 RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 68 
5 September 2022 
(22-6617) Page: 1/11 
Dispute Settlement Body  
21 July 2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 21 JULY 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 said that , first,  she wished to 
recall a few technical instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegations . If a Member was 
unable to take  the floor during the meeting because 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 meetin g would proceed to the next 
Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. 
If a technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the reques t that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting;  and (ii) the 
Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28 April 2021 
DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, that matter had 
been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each 
interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the p resent meeting, she wished to inform 
delegations that , like the previous Chair of the DSB,  she continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and she said that those consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopt ed the Agenda.  
 
 
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  ................................ ................................ ............  2 
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 Unit ed States  ................................ .........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status rep ort by the United States  ................................ ..............  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by In donesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; 
CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINIC AN 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; QATA R; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; 
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.21)  ...........  6 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE D SB 
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 29) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.204) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.167) 
 
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.51) 
 
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.43) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.38 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.38) 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submit ted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. As Members recalled, 
Article  21.6 required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall 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 Chair invited delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their complian ce efforts. She also reminded delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been ful ly 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 .229) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 29, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 8 July 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 t o 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 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 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 Copy right Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 204) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 204, 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 8 July 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 made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  on this matter and wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 67) 
1.10.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 167, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. To update the Membership 
concerning the progress of the applications through  the authorisation process, the European Union 
noted the following: All appl ications for food and animal feed uses that had been  presented in the 
Committees earlier in 2022 had been  adopted. All those GMOs had gone through a comprehensive 
and stringent authorisation procedure, including a favourable scientific assessment by the Eu ropean 
Food Safety Authority.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States continued to engage with the 
European Union 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 the se problems in detail and noted its concerns with the EU's biotech approval 
procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations. The United 
States again requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for al l 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 matte r at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 4 - 
 
  D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 51) 
1.14.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 51, 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 State s said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 8 July 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of t he anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States had 
completed 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 made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue 
in this dispute .  
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that 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 – Washing Machines , in which the "differential pricing methodology" 
(DPM) was  found to be "as such" inconsistent with the WTO agreements. Despite this, the United 
States continue d to apply the D PM "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 this violation. Canada  invite d the United State s 
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. 43) 
1.19.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 43, 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 8 July 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained in 
that report, the United States would consult with interested partie s 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 status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  It was disappointing that  more than three years 
after the exp iry of the reasonable period of time  the United States had still fail ed to implement the 
adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States to honour its 
obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity without any further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 5 - 
 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 38 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 38) 
1.23.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 38 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 38, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendati ons in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had submit ted this report pursuant to 
Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia continu ed to devote its best effort to implement the 
recommendations and rulings  of the DSB in these disputes.  Indonesia ha d also taken note of the 
interest raised by New Zealand and the United States at previous DSB meetings.  On measure 18, 
Indonesia ha d removed a ll Articles in the relevant Laws that were found  to be inconsistent with WTO 
rules through  the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation.  With respect to measure s 1–17, 
Indonesia wished to  reassure that significant adjustments, in complying with the rec ommendations 
and rulings of the DSB, ha d been carried out through the amendments of the relevant M inistry of 
Agriculture  and M inistry of Trade r egulations. Those adjustments include d the removal of disputed 
measures, inter alia : harvest period restriction ; import realization requirements ; six–months harvest 
requirement ; reference price ; and domestic purchase requirement . In response to the US further 
interest on the impact of the commodity balance mechanism on the ease and certainty of doing 
business , Indon esia wished  to inform that the commodity balance mechanism w ould be supported 
by an integrated national database system and w ould streamline the licensing process in a 
transparent manner.  Finally,  Indonesia wished  to again emphasize its commitment t o engaging with 
New Zealand and the United States with a view to address ing their interests.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with  the DSB's recommendations. The United States thanked Indonesia 
for responding to the US question about the ruling of Indonesia's Constitutional Court concerning 
the Omnibus Law on Job Creation. That additional information would aid in the United States' r eview 
of the court's decision and its understanding of the law's effect. With respect to measures 1 -17, the 
United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised 
Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthc oming regulations that would affect the 
regimes. With regard to the statement in Indonesia's latest status report that the commodity balance 
system was "to ensure the ease and certainty of doing business", the United States was interested 
to better underst and how that would be the case. The United States would appreciate if Indonesia 
could provide more information on how commodity balancing would make doing business in 
Indonesia easier. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully reso lve 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, related to 
the objective of Indonesia 's Commodity Balance mechanism as well as the impact of the 
Constitutional Court 's ruling on the Law on Job Creation . New Zealand was  assessing th at information 
and w ould revert with any additional questions on th ose and other matters. New Zealand look ed 
forward to 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 . WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA F ASO; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; 
CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA 
RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, 
CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; 
MALI; MAURITANI A; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; 
MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH 
MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; 
QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; 
SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; 
TÜRKIYE ; UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 21) 
2.1.  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 then drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT /DSB/W/609/Rev. 21 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 February  2022, to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 3 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following . The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Me mbers had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Ap pellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had 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 Serv ansing, 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 De cember 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candid ates; and ( iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should conside r the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the lo ng-standing US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States supported WTO dispute settlement 
reform and was working to achieve durable, lasting ref orm. The first step towards reform was to 
better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. A true reform discussion 
should aim to ensure that WTO dispute settlement reflected the real interests of Members, and not 
prejudge what a r eformed system would look like. The United States was prepared for continued 
and deepened engagement with Members on that important issue .  
2.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to condemn 
the Russian Federation's  unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine. It was a gross violation 
of international law and the UN Charter, and a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d 
committed to uphold. Pertinent to the work of this body, it demonstra ted a flagrant disregard for the 
rules-based system which also underpin ned the WTO. Concerning this Agenda item, the United WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Kingdom continue d to support the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, 
and refer red to its previous statemen ts made on this issue. Resolving the challenges facing the 
dispute settlement system remain ed a priority for the United Kingdom.  The United Kingdom  
welcome d the positive commitment at MC12 to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system ac cessible to all Members by 2024. The United Kingdom  encourage d Members to prioritise 
and engage with the ongoing substantive discussions. A fully functioning dispute settlement system, 
which was compulsory, binding and impartial was to the benefit of all  Members . 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 
looked forward to further work with Members in th ose discussions and to playing its part to achieve 
a successful outcome.  
2.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of the co-sponsors . Brazil  wished to refer to  its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item at previous DSB meetings.  Brazil was  encouraged by the fact that informal, substantive 
discussions had begun to take place in Geneva with the aim of achieving a long -term, lasting solution 
to this impasse.  He could not overemphasize how important it was for Brazil that Members restor e 
a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system at the WTO. Brazil  looked forward to 
continuing engagement with Members in order to achieve that objective within the time -frame 
mandated by Ministers at MC12.   
2.6.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement delivered by Mexico on 
behalf of all co-sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join  the AB proposal. China  referred to 
its previous 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 multilateral trading system. At MC12, all Members had 
recognize d the importance and urgency of addressing those challenges and concerns, and had 
commit ted to conduct ing discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by  2024. China welcome d the recent discussions  on 
this matter in which it had actively participated. China  was committed to continuing to work 
constructively with all Members to find solutions to break the AB impasse and restore a fully 
functioning dispute s ettlement system at the earliest date.  
2.7.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland condemn ed 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 call ed on Russia to honour its international obligations, reconsider its actions, 
withdraw its troops , and help to de -escalate the situation. Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect 
international law, in particular international  humanitarian  law. Regarding the Agenda item in 
question, Switzerland wished to refer to  its statements made on this matter at previous DSB 
meetings. A fully functional dispute settlem ent system was in everyone's best interest, and 
Switzerland note d with satisfaction paragraph  4 on dispute settlement in the MC12 Outcome 
Document. Switzerland remain ed ready to commit to accomplishing the objective set at the 
Ministerial  Conference and ca lled on Members to maintain th at positive momentum so that Members 
could  promptly start the essential work needed to achieve th at common goal.  
2.8.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that, w hile Hong Kong, China w ould continue to 
participate constructi vely in the current discussion s relating to any needed reform proposals for the 
WTO's dispute settlement system, Hong Kong, China wished  to reiterate its grave concern over the 
continuing Appellate Body impasse. Hong Kong, China  looked forward to working t ogether with 
Members with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to 
all Members by 2024 , if not earlier . 
2.9.  The representative of the European Union  said that , like other  delegations, the European Union 
stood firmly with Ukraine. It would continue to provide firm support for Ukraine's overall economic, 
military, social and financial resilience, including humanitarian aid. The European Union resolutely 
condemned Russia's indiscriminate a ttacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. The European 
Union urged Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its troops and military 
equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. 
International humanitarian law, including on the treatment of prisoners of war, had to be respected. 
Ukrainians who had been forcibly removed to Russia had to be immediately allowed to return safely. 
Russia, Belarus and all those responsible for war crimes and  the other most serious crimes would be WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 8 - 
 
  held to account for their actions, in accordance with international law. In relation to this Agenda 
item, the European Union refer red to its previous statements made on this issue and thank ed all 
Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment processes. 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 
critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. This was why the most urgent area of WTO 
reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such a system and to proceed to the appointment 
of Appellate Body  members.  That task had to  be addresse d as a priority. As the European Union had  
consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as 
possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean 
Union  agree d that a  meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The European 
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 p ressing 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 MC12 O utcome Document , the objective of any discussions 
should be to have a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 at the latest.  
2.10.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada st ood by the Ukrainian people and strongly 
condemn ed the unjustifiable invasion o f Ukraine by President Putin. This illegal  and unprovoked war 
had had, and continue d to have, devastating effects on Ukraine, its neighbours , and people around 
the world. No disinformation c ould hide Russia's guilt: it alone, and not the sanctions put in p lace to 
end Russia's unjust and brutal war in Ukraine, was responsible for this crisis. Canada  called on 
Russian leaders to leave this war path, immediately withdraw their troops from Ukrainian territory 
and assume their responsibility for re -establishing and maintaining international peace and security. 
Canada was unwavering in its support for Ukraine and its people, and would  strive to find a way of 
using trade to help Ukraine rebuild its economy and society. Concerning the appointment of Appellate 
Body m embers, for over two and a half years the Appellate Body ha d no longer had a quorum and 
had been unable to hear new appeals. Canada support ed the statement made by Mexico at the 
present meeting on behalf of the sponsors and share d the concerns expressed by  other Members 
regarding the Appellate  Body's inability to function. The support expressed for this proposal clearly 
reflect ed the importance that Members  all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an 
integral part of the dispute settlement syst em. Canada w ould continue to actively participate 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. In the meantime, 
Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement (MPIA), as a contingency measure. The purpose of this measure was to safeguard their 
rights to a binding settlement of disputes that include d the possibility to appeal in disputes between 
them. The appeal arbitration agreements respecting the principles set out in the MPIA immediately 
ensure d those rights. Canada  also note d that the first appeal arbitration procedure s respecting the 
principles established in the MPIA were underway. Members thus had  tangible examples that 
demonstrate d the benefits of the MPIA. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all 
WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement ri ghts 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.  
2.11.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea wished to join others in strongly condemning 
Russia' s armed invasion against Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter and 
international law.  The use of force that cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any 
circumstances.  Ukraine' s sovereignty, ter ritorial integrity , and independence should be respected. 
As for the item at hand, Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d its support for the 
joint proposal.  Korea  also wished to refer to its previous statements  made  on this matter . The WTO 
dispute settlement system ha d been long regarded a central element in providing security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system.  Korea w ould engage constructively in relevant 
discussions held in Geneva to find a solution to enhance the f unctioning of the dispute settlement 
system with a view to accommodate the needs of WTO Members . 
2.12.  The representative of Norway  said that t he work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding 
of the rules -based international order. Like several previous  speak ers, Norway  would therefore 
address the situation in Ukraine. Norway continue d to strongly condemn Russia' s egregious military 
attack on its neighbour Ukraine. Norway was  appalled by Russia' s continued aggression, causing 
extensive human suffering, civilian casualties, enormous damages, and a possible global food crisis, 
particularly impacting developing countries. Norway reiterated its  unwavering support for Ukraine' s WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 9 - 
 
  sovereignty and territo rial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. As regards 
Appellate Body appointments, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and 
co-sponsored by 123 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Bo dy. 
Norway wished to refer to its previous  statements made on this matter.  Norway w ould continue to 
engage in urgently needed discussions to address the current impasse. Although Norway  very much 
welcome d those ongoing discussions, it was of the view that such discussions  did not prevent 
Members  from launching the process for appointments of Appellate Body  members.  
2.13.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia welcome d the commitment by Members 
at MC12 to address the challenges faced by the WTO and ensure its proper functioning through a 
WTO reform , particularly with respect to  the restoration of the Appellate Body. Indonesia was  of the 
view that resolving the Appellate  Body crisis had to  be considered as a priority by all Members , to 
restore the two -tier dispute settlement system and maintain the relevance of the rules -based 
multilateral trading system in global trade. The inability of the Appellate Body to hear pending  
appeals ha d adverse ly impact ed the effectiveness of dispute resolution between Members. Indonesia 
believe d that it was imperative for the WTO dispute settlement system to remain fully functional to 
ensure  Members ' rights to access the dispute resolution m echanism. The divergent views 
surrounding the issue of the WTO dispute settlement system ha d created a prolonged debate among 
Members . Thus, Members  needed to ensure that all w ould deliver and consider feasible options and 
undertake concrete actions to end  the AB impasse. Members should be able to achieve consensus, 
building on the spirit they had had at MC12,  by pursuing constructive discussions . Against th at 
background, Indonesia remain ed ready to engage and discuss this matter with all WTO Members 
with a  view to hav ing a well -functioning dispute settlement system by MC13.  
2.14.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  wished to reitera te its previous statements regarding the 
importance and urgency of this matter. Singapore was committed to participating constructively and 
with an open mind in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform, with a view to achieving 
results by 2024 , as mandat ed by Ministers at MC12.   
2.15.  The representative of Iceland  said that Iceland join ed others in condemning in the strongest 
possible way the brutal, unjustified , and unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. 
By doing so, Russia violate d internatio nal law, the UN Charter and undermine d international order 
and norms that the WTO  was based on. Iceland  condemn ed in the strongest possible way this 
unacceptable behaviour. Iceland reiterate d its unwavering support for the sovereignty, 
independence , and te rritorial integrity of Ukraine within its international ly recognized borders and 
stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Under this Agenda  item, Iceland, as one of the many 
co-sponsors of the proposal, reiterate d its support  and refer red to previous statements on this 
matter . A well-functioning WTO dispute settlement system was a key feature in providing 
predictability and ensuring a fair playing field for all participants in the multilateral trading system. 
Iceland  therefore much welcome d initial talks that were under way as well as the MC12 commitment 
to pursue reform of the WTO . Iceland  encourage d all Member s to engage constructively to ensure 
Member s' access  to a well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024.  
2.16.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements on this matter and thanked Mexico and the co -sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of Appellate Body members. 
Russia reiterated its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. Russia 
welcomed the commitment of the WTO Membership expressed in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome 
Document as of 17 June 2022 to conduct discussions with the view to h aving a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. Russia called upon 
all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible. To addres s certain political declarations made by some WTO 
Members at the present meeting, Russia wished to stress the following. First, Members should keep 
to the Agenda of the meeting, which had been circulated on 19 July 2022 in document 
WT/DSB/W/703 and was ado pted at the present meeting. The political discussions suggested by 
some WTO Members did not concern the surveillance of implementation of the adopted 
recommendations under Article 21.6 of the DSU. They also did not address the Appellate Body 
appointments problem. Second, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate expressed in different 
provisions of the DSU. None of the political issues raised by some WTO Members was within the 
competence of the DSB. Third, and ultimately, the WTO was not a political organizati on and Members 
should refrain from trying to address issues here that were not in the competence of the WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 10 - 
 
  organization. Russia considered that one of the root causes of crisis of the multilateral trading system 
that Members were facing was the actions that b locked the Appellate Body appointments, as well as 
the attempts to politicize the WTO as Members had heard at the present meeting. Russia encouraged 
WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and not creating new ones, 
unless any WTO M ember had an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral trading system 
further . 
2.17.  The representative of Japan  said that, a t the outset, Japan wished  to echo other delegations  
condemning Russia. Russia' s aggression against Ukraine clearly infringe d upon Ukraine' s sovereignty 
and territorial integrity, constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting the use of 
force, and was a grave breach of the United Nations Charter. Japan w ould never accept a unilateral 
change of the sta tus quo by force and condemn ed Russia's  actions in the strongest terms. This was 
an extremely serious situation that sh ook the very foundations of the international order not only in 
Europe but also in Asia. Further more, the mass killing of innocent civili ans was a grave breach of 
international humanitarian law and constitute d a war crime that was absolutely unacceptable. Russia 
had to be held strictly accountable for such atrocious acts. Japan remain ed stand ing in solidarity 
with Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and continue d to cooperate with Members of the international 
community , including G7 Members , in order to improve the situation. In relation to Agenda item  2, 
Japan refer red to its statements made at previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB propo sal. 
Japan absolutely share d a sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system. Every WTO 
Member, as the owner of the system,  had to take seriously  the present situation of the Appellate 
Body. Japan's  utmost priority 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 the reform, including how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. 
Japan sp ared no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members in the discussions to that end.   
2.18.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were a grave breach of international rules  – the use of force to change borders was strictly 
prohibited under international law. Russia 's invasion ha d implications for global peace, security, and 
economic stability , deeply undermining the work of  the DSB  and the multilateral cooperation 
underpinning it. In relation to Agenda item 2, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co--sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements  made on this matter.  New Zealand 
welcome d the Ministerial Declaration achieved at MC12, which recognise d the importance and 
urgency of addressing the present  challenges and commit ted Members to discussions with a view to 
having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. 
New Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to constructively engage on the issues with a view to 
addressing this situation as a priority.  
2.19.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand echoed the previous speakers in thanking 
Mexico  for the statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors  and referred to its previous statements  
made  on this Agenda item . The long absence of a functioning Appellate Body ha d been affecting the 
rights and ability of Members to have their disputes resolved pursuant to  the principles contained in 
the DSU. Restoring a fully functioning Appellate Body should therefore be a matter of top priority. 
Thailand  welcome d the commitment shared by all Members at MC12 and look ed forward to 
continuing to work constructively w ith Members with a view to finding a prompt and practicable 
solution.  
2.20.  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 
express  its strong support for launch ing the appointment process immediately. Malaysia  also refer red 
to its statements made on t his matter  at previous DSB meetings.   
2.21.  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. Australia 
continue d to raise this iss ue 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 2, Australia wished  to reiterate the importance of resolving the 
challenges facing the dispute settlement system and delivering a fully f unctioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024.  The ongoing impasse continue d to undermine Members ' 
rights, inflict commercial harm to Members , and jeopardise the predictability and security of WT/DSB/M/468  
 
- 11 - 
 
  multilateral trade.  Australia  welcome d Members ' continued efforts to progress substantive 
discussions on dispute settlement reform. It was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral 
trading system that Members  restore d a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system as 
soon as possible.  
2.22.  The representative of the United States  said 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 Russ ia's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time and paid 
tribute to the heroism o f the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and leaders . 
2.23.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 3 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-sixth occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
this Organization. The fact that a Member may have had concerns about c ertain 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, which 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 had to 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.  
2.24.  The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements made 
on this matter. Mexico  wished to reiterate its concern regarding the prolonged impasse and the 
absence of a fully operational dispute settlement system. The prese nt situation affect ed the entire 
Membership, as all ongoing disputes were being affected, putting at risk prompt compliance with, 
and the adoption of, panel  reports, as well as the credibility of the system. Mexico w ould continue 
to work constructively  towards finding a genuine  and multilateral solution. Mexico  hoped that 
Members w ould work together to resolve this situation as a matter of the utmost urgency.  
2.25.  The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. She said that , 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. She said that she wished to take this  oppor tunity 
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. She hoped that, going 
forward, Members w ould be able to find a solution to this matter.   
2.26.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________  