime, the European Union was concerned about  the impact that the 
absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system was having on the international trading 
order. In that context, the MPIA ha d been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system among its participants and to support rules -based trade. The 
MPIA was open to any WTO Member, and the European Union invite d any WTO Member to join  the 
MPIA as long a solution to this impasse ha d not been found.   
6.27.  The representative of Cambodia  said that, a t the outset, Cambodia wished to be associated 
with the statement made by Guatemala on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors of the joint AB proposal, 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/R ev.26. Cambodia wished to refer to its previous statements 
made on this important and longstanding Agenda  item, and call ed for more Members to consi der 
co-sponsor ing this proposal. Cambodia urged Members to be more flexible to move this Agenda item 
forward in order to meet the MC12 mandate on appointments of the Appellate Body members . 
Cambodia stood ready to continue the constructive engagement towar ds the restoration of  the 
Appellate Body  under multilateral discussions.  
6.28.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala, on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that for the sevent y-first occasion, Members had not been able to launch the selection  
processes for the vacancies in the Appellate Body . Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their 
duties as Members of the WTO . As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated  that: "vacancies shall be 
filled as they arise ". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should 
not prevent the Appellate Body  from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with 
their obligation under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise . Guatemala noted with de ep concern 
that by failing to launch the selection processes at the present meeting, the Appellate Body  would 
continue to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members . 
6.29.  The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their state ments . As in the past, the DSB would take 
note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected in the minutes 
of the present meeting . Once again, he wished to take  this opportunity to recall Members ' 
commitment at MC12 to co nduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 . The Chairman also noted that 
currently th e informal process on DS reform was being carried out by technical experts. He reca lled 
that th is process was strongly supported by Senior Officials who met in Geneva on 23 and 24 October 
2023.  He hoped that collectively Members would be able to find a solution to this matter . 
6.30.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
7  STATEMENT BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA REGARDING THE DISPUTE ON: 
"UNITED  STATES — MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS -BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES " (DS285)  
7.1.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , speaking under "Other Business ", said that  Antigua 
and Barbuda wished to ma ke a brief statement with respect to the compliance of the United States 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB as it relate d to the dispute on:  "United States  - 
Measures Affecting Cross -Border Supply of Gambling and Betting  Services " (DS285) . Or rather, to 
be more accurate, the non -compliance of the United States, because it was the US truly staggering 
practice to demur, to defer and to delay that ha d brought them to where they were now. Antigua 
and Barbuda serve d notice tha t at the next DSB  meeting , it would propose a substantive Agenda 
item in order to brief Members more fully on this landmark case and to learn from the USTR 
delegation what compliance actions the US authorities ha d taken or intend ed to take. But for now, 
Antigua and Barbuda wished to start by noting a number of grim milestones that characterize d the WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 16 - 
 
 
passage of DS285 through the WTO dispute settlement system. This year mark ed twenty years since 
Antigua and Barbuda  had requested consul tations with the U nited States regarding measures applied 
by central, regional and local authorities in the U nited States,  which had affected the cross -border 
supply of gambling and betting services which Antigua and Barbuda considered to have the 
cumulati ve impact of preventing the supply of gambling and betting services from its territory to the 
United States on a cross -border basis.  Antigua and Barbuda had submitted that these unlawful 
actions of the United States in restricting betting and gaming servic es from Antigua and Barbuda 
were destroying an industry it valued at US D 3.3 billion, an industry that was on track to overtake 
tourism as the leading sector of the economy. This year also mark ed 20 years since the DSB had 
established a panel  to examine th is matter.  A year from now would  mark 20 years since the Panel 
had circulated its report to Members. They were also two years shy of two decades since the 
Appellate Body had circulated its report following the US appeal of the Panel Report.  
7.2.  In fact, every time Antigua and Barbuda thought  of DS285, it was  reminded of a book written 
by Arthur Leo Zagat entitled : "The Land Where Time Stood Still ", the first chapter of which was 
called "Into Nothingness ". Since the adoption of the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body ; since the expiration of the reasonable period of time following 
"binding " arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU; and since compliance proce edings as per 
Article 21.5 of the DSU – the U nited States had still not complied with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB – a fact confirmed by the compliance Panel on 30 March 2007. It was true that 
on 28 January 2013, the DSB had authorized the su spension of concessions and obligations to the 
United States with respect to intellectual property rights. However, the political directorate in Antigua 
and Barbuda was of the view that taking such a punitive course of action would likely come at 
significa nt economic and political costs to Antigua and Barbuda. The Government of Antigua and 
Barbuda had concluded that to take the lawful retaliatory action allowed under the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB would open its economy to annihilation by the Un ited States. The Government 
of Antigua and Barbuda was led to this view by, among other things, the threatening statements 
made by the US delegation in this very chamber at the time of the DSB 's decision in January 2013. 
In addition, it seemed that all  the third-party countries that  had registered an interest in DS285, 
including the European Union and Japan, ha d been compensated by the United States, and 
generously so, while the state that had brought the original action remain ed languishing in the 
wilderne ss. Nevertheless, in a spirit of amity and cooperation, the Government of Antigua and 
Barbuda ha d, over the years, including very recently, reached out to the USTR seeking to arrive at 
an amicable resolution to this outstanding matter.  To its great conster nation and regret, all th at had 
been to no avail. There appear ed to be no "amicable solution " on the horizon. So what, therefore, 
was to be done? As it did on 24 April 2012, Antigua and Barbuda once again ask ed the DSB to keep 
this matter under robust surv eillance.  Antigua and Barbuda also ask ed the United States, once again, 
to make every good -faith effort to bring this matter to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. The Biblical 
story of Job spoke  of a man who suffered calamity after calamity , but never lost patience or his faith. 
In like manner , the Government of Antigua and Barbuda ha d endured many calamities relating to 
DS285 and ha d exhibited great patience and ha d, remarkably, still kept faith with the ability of the 
multilateral trading s ystem to resolve disputes. It was said that patience is a virtue; and virtue a 
grace. But how long shall this continue? It was little wonder then that in fact DS285 ha d become the 
poster -child for reform of the WTO dispute  settlement system. Because if one  of the world 's smallest 
economies ha d to wait twenty years for resolution of a matter against the world 's most powerful 
economy, then surely the system was broken and  Members needed to fix it. However, the 
Government of Antigua and Barbuda wishe d to place  on record that, the patience of Job 
notwithstanding, it also reserve d its right, in keeping with its rights and obligations under the WTO, 
including the rulings and recommendations of the DSB, to take the measures it deem ed appropriate.  
7.3.  The representativ e of the United States said that t he United States recognized that, as provided 
for in Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure of DSB meetings: "discussions on substantive issues under 
'Other Business' shall be avoided … ". If the intention of Antigua and Barbud a was to have a 
substantive discussion, it should have proposed this item for the Agenda of the DSB meeting ahead 
of the deadline. Nonetheless, the United States took note of the statement made by Antigua and 
Barbuda and would convey it to capital .  
7.4.  The re presentative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the ACP  Group , 
said that the ACP Group thank ed Antigua and Barbuda for raising the issue of the non -compliance 
of the United States with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB as it relate d to the dispute 
on: "United States  - Measures Affecting Cross -Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services " WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 17 - 
 
 
(DS285) . The ACP Group remain ed disappointed that twenty years since this matter had been  raised 
in the WTO, there ha d been no definitive resolution. The ACP Group assign ed preeminence to respect 
for the rule of international law. When Members ignore d the rule of law, the potential for disorder 
increase d. It remain ed a blot on the integrity of the multilateral trading system that one of the WTO 's 
smallest Members ha d not been able to rely on the system to protect its interests from the political 
and econom ic power of a major trading nation.  The ACP Group support ed an amicable resolution of 
this matter and especially encourage d the United States to take the steps necessary to comply with 
the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. The ACP Group also support ed the call from Antigua 
and Barbuda, as it did in April 2012, for the DSB to keep this matter under its surveillance.  
7.5.  The representative of India said that India wished to take this opportunity to urge the relevant 
parties to work together to amicably resolve the dispute, and also wished to take this opportunity 
to underline the importance of compliance reforms for developing countries. Such as issues o n topics 
like cross retaliation and sequencing.  
7.6.  The repr esentative of Bangladesh  said that  Bangladesh thank ed Antigua and Barbuda for its 
statement  made  on the compliance in the  DS285 , which had been  pending for a long time. For the 
credibility of the WTO dispute settlement  system, compliance was not only impor tant but 
indispensable. Bangladesh urge d the relevant parties to obey the agreed principles, rules and 
established procedures of this Organization and work together for an early resolution of  the DS285  
dispute . 
7.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
8  STATEMEN T BY INDIA REGARDING THE JOINT COMMUNICATION CONTAINED IN 
DOCUMENT JOB/DSB/7  TITLED:  "REFLECTIONS ON THE REFORM OF THE  WTO DISPUTE 
SETTLEMENT SYSTEM " 
8.1.  The representative of India, speaking under "Other Business ", said that India wished to take 
this opportunity to briefly introduce the joint communication  contained in document  JOB/DSB/7  and 
to summarize the main issues to which it wished to draw the attention of this Organization . First, 
the dispute settlement system was an integral part of the architecture of the multilateral trading 
system that developing countries signed on to. In spite of that, developing countries ha d been 
cognizant of the need to reform this system and ha d been active participants in previous reform 
efforts. It was in this spirit that , in spite of its concerns, India had participated in the ongoing informal 
process , which ha d now been underway for almost two years. In this context, India reiterate d that 
it was now critical to initiate formal multilateral discussions on DS reform. Further more, the manner 
in which the outcomes of the informal process were integrated into the multilateral process had to 
be carefully considered. The context and the evolution of the discussions ha d to be kept in mind. 
The conce rns that developing countries ha d been repeatedly raising , with the patie nce of Job also in 
this case, had to  be addressed. It was essential that the way the manner in which the outcomes of 
the informal process would be  integrated into the multilateral process be carefully considered, 
because that was essential to hav ing comprehensive, balanced and equitable outcomes. In the 
context of the concerns that had been  raised by many delegations at the recently concluded Senior  
Officials meeting, India hoped that an open -minded discussion of the suggestions that had been 
made in this paper would  facilitate the Membership 's efforts towards meaningful DS reform, including 
the restoration of the Appellate Body. 
8.2.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to t hank India for introducing 
the joint communication . South Africa value d the current  informal dispute settlement  discussion s 
and ha d participated  actively and constructively in the process . South Africa thank ed Mr. Marco  
Molina for his efforts in facilitating the discussions, as well as the participants for their contribution 
and work. South Africa share d the view of many Members that the two -tier dispute settlement 
system was vital in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. South 
Africa reaffirm ed the objective of Paragraph s 3 and 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document in having a 
fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. South Africa 
wished to take this opportunity to recall  the communication s from the African Group (WT/GC/W/892) 
and Indonesia (JOB/DSB/6) to highlight the topic of pro cess with regard to the dispute settlement 
discussion process. Such discussions were to be Member -driven, open, transparent, inclusive and 
address the interests of all Members. South Africa observe d the difficulties encountered by 
developing and LDC Member s to meaningfully and effectively participate in the informal discussion s WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 18 - 
 
 
due to capacity and resource constraint s. These were articulated in the joint communications and 
these challenge s must be seriously consider ed and addressed to enable full and active  participation 
of small delegations t o continuously follow and contribute to the discussion s. To address this issue,  
amongst others that were articulated in the communication , the joint communication outline d what 
South Africa  consider ed as indispensable for an outcome of any reform of the dispute settlement 
system . The informal discussions were meant to contribute to multilateral discussions on dispute 
settlement reforms as mandated under Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the MC12 Ministerial Declaration. 
Thus, the call also for a holistic, formal and multilateral process . In closing , long-lasting reform could 
only be achieved when all Members could provide contribution and share their interests in an equal 
manner. To achieve this, South Africa stood ready to work with all Members in fulfilling the Mandate 
of the MC12 Outcome Document by 2024.  
8.3.  The representat ive of Egypt  said that, f irst, Egypt wished to thank India for the introduction of 
their joint submission. Without going into the details, Egypt wished to draw Members ' attention to 
their joint communication  contained in  JOB/DSB/7 , which had been circuited on 24 November 2023 . 
The intention of this communication was to reiterate the fundamental elements that shape d their 
engagement in the current informal post, to state their understanding of this process and its 
outcomes, and to acknowledge the ch allenges faced by developing countries and LDCs in 
participating in this process as well as to share their views about the way forward in terms of the 
process and the substance of the discussion. Egypt was involved in this process and was keen to 
attend the relevant meetings as much as possible. Egypt believed that despite being open to all 
Members, the informal nature of this process and its non -hybrid mode ha d hindered the participation 
of many small delegations. Egypt  believe d that there was a need to fo rmalize the current process as 
soon as possible. Egypt also acknowledge d that there was a need to include developing countries 
interests in the final outcome of this process, including the restoration of the Appellate Body. Finally, 
Egypt looked forward to  engag ing constructively with other Members on th e joint  communication . 
8.4.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , speaking on behalf of the OECS,  said that the OECS 
thank ed India for introducing this Agenda item on behalf of the co -sponsors. The OECS would take 
the opportunity on a subsequent occasion to reflect more fully on the communication  contained  in 
JOB/DSB/7. However, suffice it to say that the OECS assign ed great importance to the restoration 
of the full functioning, binding dispute settlement at the WTO, of which a well -functioning, two -tier 
dispute settlement system, accessible to all Members, was indispensable. The OECS wished to take 
note of the fundamen tal elements that shape d the engagement of the co -sponsors in the reform 
process. Many of th ose align ed favourably with their interests. Indeed, many other elements of the 
communication resonate d with them. In closing, the OECS wished to take this opportun ity to 
recognize the work being done under the informal process to which they were committed as they 
saw value in this process as being able to take Members  towards a meaningful outcome on dispute 
settlement reform. The OECS  reiterate d its interest in the formali zation of this process as soon as 
practicable. The OECS  also implor ed Members to treat the concerns and suggestions of developing 
and least developed countries with the seriousness that they deserve d. 
8.5.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behal f of the African Group,  said that the African 
Group thank ed Egypt, India  and South Africa for their joint communication contained in document 
JOB/DSB/7 titled : "Reflections on the Reform of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process ". The African 
Group  strongly su pport ed this document as it align ed with the positions of the African Group, which 
include d, among other things, working towards reform of the dispute settlement system with the 
view to having a fully and well -functioning two -tier dispute settlement system that was accessible 
to all Members. The African Group reaffirm ed its communication and pro posals on DSU reform which 
sought to address the structural challenges inherent in the dispute settlement system with the aim 
to facilitate developing countries participation in the dispute settlement system. The African Group  
underscore d the need for DSU reform to incorporate adequate and effective special and differential 
treatment for developing countries in line with the Doha Development agenda, so as to address the 
capacity and accessibility challenges faced by developing countries and particularly acc essibility 
challenges faced by African countries. The African Group share d the same objectives as stipulated 
in paragraph 7 of said document that state d that, going forward, the full, effective and equal 
participation of WTO Members was paramount through a  transparent and inclusive process and was 
key in complying with the mandates of Paragraph s 3 and 4 of the MC12 M inisterial Declaration. 
Given that Members had limited time before  MC13, a clear date for the formali zation of the process 
of the informal proc ess ha d to be communicated in clear terms. Finally, the African Group 
underscore d the need for any updates to the DSU rule book to incorporate adequate and effective WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 19 - 
 
 
special and differential treatment for developing countries in line with the Doha Developm ent 
Agenda, so as to address the capacity and accessibility challenges faced by developing countries 
such as the high costs of disputes.  
8.6.  The representative of Indonesia  said that, a t the outset, Indonesia wished to thank Egypt, India 
and South Africa for c irculating th e joint  communication, and thank ed India for introducing the 
communication  on behalf of the co -sponsors. Indonesia  also acknowledge d the hard work done to 
submit a paper that not only highlight ed the challenges faced by developing Members and LDCs in 
terms of process, but also of substance. Indeed, in terms of the process, as echoed in its document 
JOB/DSB/6, Indonesia was one of many Members who d id not have a dedicated delegate to actively 
follow the matter  and was unable to assign its capital delegates to fly to Geneva on a daily basis. As 
a result, at times, Indonesia could not catch up with the pace of the discussion and was unable  to 
provide meaningful contribution, including in voicing its interests to preserve its due process rights 
as well as its rights for security and predictability of the system that ha d been provided through the 
existing two -tier dispute settlement mechanism . Members were  weeks away from the Ministerial 
Conference, yet, there was no clear indication as to when the discussion w ould be formali zed. Time 
was of the essence and Indonesia did  not want the process to be formalized at a critical point, where 
any cont ribution would  not be welcomed. Despite all th ose challenges, Indonesia would continue to 
participate actively in the ongoing informal dispute settlement reform discussion.  
8.7.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom wished to  thank Egypt, 
India and South Africa for their communication on this important topic, and acknowledge d the need 
to avoid substantive discussion under "Other Business ". The United Kingdom believe d strongly in a 
dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members, and was transparent, and it would 
continue to work with all Members to pursue those shared objectives. The informal discussions were 
delivering convergence and momentum. The Unite d Kingdom wished to thank the facilitator, 
Mr. Marco Molina, for his tireless work to support Members. If Members did not  find agreement they 
would continue to have a system that was not fully -functioning. That was not in the interests of any 
Member that v alued an effective rules -based multilateral trading system. The United Kingdom urge d 
all Members to continue to work to find a resolution, including through continued engagement in the 
informal process. All Members had to continue to look for solutions tha t could command consensus. 
That mean t taking a pragmatic approach – they must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  
8.8.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that  Bangladesh wished to thank Egypt, Indi a and South 
Africa for the joint communication , contained in document JOB/DSB/7 , highlighting the priorities for 
the reform of the DS system. Bangladesh had always emphasize d that for any reform in  the WTO, 
the voices of smaller delegations must be heard. The LDC Group's submission , contai ned in 
document  JOB/GC/223/Rev.1 , adequately highlight ed the urgency  of the situation. Also, Paragraph 
3 of the MC12 Outcome Document assure d that any reform work, which of course includ ed DS 
reform, "… shall be Member -driven, open, transparent, inclusive,  and must address the interests of 
all Members, including development issues ". Inclusivity was only possible, as a primary condition, 
under a multilateral process through a WTO Body. The established practices and procedures of this 
Organization could not be overlooked.  Therefore, Bangladesh welcome d this submission which also 
re-emphasized  MC12 Ministerial instructions. Bangladesh support ed the suggestions in the 
communication including the restoration of the proper functioning of the Appellate Body at the 
earliest, with needed clarifications and guidance from the WTO Membership to enable more effective 
functioning of the two -tier dispute settlement  system. Bangladesh looked forward to working with 
the co -sponsors and other delegations on this important topi c.  
8.9.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russia n Federation  appreciate d the 
communication circulated by Egypt, India and South Africa on 24 November 2023 and support ed 
many of the elements reflected in th at communication . In particular, the Russian Federation share d 
the view that the multilateral outcome could be achieved only through the formal process as 
envisaged by Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document. On ly the formalization  of the 
informal discussions on DS reform could guarantee that any possible outcome would be acceptable 
by all WTO Members, as the participation in the discussions in an equal, inclusive and transparent 
manner was an inevitable part of the negotiations conducted within this Organization. The Russian 
Federation also proceed ed from the understanding that the "informal discussions " were meant only 
"to contribute to multilateral discussions on dispute settlement reforms as mandated under the MC12 
Ministerial Declaration, rather than to substitute [them] ". Further, the Russian Federation support ed 
the approach that "nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed ", which  Members should follow in WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 20 - 
 
 
the discussions. In this regard, the Russian Federation  share d the view , and in fact reiterate d its 
position , that the restoration of the two -tiered system with a fully and well -functioning Appellate 
Body was the indispensable element of any successful dis pute settlement reform. The inability to 
review the matters submitted to the Appellate Body left disputes unresolved, including those where 
one of the part ies was a developing country. This situation could not be tolerated anymore.  
8.10.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia  welcome d the joint communication 
circulated by Egypt, India  and South Africa . Cambodia share d the same view as other delegations 
that the informal process was useful. However, Cambodia also share d the similar sentiments with 
Members about the intense schedule of this informal process including the structure and pace of the 
meeting s and Cambodia could not manage to participate and contribute substantively to the 
discussion. Dispute settlement reform was one of the top priorities for most Members , including 
Cambodia,  to ensure a full y and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024. Therefore, to ensure the inclusive participation of all Members , especially in 
addressi ng the challenges of the LDCs and small delegation s and to avoid overlapping with any WTO 
official meetings, the informal dispute settlement reform process should be institutionalized or 
multilaterali zed. Finally, Cambodia  wished to be associated  with the statement made by Bangladesh.  
8.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union wished to thank India 
for introducing the joint communication and to recall its statement made at the October  DSB meeting 
under the Agenda item concerning "Discussions Concerning DS Reform ". As previously mentioned, 
the European Union was committed and strongly support ed the ongoing process as it treated very 
seriously the commitment, made at MC12, of having a fully and well -functioning syste m accessible 
to all Members by 2024. The European Union acknowledge d the importance of accessibility of the 
ongoing process. The European Union  appreciate d the efforts already made to ensure that the 
process was transparent, inclusive and multilateral and it was grateful to Mr . Marco  Molina for his 
restless efforts to continuously improve the ongoing informal discussions. If Members were to have 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system "by 2024 ", these discussions had to pave the way for 
agreement on d ispute settlement reform at MC13. The European Union agree d with previous 
statements made encouraging a pragmatic approach.  
8.12.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to t hank the co -sponsors for their 
statements . Canada understood the concerns e xpressed  and support ed accessibility and 
transparency in the process and would carefully examine the proposal. Canada also wishe d to thank 
Mr. Marco  Molina for his dedication and his work to advance the discussions on dispute settlement 
reform . In Canada 's view, while the process would need to be formalized in the future, Members 
were not yet at that stage. The most reasonable and pragmatic approach t o achieving their 
objectives by the MC13 wa s to continue as they were . This was the only way to avoid upsetting the 
momentum they had managed to establish, and which ha d enabled Members to make meaningful 
progress. Canada remain ed open to any ideas put for ward in order to further fine -tune the informal 
process pending the time when Members were ready to submit a full text to the DSB. 
8.13.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to thank Egypt, India and 
South Africa for their joint communi cation, which ha d just come to Switzerland 's attention and which 
it would study carefully.  Switzerland wished to refer to its previous statements made on the informal 
process on dispute settlement reform. Switzerland reiterate d that dispute settlement discussions 
had never been so effective, and it support ed their continuation.  The informal discussions were 
pragmatic, inclusive and should facilitate the search for compromise in that Members discuss ed their 
interests rather than limiting themselves to defending positions of principle.  Fundamental issues 
were still under discussion and require d the commitment of all Members if they were to ensure an 
outcome that would contribut e to the success of MC13 . Switzerland share d the United  Kingdom 's 
position of w ishing  to avoid a situation in which "perfect is the enemy of good ". 
8.14.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia wished to thank Egypt, India  and South 
Africa for their joint communication. Australia agree d that it was critical to address the interests of 
all Members, including developing and LDC Members, in the dispute settlement reform discussions 
and that discussions had to  be multilateral, open, transparent and inclusive. Australia  maintain ed 
that the current informal process met th ose key criteria, and thank ed Mr. Marco  Molina for his efforts 
to ensure that all Members could  participate in the discussions. While the negotiations ha d been 
fast-paced, the urgency of delivering on the MC12 mandate demand ed that Members  work quick ly. 
Australia reiterate d that it share d the ultimate intention of formali zing the discussions at the right WT/DSB/M/48 5 
- 21 - 
 
 
time, but Members should not do this prematurely. The innovat ive nature of the informal process 
remain ed the best chance to identify reforms that met the interests of all Members. Finally, it was 
worth noting that many of the reform ideas listed in the joint communication were being discussed 
in the informal process . Australia therefore encourage d all Members to continue to engage 
constructively and flexibly in the informal process.  
8.15.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to thank Egypt, India and South Africa for 
the joint communication contained in document JOB/DSB/7. Japan wished to refer to its previous 
statement  made  under Agenda item 6 of  the 26 October 2023  DSB meeting. However, Japan wished 
to highlight that the ongoing process was already multilateral  and open, transparent and inclusive 
to all Members. The process with having informal discussions amongst  Members and reporting to 
the DSB was well designed and str uck a balance between efficiency/flexibility as well as 
transparency/accountability. In this r egard, Japan appreciate d Mr. Marco Molina  for his efforts so 
that Members could attend the meetings and access all document ation. The process would be 
formalized at  an appropriate tim e before MC13, but now was not the right time. Members would 
continue the  informal process for the moment so that they could discuss the remaining issues under 
a frank and constructive environment. To achieve the commitment agreed at MC12, Japan would 
continue  to work actively and constructively with all WTO Members.  
8.16.  The repres entative of Colombia  said that Colombia valued the efforts made and the dedication 
of the facilitator, Mr. Marco Molina, and  urged him to continue with his work. Colombia recognized 
and valued the progress made to date in these negotiations. Despite its li mited capacity, Colombia 
had been heard and it had taken into account the debate. Colombia had not been able to participate 
in all the meetings, however its contributions had been reflected in the draft text. The constant 
guidance of Mr. Marco Molina in th ese discussions had been invaluable. Members now had 
simultaneous interpretation and access to texts in the WTO official languages and this undoubtedly 
facilitated their work. Colombia considered that the process was transparent, open, inclusive and 
had th e effective participation of all Members. This progress encouraged Members and bolstered 
their commitment to work towards effective solutions.  
8.17.  The representative of Venezuela  said that Venezuela wished to thank Egypt, India  and South 
Africa for th e joint communication . Venezuela support ed many of the ideas put forward by the 
proponents, including the need to take into account the different views of developing and least 
developed countries in order to enhance their full, effe ctive and equal participation in these dispute 
settlement reform discussions.  
8.18.  The representative of China  said that China wished to  refer to its previous statement made  at 
the 26 October 2023 DSB meeting and it was encouraged by the substantial progress ac hieved so 
far through Members ' collective efforts and China  fully appreciate d the eagerness of Egypt, South 
Africa and India to have more participation and it support ed the efforts to improve the current 
process . China also wished to stress that a bit more  patience might be needed to bring this outcome 
into a fuller shape through the informal discussion s, and it support ed the efforts to improve the 
current process. China acknowledge d that there were still fundamental challenges ahead of 
Members , including the Appellate review issue, and China would appreciate more participation from 
both developed and developing Members to address those core issues . 
8.19.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea  wished to thank Egypt, India and  South Afric a for 
the joint communication  and their statements  made at the present meeting . Korea wished to refer 
to its previous statement made at the 26 October 2023 DSB meeting regarding the WTO DS reform. 
Korea note d that this process was open, transparent and inclusive to all Members and thank ed all 
Members for their participation and proactive engagement. In this connection, Korea wished to 
express its sincere appreciation to Mr. Marco Molina for his efforts.  While Korea  recog nized that the 
pace of discussions was fairly swift, it believe d this was imperative to deliver on the Mandate of 
Paragraph  4 of the MC12 Outcome Document. Korea look ed forward to continued engagement of all 
parties and would also contribute constructively to the process.  
8.20.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________  