 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 72 
16 December 2022 
(22-9367) Page: 1/12 
Dispute Settlement Body  
26 October  2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 26 OCTOBER 20221 
 Chairperson : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana )  
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present  meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . She recall ed a few technical 
instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegates . If a Member was unable to take the floor 
during the meeting be cause of a technical issue, the delegation could inform the Secretariat and 
that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the alternative, the 
item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agen da item, and the 
DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a technical issue 
remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with 
the request that it be read out by the Sec retariat on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so 
that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting;  and (ii) the Chairperson  made 
a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting 
pertai ning to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, that matter had been removed 
from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each interested party 
regarding that Agenda item. At the present meeting, she wished to in form delegations that , like the 
previous Chair of the DSB,  she continued to consult with each interested party on this matter and 
that those consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a. 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ .............  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA;  BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; 
BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN 
REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE 
D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR;  EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE 
EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA 
BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; 
ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; 
MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; 
MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; 
NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH 
MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU; THE 
PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA; SAINT 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 K INGDOM; URUGUAY; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.23)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIO NS 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 32) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.207) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.170) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on larg e residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.54) 
 
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.46) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.41 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.41) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members  recall ed, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be 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, she invite d delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also  remind ed delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members ' 
positions already on record. " WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 32) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 32, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on c ertain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 October 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed th e DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration  would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement  at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed on the United States to 
fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 207) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 207, which conta ined 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 13 October 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement at the present meeting . The European Union  referred 
to its previous sta tements  and said that the EU wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of bi otech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 70) 
1.10.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 170, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendation s and rulings. The E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. The European Commission 
planned on 27 October 20 22 to present the Standing Committee with a draft decision renewing the 
authorisation of genetically modified soybean A5547 -127.  WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement at the present meet ing. The United States continued to engage with the European 
Union on these issues and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the 
European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States had 
described  these problems in detail and noted its concerns with the European Union's biotech approval 
procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations. The United 
States again requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that 
had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety Authority, including 
those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee . 
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 54) 
1.14.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/ DS464/17/Add. 54, 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 representati ve of the United States  said that the United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 13 October 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce had 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 consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute .  
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and 
appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as suc h" measures at  issue in  
this dispute.  
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that m ore than four years ha d passed since the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB recommendations arising from the 
Appellate Body Report in US – Wash ing Machines , according to which the "differential pricing 
methodology" (DPM) was inconsistent "as such" with the WTO agreements. Despite this, the United 
States continue d to apply the DPM "as such" in investigations with respect to foreign companies and 
continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the basis of th at non-compliant 
methodology. Canada was deeply concerned about th at violation. Canada  invite d the United States 
to put an end to it as soon as possible.   
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. 46) 
1.19.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 46, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recomm endations 
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 13 October 2022, i n 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 .  WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and its statement made  at the present meeting . China  continue d to have serious 
concerns regarding  the US consistent failure to implement the adopted rulings and recommendations 
in this dispute more than four years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time. China  urged 
the United States to hono ur its obligation s by bringing its measure 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. 41 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 41) 
1.23.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 41 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 41, 
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 ani mal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had  submit ted its status  report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia ha d considered the concerns of New Zealand and the United 
States conveyed at previous DSB meetings. Indonesia f irmly commit ted to implementing the 
recommendations and decisions of the DSB in these disputes. Indonesia further reiterate d that, 
regarding measure 18, Indonesia ha d completely removed the existence of all articles in the relevant 
laws that were found to be inconsistent with WTO rules , through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 
on Job Creation. Additionally, on measures 1  to 17, Indonesia ha d made significant adjustments , 
through amendments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade regulations , in order to 
comply with the DSB 's recommendations and findings. The harvest time restriction, import 
realization requirements, six -month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic purchase 
requirement ha d all been rescinded by Indonesia. Furthermo re, Indonesia continue d to emphasize 
the benefits of the commodities balance for its Government and stakeholders. Th at policy intend ed 
to accelerate and simplify the granting of permits by utilizing an integrated national database system 
conducted in a tra nsparent manner. The policy was aimed at provid ing accurate data to relevant  
Ministries. Indonesia st ood ready to resolve these disputes by engaging with New Zealand and the 
United States.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States  continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. With respect to measures 1 to 17, 
the United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised 
Indonesia's import licensing regimes  and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect the 
regimes. With regard to the statement in Indonesia's latest status report that the commodity balance 
system was "to accelerate and simplify the granting of permits by utilizing an integrated nationa l 
database system conducted in a transparent manner", the United States was interested in better 
understanding how that would be the case. The United States asked whether Indonesia meant that 
the commodity balance system was a purely procedural programme a nd did not govern import 
quantities. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia's commitment to comply fully with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional information provided in recent 
meetings, including in relation to the objective of Indonesia's commodity balance mechanism as well 
as the impact of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the Law on Job Creation (No.  11/2020). New 
Zealand was  assessing th at information and w ould revert with any additional questions on th ose and 
other matters. Like the United States, New Zealand would also appreciate understanding better the 
regulations that presently underpin ned Indonesia's import licensing regimes as well as any 
regulations that were forthcoming. New Zealand look ed forward to constructive engagement with 
Indonesia on th ose outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2  PROPOSED NOMINATION S FOR THE INDICATIVE LI ST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/708)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/708 which contained two new 
nominations proposed by Kenya for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Paneli sts, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. She proposed that the DSB 
approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/708.  
2.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; 
CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; 
CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; 
DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; 
ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; 
GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; 
ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC  OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; 
MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; 
MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW 
ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; 
PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; 
RWANDA ; SAINT 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 ; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; U NITED KINGDOM ; U RUGUAY ; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 23) 
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 12 September  2022, to launch the selecti on processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 7 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the A ppellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral t rading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection proces ses (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office  had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expir ed on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominati ons of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
intere st of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.3.  The representative of the United States  recalled that the United States and other Members had  
jointly issued WT/GC/244, " The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against 
Ukraine with the Support of Belarus ", which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of 
international law, the United Nations (UN) Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace 
and security. The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine du ring this unimaginably difficult 
time and paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and Leaders.  
Turning to the present Agenda item,  Members were aware of the longstanding US concerns with 
WTO dispute settlement. Those concer ns remained unaddressed, and the United States did not 
support the proposed decision. The United States supported WTO dispute settlement reform and 
was working to achieve durable, lasting reform. The first step towards reform was to better 
understand the i nterests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. A true reform discussion should 
aim to ensure that WTO dispute settlement reflects the real interests of Members, and not prejudge 
what a reformed system would look like. The United States was prepared for  continued and deepened 
engagement with Members on that important issue .  
3.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada st ood by the people of Ukraine and strongly 
condemn ed the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin.  Those attacks 
were having a considerable humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of 
innocent people. This was not only about an attack on Ukraine. It was about a n attack on 
international law, including the UN Charter , as well as on democracy, freedom , and human rights. 
Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for over two and a half years the Appellate 
Body ha d no longer had a quorum and ha d been unab le to hear new appeals. Canada support ed the 
statement made by Mexico at the present meeting  on behalf of the sponsors. Canada  invite d WTO 
Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 127  Members requesting 
the launch of the sele ction process. The critical mass of WTO Members supporting th at proposal 
clearly reflect ed the importance that they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an 
integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada w ould continue to actively p articipate in 
solution -oriented discussions on the present situation. In short, Canada's  priority remain ed finding 
a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the  United States. Meanwhile, Canada 
and 50 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the  Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement 
(MPIA) as an emergency measure. This measure sought  to safeguard their rights to binding dispute 
settlement, including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. The MPIA was open to 
all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their 
dispute settlement rights to the maximum extent possible until they collectively f ound a lasting 
solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any 
interested Member.  
3.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors and wished to refer to its previous statements made under this 
Agenda item. Brazil consider ed it of utmost importance to have a  fully and well-functioning WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism as soon as possible , to ensure a rules -based multilateral trading 
system. This was why Brazil  continue d to support the proposal on Appella te Body appointments. At 
MC12, Members had committed to "conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". Members had to  act 
on that commitment, but they could also engag e in alternative interim solutions while the deadlock 
remain ed. Brazil  therefore encourage d Members to consider the MPIA as a means to achieving a 
final and binding resolution to a dispute as long as the A ppellate Body remain ed inoperative.  
3.6.  The representative of Norway  said that a s the work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding 
of the rul es-based international order, it was pertinent to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway 
continue d to strongly condemn Russia's egregious military attack on its neighbo ur Ukraine. Russia's 
war of aggression against Ukraine constitut ed a gross violation o f international law, the rules -based 
system which also underpin ned the WTO . That military aggression was a catastrophe for Ukrainians 
and Russians alike, and it was also hurting multilateral cooperation at a time when it was  needed 
more than ever. Norway  also condemn ed Russia's recent illegal attempts to annex Ukrainian 
territory.  Norway  reiterate d its unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity 
within its internationally  recognized  borders. Turning to the Appellate Body appointments, Norway 
fully support ed the joint proposal submitted  by Mexico  and thank ed Mexico  for presenting the 
proposal , which was  now co-sponsored by 127 Members , to launch the process for appointments to 
the Appellate Body . Although Norway  very much we lcome d the ongoing informal discussions among 
Members and was participat ing constructively in th ose discussions  to address the present  impasse, 
Norway was  of the view that t hese discussions  did not prevent Members  from launching the process WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 8 - 
 
  for appointment s to the Appellate Body. Norway also w ished to refer to its previous  statements made 
under this Agenda item.  
3.7.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and refer red to its previous 
statements on this issue. Having a fully and well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system 
remain ed an urgent priority for the United Kingdom. It was the best means of ensuring that the 
rules Members  had negotiated were respected, securing the fair resolution of disagreements , and 
reducing recourse to unilateral measures. The United Kingdom  encourage d Members to progress 
ongoing discussions  with pace and purpose . When considering potential reforms Members should  
not let the perfect be the enemy of the good . If Members  demand ed perfection they would get stuck 
in endless discussions . The process had to  be about reaching consensus on the reforms necessary  
to achieve a fully functioning and well -functioning system that ha d the support of all Members. The 
United Kingdom would  continue to prioritize th at work. As Members discuss ed these issues 
concerning how to ensure  that the rules are respected, the United Kingdom  could not sit by and 
ignore the egregious violations of international law and the UN Charter committed by one Member 
against another. Putin's illegal annexation of the four Ukrainian regions constitute d a new low  in 
Russia's blatant flouting of international law , and its attacks on civilians were causing untold 
suffering. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemn ed these outrageous and illegal acts . What 
happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of th e WTO, and  matte red to all. Russia's actions w ould 
prolong the impact on the global economy , would  have global consequences , and would  jeopardize 
prospects for peace. The U nited Kingdom  and the international community ha d made it clear to 
President Putin that his attack o n the Ukrainian people had to  stop and that he had to  withdraw from 
Ukraine and restore regional and global stability.  
3.8.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China continue d to join many 
other Members to reiterate  its grave concern ove r the Appellate Body impasse , which fundamentally 
undermine d the rules -based multilateral trading system. Hong Kong, China was commit ted to 
participat ing constructively in discussions  and working with all WTO  Members  to resolve different 
views and restore a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system  accessible to all Members 
by 2024, as set out in the MC12 Outcome Document.  
3.9.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
conde mning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were egregious and unlawful  – the act of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law, as was the targeting of civilians. Russia's invasion of Ukr aine's sovereign territory 
had implications for global peace, security, and economic stability , and deeply undermin ed the work 
of the DSB  and the multilateral cooperation that underpin ned it. Furthermore, New Zealand  stood 
firmly against any steps by Russi a that risk ed further escalation in this conflict. In relation to Agenda 
item 3, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal co-sponsored by 127 WTO Members and 
referred to its previous statements. Restoring and strengthening the dispute settlement system 
remain ed a priority for New Zealand . New Zealand welcome d the Ministerial Declaration achieved at 
MC12, commit ting Members to discussions to have in place  a fully and well -functioning system 
accessible to all Members by 2024. New Zealand  urged all Members to engage in discussions 
constructively and pragmatically in order to address this situation  as a priority , in line with the 
directive set by  their Ministers.  
3.10.  The representative of Korea  said that, like  other delegations , Korea strongly c ondemn ed 
Russia 's armed invasion against Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter and 
international law. The use of force that cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any 
circumstances. Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence should be respected. 
The Korean Government d id not recognize as legitimate the referenda and Russia 's annexation of 
the four regions of the Ukrainian territory. As for the item at hand, Korea thank ed Mexico for its 
statement and reiterate d its support for the joint proposal. Korea  also refer red to its previous 
statements on this issue. The WTO dispute settlement system  had been a central element in 
providing security and predictability to the multilatera l trading system. In this regard, Korea very 
much welcome d the relevant discussions that were now underway on dispute settlement reform and 
highly value d the MC12 Outcome Document as paving the way for ensuring a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settleme nt system by 2024.  Korea st ood ready to constructively engage in 
relevant discussions on a durable solution to enhance the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement 
system with a view to accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.11.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Mexico and the co-sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. 
Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. In th at 
vein, considering the commitment expressed by  WTO Members in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome 
Document as of 17 June 2022, Russia call ed upon all Memb ers to engage in urgent constructive 
discussions towards  a fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible. Such 
discussions had to  be transparen t and inclusive, and had to  address the interests of all Members. To 
address certain political declarations made by some WTO Members  at the present meeting, the 
Russian Federation wished to stress the following. First, Members  should keep to the Agenda of the 
meeting, circulated on 24 October 2022 in document WT/DSB/W/709 and adopted at the present 
meeting . The political discussions suggested by some WTO Members d id not concern the surveillance 
of implementation of the adopted recommendations under Article 21.6 of the DSU. They also d id not 
address the Appellate Body appointments problem. Second, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate 
expressed in different provisions of the DSU.  None of the political issues raised by some WTO 
Members was within the competence of the DSB. Third, and ultim ately, the WTO was not a political 
organization and Members  should refrain from trying to address issues there that were not in the 
competence of the organization. Russia consider ed that some of the root causes of crisis of the 
multilateral trading system that Members were  facing were the actions that blocked Appellate Body 
appointments as well as attempts to politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the present 
meeting . Russia encourage d WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already ha d and 
not creat ing new ones, unless any WTO Member ha d an intention to continue to destroy the 
multilateral trading system further.  
3.12.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union condemned in the 
strongest possible terms the Russian Fed eration's unprovoked and unjustified military aggression in 
Ukraine, including the horrific strikes that Russia had launched on Kyiv and across Ukraine. The 
indiscriminate targeting of civilians was a war crime. The European Union similarly condemned – 
and unequivocally rejected – the illegal attempted annexation by Russia of some regions of Ukraine. 
Russia had blatantly violated the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. The European Union called 
on the Russian Federation to end immediately its acts of ag gression, to withdraw its troops from 
Ukraine, and to fully respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence within its 
internationally recognised borders. The European Union stood firmly by Ukraine and its people. The 
European Union had adopted significant economic and trade sanctions against the Russian 
Federation. The European Union remained firmly committed to supporting Ukraine in political, 
financial, military, and humanitarian terms as well as with reconstruction and covering wi nter 
preparedness needs. With regard to the proposal for appointment of Appellate Body members,  the 
European Union refer red to its previous statements on this issue and thank ed all Members that ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment proces ses. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO 
had no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent , and impartial resolution of 
trade disputes. A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial for a rules -based 
multilateral trading system. This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an 
agreed basis to restore such a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the 
Appellate Body. This task should be addressed a s a priority. As the European Union  had consistently 
noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to 
fill the outstanding vacancies as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  agree d 
that a me aningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The E uropean Union  would 
continue to engage constructively in finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the current 
situation regarding appointments to the Appellate Body. There was a pres sing need to advance work 
on this. The European Union wa s pleased to be participating in the ongoing discussion process in 
Geneva. In line with the Outcome Document concerning MC12 , the objective of any discussions 
should be to have a fully and well -functi oning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members 
by 2024.  
3.13.  The representative of Peru said that Peru thanked Mexico for its statement made  on behalf of 
the co -sponsors and wish ed to reiterate that Peru attache d the highest priority  to restoring th e 
dispute settlement system to its full operation, in order to protect the stability, security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system. In this regard, it was crucial to initiate as soon as 
possible the selection processes to appoint the new members of the Appellate Body, without 
prejudice to parallel efforts being made to address the concerns of all Members and to reflect on 
potential improvements to the system.  While this delicate situation was being resolved, Peru called 
on more Members  to join the MPIA so that through the use of this mechanism Members could  avoid WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 10 - 
 
  more cases being appealed in to a vacuum, as had  been the case for almost three years. Peru 
reiterate d its willingness to participate constructively in all efforts to hav e a fully operational  and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024, as mandated by 
Members at MC12 . 
3.14.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that, a t the outset, 
the African Group  wished to commend Mexico for its statement regarding the proposal on Appellate 
Body appointments , which  the African Group  co-sponsore d. The African Group  therefore urge d all 
Members who were yet to co -sponsor th at proposal, to do so as soon as possible. The African Group 
reiterate d its support for a fully functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to all 
Members  in accordance with the directive from Ministers at MC12 . The fact that the Appellate Body  
could not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The African Group urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil 
its obligation under the DSU , which include d the launch of the selection process to fill the Appellate 
Body vacancies so as to maintain the two -tiered disput e settlement system. The critical mass of 
Members asking for the launch of the selection process indicate d the importance of having a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system for the multilateral trading system. Finally, the African Group  
stood ready to  engage constructively in future discussions so as to address the specific concerns 
raised against the functioning of the Appellate Body , with a view to finding a solution.  
3.15.  The representative of Indonesia  said that, a t the outset, Indonesia thank ed Mexico  for 
presenting the joint proposal on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors. With reference to its previous 
statements, Indonesia  share d the view of other Members that restoring the functioning of the 
Appellate Body within the mandated time -frame was crucial to ensur ing the predictability and 
credibility of the multilateral trading system in supporting economic recovery from the COVID -19 
pandemic. On that note, Indonesia commend ed the active contribution of WTO Members in 
addressing the Appellate Body's impasse. Indonesia urge d Members to engage constructively to 
solve the stalemate in the DSB on the appointment of new members of the Appellate Body. Indonesia 
stood ready  to work with other WTO Members to deal with this ongoing issue in a constructive 
manner.  
3.16.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterat ed its previous statements regarding the 
importance and urgency of this matter. Singapore was committed to par ticipating constructively and 
with an open mind in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform, with a view to achieving 
results by 2024.  
3.17.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland join ed other delegations in 
condemning Russia's military  aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. Such aggression 
blatantly violate d international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle 
of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland called  on the Russian Federatio n to de -escalate the 
military situation, cease hostilities , and withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory immediately. 
Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international law, particularly international humanitarian 
law. Switzerland d id not recognize the annexation of the four Ukrainian territories into the Russian 
Federation. With regard to Agenda item  3, Switzerland wished to refer to its statements made on 
this matter  in previous  DSB meetings. A fully  function al dispute settlement system  was in the interest 
of all, and was essential. Switzerland  continue d to participate constructively in ongoing discussions 
and encourage d all Member s to commit to th ose discussions in order to guarantee a fully functional 
dispute settlement system by 2024 , as set out  in the MC12 Outcome Document.  
3.18.  The representative of Japan  said that, a t the outset, Japan wished  to echo  other delegations 
in condemning  Russia. The illegal "annexation " of the areas that ha d been forcibly put under Russia 's 
temporary control through  Russia 's aggression was nothing but an attempt  to acquire territory by 
force and went against international law, including the UN Charter. Such attempts were invalid and 
went diametrically against the principle of the rule of law in the international community. Japan also 
condemn ed Russia 's missile attacks against civilian infrastructure a nd cities across Ukraine. Japan 
strongly urge d Russia once again to stop the aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory 
of Ukraine , within its internationally recognized borders , immediately. Japan w ould also continue to 
work firmly on the two p illars of imposing strong sanctions against Russia and supporting Ukraine, 
in cooperation with the international community. Turning to Agenda item 3, Japan wished to refer 
to its statements made at previous DSB meetings and support ed the joint proposal. Ja pan share d a 
sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system. Every WTO Member, as the owner of 
the system, had to  take seriously  the current situation of the Appellate Body. Their utmost priority WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 11 - 
 
  was to achieve a reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and 
functional problems of the dispute settlement system. Therefore, Members should discuss reform, 
including how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan spare d no efforts to 
collaborate wi th all WTO Members in discussions to that end. In relation to this, Japan welcome d the 
informal dispute settlement  reform discussions currently led by Members and hoped  that this w ould 
develop into a formal process in the coming year.   
3.19.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of the 127 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join th at proposal. China  wished to 
refer to its previou s statements made on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to 
an independent, impartial , and two -tier dispute settlement system. The paralysis of the Appellate 
Body had posed serious challenges to the  functioning and credibility of the  multilateral trading 
system. That was the main reason  why Ministers at MC12  had acknowledged certain  challenges and 
concerns  and recognized the importance and urgency  of, and committed to conduct ing, discussion s 
with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement accessible to all Members by 
2024. China  welcome d the recent informal discussions on dispute settlement reform and reiterate d 
that th ese discussion s should be objective driven, outcome -oriented , and targeted at the most 
urgent issues that need to be resolved, paving the way for text -based negotiations in a formal 
setting. China was committed to working constructively with all Members to find a solution to break 
the selection impasse and restore a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system in line with 
the mandate given by Ministers. China wished to  echo the statements made by Canada, the 
European Union,  and Peru, and call ed upon more Members to join the MPIA as an interim mechan ism 
during the d ysfunction of the Appellate Body.  
3.20.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia join ed others in continuing to condemn in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified , and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. As it had  stated  
before, 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 Organisations such as the 
WTO were based. Australia  continue d to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on 
Russia to withdraw its troops. Turning to Agenda item 3, Australia wished  to reaffirm the importance 
of the rules -based multilateral trading system with the W TO at its core, and the central role the 
dispute settlement system play ed in providing it with security and predictability. All Members 
benefit ted from having a system that effectively maintain ed and enforce d multilateral rules. It was 
imperative that Memb ers restore d full functionality to the system as soon as possible. The ongoing 
impasse continue d to undermine Members ' rights and inflict ed commercial harm on their businesses. 
Australia strongly encourage d Members to approach dispute settlement reform in a constructive and 
pragmatic manner in order to advance substantive discussions. This was essential to achieving their 
shared objective of having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024.  
3.21.  The representative o f Saint Vincent & the Grenadines , speaking on  behalf of the WTO Members 
of the Organi sation of East ern Caribbean States ( OECS ), thank ed Mexico for introducing th e 
proposal . Indeed, four OECS member States were co -sponsors of th e proposal. The OECS  WTO 
Members wished to refer to their previous statements . Their position ha d not changed  and they  fully 
support ed the proposal on Appellate Body appointments. The OECS  WTO Members believe d that 
reconstituting the two -tiered dispute settlement system was of utmost priority . The OECS  WTO 
Members were involved in the informal conversations which were happening on dispute settlement 
matters , but their involvement in that process was without prejudice to their overall position that a 
fully functioning two -tiered  dispute settlement system was needed  as soon as possible. Members 
had an existing mandate in Article 17 of the DSU to appoint  Appellate Body members and the current  
impasse was a clear violation of their multilateral obligations.  
3.22.  The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand  fully support ed the statement made by 
Mexico on behalf of the co -sponsors  and thanked Mexico for that statement. Thailand wished to refer 
to its previous statements made under  this Agenda item . Restoring a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system remain ed Thailand's  top priority , as affirmed by the commitment made 
at MC12. While welcoming the ongoing DS reform discussions, Thailand share d the view of many 
other Members that th ose discussions  should not get in the way of fulfilling the mandate given by 
the Ministers.  
3.23.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of the co -sponsors and support ed the statement  made  by Mexico . Malaysia wished to refer WT/DSB/M/4 72 
 
- 12 - 
 
  to its statements made at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . Malaysia also wished  to 
reiterate its strong view that the dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body, was the 
most critical matter that require d the urgent attention of the Membership. Malaysia st ood ready to 
support the work to restore a functioning dispute settlement system and to proceed with the 
appointment of the Appellate Body members.  
3.24.  The representative of Moldova  said that Moldov a wished to  briefly refer to its previous 
statements made on this matter  and to reiterate its support for Mexico's initiative to restore  the 
work of the Appellate Body. In relation to the war in Ukraine, Moldova strongly condemn ed Russia's 
ongoing aggression in Ukraine and the annexation of Ukrainian territories. Moldova d id not recognize 
any annexation of Ukrainian territory  and continued  to stand firmly by the Ukrainian people. Moldova 
called on Russia to stop this aggression and to withdraw its troops immediately and unconditionally 
from the territory of Ukraine.  
3.25.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 7 co-sponsors, re gretted that for 
the fifty-ninth occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
Appellate Body vacancies and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as WTO Members . The 
fact that a Member may have concerns abou t certain aspects of the functioning of the Appellate 
Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this Body and dispute settlement 
in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the selection processes, whi ch 
was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As Article  17.2 of the DSU 
clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should prevent the Appellate 
Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their obligation under the DSU 
to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to act at the present meeting, 
the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions against the best interest of 
all Members . 
3.26.  The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements on 
this matter. Mexico  wished to reiterate a sense of urgency and concern regarding the resolution of 
the prolonged impasse in the dispute settlement system. The absence of a fully functional system 
put at risk prompt compliance with, and the adoption of, DSB reports, thereby undermining the 
multilateral system. The number of co -sponsors of this proposal reflect ed the Membership's keen 
interest in promptly resolvin g this matter. Mexico believe d that restoring the system and launching 
the process to fill A ppellate Body  vacancies should remain a priority. Mexico  hoped that Members 
would continue to work to comply with what  had been  agreed at MC12 , so that the WTO had  a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system, accessible to all Members, by 2024. Mexico reiterate d its 
commitment to continue working constructively on a real  multilateral solution .  
3.27.  The Chairperson  thanked all  delegations for their statements. As in the past, the DSB w ould 
take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected in the 
minutes of the present meeting. Once again, the Chair person  said that she wished to take  the 
opportunity to recall Members' commitment at MC12 "to conduct discussions with the view to having 
a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". It was 
the Chair person's  understanding that informal discussions in this regard were currently  ongoing 
among st delegation s, and she hoped that , going forward, Members w ould be able to find a solution 
to this matter.  The Chair person  then propose d that the DSB take note of the statements made under 
this Agenda item . 
3.28.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________  