RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 78 
16 June 2023 
(23-4110) Page: 1/23 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 April 2023  
 
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 APRIL 20231 
 Chairman: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the present meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB) both in -person and remotely. The 
Chairman recalled a few technical instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegates. He 
said that i f a Member w as 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 tempor arily, the 
meeting 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 Secretaria t with the request that it be read out by the 
Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the statement could be reflected 
in the minutes of the meeting; and (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 4 of 
the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. He said 
that, as Members recalled, that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time 
for the Chair 's consultations with each interested party regarding that Agenda i tem. At the present 
meeting, he wished to inform delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to 
consult with each interested party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoin g. 
 
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 – Measur es affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumpin g and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ .........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: 
Status  report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 2 - 
 
 
   
 2 EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON 
STAINLESS STEEL COLD -ROLLED FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDONESIA  ..............................  6 
A. Request for the establishment of a Panel by Indonesia  ................................ .....................  6 
3 UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF LARGE 
RESIDENTIAL WASHERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
A. Report of the Panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
4 UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)  (DS597)  ...........  8 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ....................  8 
5 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI 
DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; 
CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; 
CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO; 
DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; 
ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; 
GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; 
INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; 
LIECHTENSTEIN; MA DAGASCAR; 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 KINGDOM; URUGUAY; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.24)  ................................ ................................ ............................  15 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 38) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright A ct: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.213) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.176) 
 
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.60) 
 
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.52) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.47 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.47) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members recall ed, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be 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 wished to invite delegations 
to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also remind ed delegations that, WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 3 - 
 
 
  
 as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should 
make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has 
already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in 
Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumpin g measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 38) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 38, 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 provided a status report in 
this dispute on 17 April 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With res pect 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 than ked 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 Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 213) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 213, 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 ha d provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 April 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and said that it wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
produ cts: Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 76) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 176, 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 recalled 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 authori zations for genetically modified organisms that, in the 
European  Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe.  Accordingly,  on 
31 March 2023, the Commission pr esented to the Standing Committee three draft decisions WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 4 - 
 
 
   
 authori zing the placing on the market of GM maize2 and three decisions renewing the authori zation 
for placing on the market of GM soybeans .3 The votes resulted in "no opinion ". The six draft decisions 
would  be referred to the Appeal Committee on 11 May 2023.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting . The United States  continue d to engage with the 
European Union on these issues, and ha d provided recommendations on several occasions as to how 
the E uropean Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures.  The United States 
had described these problems in detail and had noted its concerns with the E uropean Union's biotech 
approval procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi-annual  US-EU biotech consultations, 
including through their most recent consultations in October.  The United States  again request ed that 
the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that ha d completed science -based 
risk assessments at the European Food Safety Authority, including those products that were with 
the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee.  The United States  noted the E uropean Union's 
continued issuance of approvals on a rolling basis and appreciate d that approach.   
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. 60) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 60, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the i mplementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dis pute on 17 April 2023, 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 lar ge 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 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 in this 
dispute.  
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that m ore than five years ha d passed since the expi ry of 
the reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB recommendations arising from the 
Appellate Body Report in US – Washing Machines , according to which the Differential Pricing 
Methodology  (DPM) was inconsistent "as such" with the WTO Agreeme nts. In spite of this, the United 
States continue d to apply the DPM "as such" in investigations concerning foreign companies and 
continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the basis of th at non-compliant 
methodology. Canada was deeply con cerned about th at violation  and called on  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 . 
 
2 GM maize  MON 87429,  MON 95379  and DP4114  x MON89034  x MON87411  x DAS-40278 -9 and its 
sub-combinations . 
3 GM maize MON 87429, MON 95379 and DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS-40278 -9 and 
its sub -combinations . 
 WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 5 - 
 
 
  
 E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 52) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 52, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the imp lementation 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 thi s dispute on 17 April 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained in 
that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thanked the United States for its most recent 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting. It was  disappointing that more than 
four years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still failed  to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China,  therefore , once again 
urged the United States to honour its obligations by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 47 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 47) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS 477/21/Add. 47 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 47, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals , and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had provide d a status report regarding 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes in accordance with 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statement s made on this matter 
and reiterate d its commitment to implementing the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. In this 
regard, Indonesia  wished to highlight the meaningful corrective actions that had been  taken to the 
measures at issue . In the co ntext of measure 18 , on self -sufficiency, revocation of relevant Laws 
that were found to be  inconsistent with WTO rules ha d come into force following the enactment of 
Law No. 6/2023 on Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2/2023 on Job C reation. 
On measure s 1-17, Indonesia ha d also removed disputed measures regulated under relevant 
Ministerial Regulations,  including,  inter alia : harvest period restriction ; import realization 
requirement ; six-months harvest requirement ; reference price ; and domestic purchase requirement. 
In response to the interests raised by both complainants, Indonesia emphasize d that the Commodity 
Balance mechanism serve d as a tool for the Government to provide comprehe nsive, accurate, and 
reliable information through an integrated national database system, allowing the permit process to 
be simplified. Indonesia truly believe d that the Commodity Balance would enhance the ease of doing 
business and facilitate trade withou t creating restrictive effect s on trade. Indonesia s tood ready to 
continue working with New Zealand and the United States in order to find  a positive solution to this 
matter.  
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. As the United States had expressed 
before, it would still appreciate further clarity on: which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthco ming regulations that would affect the regimes; and how 
Indonesia expected the new commodity balance mechanism to, in its words, simplify and streamline 
the permit process and provide for greater business certainty. The United States would also 
appreciate further clarity on whether Indonesia was planning on making any adjustments to the 
operation of its import licensing process to ensure that the significant delays in issuing permits for 
the first half of 2023 are not repeated. The United States remained wi lling to confer and work with 
Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 6 - 
 
 
   
 1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thanked Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledged Indonesia's commitment to comply fully with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines had long since expired, and New Zealand remained 
concerned about a  number of measures. New Zealand thanked Indonesia for the additional 
information provided in recent meetings. New Zealand continued to assess that information and 
would revert with any additional questions on those and other matters. Like the United State s, New 
Zealand would also appreciate understanding better the regulations that presently underpinned 
Indonesia's import licensing regimes, as well as any regulations that would be forthcoming. New 
Zealand looked forward to further constructive engagement w ith Indonesia on the outstanding 
issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS 
STEEL COLD -ROLLED FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDONESI A 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS616/2)  
2.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Indonesia contained in document 
WT/DS616/2 and he invited the representative of Indonesia to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that o n 24 January 2023, Indonesia had requested 
consultations with the European Union concerning the imposition of countervailing and anti -dumping 
duties on Stainless Steel Cold -Rolled Flat Products (SSCRFP) from Indon esia. Indonesia noted that 
those measures appear ed to be inconsistent with the obligations of the European Union and its 
member States under the SCM Agreement, the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994 , and the 
DSU, and ha d nullified or impaired benefits a ccruing to Indonesia directly or indirectly under the 
covered agreements. The consultation s between the parties had taken place and unfortunately had 
not br ought  any solution to th is dispute. Therefore, on 17 April 2023, Indonesia  had filed its request 
for the establishment of a panel  to examine this matter.  Indonesia respectfully request ed the 
establishment of a panel at th e present  meeting to examine the matter set out  in its panel request.  
2.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union took note of Indonesia 's 
decision to request a WTO panel on countervailing and anti-dumping duties on SSCRFP  from 
Indonesia. The European Union recall ed that it held constructiv e consultations with Indonesia on 
13 March 2023. The European Union ha d expressed hope that the consultations had provided the 
necessary information and clarifications. Indonesia was of course entitled to bring this matter to 
dispute settlement in the WTO,  but the European Union firmly believe d that the measures at stake 
were fully justified. For th ose reasons, the European Union was confident that it w ould prevail in this 
dispute, and that its actions w ould be found to be  WTO-compatible. At the present mee ting, the 
European Union was not ready to accept the establishment of a panel. The E uropean Union also 
stood ready to discuss with Indonesia reciprocal interim arrangements that would preserve the 
availability of appeal review in this and other disputes on the basis of Article 25 of the DSU as long 
as the Appellate Body  was not functioning, such as through the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement (MPIA).  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter , should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
3  UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF LARGE RESIDENTIAL 
WASHERS  
A. Report  of the Panel (WT/DS546/R and WT/DS546/R/A dd.1) 
3.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that at its meeting on 26 September 2018, the DSB had established a 
Panel to examine the complaint by Korea pertaining to this dispute. He also  recall ed that the Report 
of the Panel cont ained in document WT/DS546/R and WT/DS546/R/Add.1  was circulated on 
8 February 2022 as an unrestricted document.  He recall ed that in 2022, on several occasions, the 
parties to this dispute had agreed to extend the time -period for adoption or appeal of this  Panel WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 7 - 
 
 
  
 Report. In  addition, in February 2023, the parties had reached an agreement to postpone the 
consideration of th e Panel Report by the DSB until 28  April 2023. At the present  meeting,  the Panel 
Report was before the DSB for adoption at the request of Korea. This adoption procedure was without 
prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on the Panel Report.  
3.2.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea  welcome d the Panel Report in the dispute : United 
States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Large Residential Washers  (DS546).  Since the circulation 
of the Report, Korea and the United States ha d closely consulted with each other to achieve prompt 
and effective settlement of the dispute.  Korea acknow ledge d that, by terminating the safeguard 
measure at issue, the United States ha d brought its measure into conformity with relevant 
agreements.  Therefore, considering that further dispute proceedings did not need to be pursued, 
Korea intend ed to make  a joint statement with the United States so as to express its willingness to 
reach a final conclusion of this dispute through the adoption of the Panel Report, followed by a 
mutually agreed solution to terminate subsequent proceedings of the dispute.  
3.3.  The repre sentative of Korea , speaking on behalf of Korea  and the United States , said that t he 
joint statement agreed by both parties was as follows . Korea and the United States  wished  to express 
their gratitude to the members of the Panel and the Secretariat for their work in this dispute, United 
States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Large Residential Washers  (DS546).  At the outset, Korea 
recognize d the United States ' view that the Panel in this dis pute had erred to the extent it relied on 
interpretations reached in prior reports.  Both parties confirm ed in that respect that panels had to  
focus their interpretation on the text of the agreements.  That said, affirming the importance of their 
strong and cooperative relationship and desiring to secure a positive solution to the dispute, Korea 
and the United States ha d decided to have the Panel Report adopted at the present meeting . 
Furthermore, Korea and the United States wish ed to deliver to the Members a nd the DSB their 
shared understanding as follows . First, Korea and the United States recognize d that the purpose of 
dispute settlement was fundamentally about helping parties resolve their disputes. Accordingly, both 
parties recognize d their extensive comm unication and joint efforts to reach a mutually agreed 
solution.  Second, Korea and the United States recognize d that adopted dispute settlement reports 
had no binding precedential value or effect.  Third, Korea and the United States recognize d that 
discussi on between Members was necessary to achieve a common understanding of their 
commitments, including those relating to safeguard measures.  Finally , Korea and the United States 
recognize d their intention to deepen communication and cooperation on fundamental reform of WTO 
dispute settlement to ensure it serve d the primary purpose of helping parties to resolve their 
disputes and strengthen the WTO as a forum for communication and negotiation.  In future 
circumstances, Korea and the United States w ould work toget her to ensure th ose concerns  were 
addressed in a forward -looking manner.  On th at basis, Korea and the United States were also 
pleased to jointly inform the Members and the DSB that, with a view to terminating subsequent 
procedures of the dispute, they had  reached a mutually agreed solution , which would be notified  
shortly after th e present  meeting. Korea and the United St ates thank ed Members for their attention 
to this statement.  
3.4.  The representative of the United States  thanked Korea for delivery of the joint statement on 
behalf of the United States and Korea. The United States welcomed the close engagement with Korea 
that had led to the mutually agreed solution that would be notified to the DSB, and looked forward 
to continued collaboration on dispute settlement matters going forward. Turning to the Report of the 
Panel, the United States thanked the Panel, and the Secretari at staff assisting it, for their work in 
this dispute. The United States acknowledged the Panel's thorough review of the legal arguments 
put forward by the parties. While the United States was disappointed in the Report in certain 
respects, the United Stat es welcomed the Panel's findings on certain key issues in this dispute. In 
this dispute, Korea had brought numerous claims regarding the US safeguard measure on large 
residential washers under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. The Panel had ri ghtly 
rejected certain of Korea's claims. Those included claims regarding the United States' chosen form 
of safeguard relief; the timeliness of the United States’ notifications to the Committee on Safeguards; 
certain aspects of the US International Trade C ommission's (USITC) definition of the relevant 
"domestic industry" in its serious injury investigation; and certain aspects of the USITC's analyses 
of increased imports, serious injury, and causation. For example, the United States was pleased that 
the Pan el had rejected Korea's claim that the President's chosen form of safeguard relief was 
inconsistent with Article 5.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, on the basis that the selected duty rates 
exceeded the degree of price underselling found by the USITC. The Pa nel found, correctly, that the 
Safeguards Agreement does not obligate a Member to ensure that the remedy matches the degree  of WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 8 - 
 
 
   
 underselling found, and that imposing such a requirement would be at odds with the text. Likewise, 
the United States welcomed the  Panel's finding that the President did not need to "calibrate" the 
safeguard remedy relative to then -existing US anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large 
residential washers under Article 5.1. As the Panel rightly found, nothing in the Safeguards  
Agreement required this so -called calibration .  
3.5.  However, the United States was disappointed with certain of the Panel's findings. The 
representative of the United States said that the United States would not discuss every one of the 
Panel's analytical mis steps in this statement, but would highlight what the United States believed 
were the most troubling findings. Perhaps most troubling was that the Panel read Article XIX:1(a) 
of the GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement as allowing for a sa feguard measure 
only if the competent authorities demonstrated, in their published report , that unforeseen 
developments exist, and that the Member incurred obligations that otherwise prevented it from 
remedying serious injury. In conducting its analysis, t he Panel overwhelmingly relied on prior 
Appellate Body reports, rather than the texts of the relevant covered agreements, and, in turn, 
exacerbated the Appellate Body's past interpretive errors in assessing this issue. Put simply, Article 
XIX:1(a) of the G ATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, read together, imposed no 
obligation on the competent authorities to make findings on "unforeseen developments" or 
"obligations incurred" in their report  that was published pursuant to Article 3.1 .  
3.6.  Also deeply concerning were certain of the Panel's findings regarding the USITC's definition of 
the "domestic industry" in its underlying serious injury investigation. This included the Panel's finding 
that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Safeguards Agreement on the 
basis that the USITC defined the domestic industry to include covered washer parts. According to 
the Panel, to be considered "like", there must be at least some degree of competition between the 
imported and domest ically produced products. The Panel misinterpreted Article 4.1(c) by inventing 
a "competitive relation" test that had no basis in the text of that Article. The text imposed no 
obligation on the competent authorities to find domestic and imported articles " like" only if they 
were in "competitive relation" with one another. Moreover, the Panel ignored the USITC's 
determination that domestically produced parts were in competitive relation with imported parts. 
That is, extending the measure to covered parts was  necessary to remedy serious injury, by 
preventing Korean producers from importing covered parts for simple assembly into washers in 
screwdriver operations .  
3.7.  In addition, in analyzing certain claims, the Panel substituted its own judgment for that of the 
competent authorities, rather than considering the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from 
the evidence discussed and relied on by the USITC. For example, in assessing Korea's claim under 
Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement, the Panel ignored th e USITC's discussion of evidence 
showing that differences in product mix between domestically produced washers and subject imports 
had not significantly attenuated subject import competition. The Panel instead undertook its own 
analysis of the record, igno ring that the evidence cited by the USITC reasonably supported the 
USITC's finding that pervasive subject import underselling had depressed and suppressed domestic 
prices to a significant degree, and was the only explanation for the domestic industry's inc reasing 
cost of goods sold to net sales ratio during the period of investigation. Although the United States 
was disappointed with certain of the Panel's findings, on balance, the United States had decided to 
permit the report to be adopted at the present meeting. The United States took this step in light of 
all the circumstances, including its desire to work with Korea to resolve this dispute through a 
mutually agreed solution, and the fact that the safeguard measure was now expired. The United 
States than ked Members for their attention to this statement . 
3.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements  and adopted  the Panel Report contained in document  
WT/DS546/R and WT/DS546/R/Add.1 . 
4  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT  (HONG KONG,  CHINA ) (DS597)  
A. Statement by the United States  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the present meeting at the request of 
the United States, and he invited the representative of the United States to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the United States  said that  Hong Kong, China had challenged in this 
dispute certain US origin marking requirements.  As the United States had demonstrated to the panel, WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 9 - 
 
 
  
 the challenged measures were based on well -grounded determinations implicating US essential 
security interests rela ting to democracy and human rights.  At the previous  DSB meeting, the United 
States had explained that more recent developments confirmed that the conditions that warranted 
the US imposition of the challenged measures continue d to exist.  Since the previous DSB meeting, 
the US Department of State ha d again certified that Hong Kong, China d id not warrant treatment 
under US law in the same manner as prior to 1 July 1997, in light of its findings that China ha d taken 
new actions to erode rights and free doms in Hong Kong, in direct contravention of its obligations 
under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Sino -British Joint Declaration, which promised Hong Kong 
a high degree of autonomy.4 In making th at certification, the US State Department had report ed 
additional findings on the far -reaching infringement of basic democratic and human rights within the 
fabric of Hong Kong society as a result of the National Security Law.  For example: China and Hong 
Kong authorities deliberately acted to restrict the ability of Hong Kong voters to elect representatives 
of their choosing, and China 's officials played an unprecedented role in directing the outcome of the 
Hong Kong elections.  In December 2022, China 's National People 's Congress Standing Committee 
issued its first  "interpretation " of the National Security Law stating that the Chief Executive and 
Committee for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong ha d the authority to issue legally binding 
certificates and decisions on issues related to national security that were not subject to judicial 
review.  According to legal experts, th at interpretation could significantly increase the authority of 
Hong Kong 's executive branch over the judiciary.5  
4.3.  As the United States had stated throughout the dispute proceedings and at  prior DSB meetings, 
Hong Kong authorities continued to make arrests and prosecutions for peaceful political expression 
critical of the local and central governments. This included the posting and forwarding of social media 
posts and slogans, such as "Libe rate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times". Hong Kong officials 
characterized this type of speech as "inciting hatred against the government" or "promoting feelings 
of ill will or enmity between different classes".6 In July 2022, activist Koo Sze -yiu was co nvicted of 
"attempted sedition" for planning to stage a protest against the Beijing Winter Olympics outside 
China's central government's liaison office in Hong Kong. At sentencing, the presiding judge ruled 
that slogans critical of the National Security La w could "weaken people's confidence in the judicial 
administration". Hong Kong authorities arrested the former Catholic Bishop of Hong Kong, Cardinal 
Joseph Zen, and other trustees of a now -dissolved humanitarian fund that supported individuals 
arrested or  injured during the 2019 pro -democracy protests, on suspicion of "collusion with foreign 
forces". In a separate but related case, in November 2022, Cardinal Zen and the fund's other former 
trustees were convicted and fined for failing to register the fund as a society, in what the defendants 
described as an infringement of their freedom of association.7 
4.4.  In March 2023, three former members of a pro -democracy group that organized annual 
candlelight vigils to mark China 's Tiananmen Square crackdown were found guilty of not complying 
with a request for information under the National Security Law and sentenced to four and a half 
months in jail.8 The group was accused of being a "foreign agent " for an unidentified organization.9 
The U nited Nations  (UN) had called for the release of another former leader of the group, prominent 
civil rights activist Albert Ho, following his arrest by national security police on suspicion of witness 
tampering, in light of his health issues.  Mr. Ho was already facing t rial for incitement to subversion 
under the National Security Law.10 Hong Kong authorities also arrested and prosecuted individuals 
for publishing and even merely possessing books that they claimed included "seditious content ".11  
 
4 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report (March 31, 2023).  
5 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report (March 31, 2023).  
6 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report (March 31, 2023).  
7 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report (March 31, 2023).  
8 Hong Kong court sentences 3 Tiananmen vigil organisers to jail ( 11 March 2023), available at 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/11/hong -kong-court-sentences -3-tiananmen -vigil-organisers -to-jail; 
Hong Kong activists behind Tiananmen vigil jailed for months (11  March  2023), available at 
https://apnews.com/article/1989 -crackdown -tiananmen -activist -hong-kong-court-
6d8b471d28fb6a8bb45c01b93adc0730 . 
9 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2023); Hong Kong court sentences 3 Tiananmen vigil 
organisers to jail, 11 March 2023, available at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/11/hong -kong-court-
sentences -3-tiananmen -vigil-organisers -to-jail. 
10 UN Calls For Release Of Hong Kong Rights Activist Ho Agence France Presse , 28 March 2023, available 
at https://www.barrons.com/news/un -calls-for-release -of-hong-kong-rights -activist -ho-e0650361 . 
11 Hong Kong: Two men arrested for possessing "seditious " children's books, 13 March  2023, available 
at https://www.bbc.com/news/world -asia-china -64985527 . WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 10 - 
 
 
   
 4.5.  Hong Kong authorities con tinued the prosecution of former editors and executives of now -
closed independent media outlets Apple Daily and Stand News under Hong Kong 's sedition law, and 
also prosecuted Jimmy Lai and other former Apple Daily executives and editors under the National 
Security Law.12 In December 2022, Hong Kong officials requested that Google manipulate its search 
results for the phrase "Hong Kong national anthem " to place China 's anthem ahead of the 2019 pro -
democracy protest song "Glory to Hong Kong, " indicating that there could be legal consequences for 
Google if it did not comply.13 Throughout 2022, the Hong Kong government had violated the people 's 
freedom of assembly, especially for individual s and organizations associated with the pro -democracy 
movement.14 Accordi ng to media reports, no NGO applied to hold a public protest at least through 
October 2022.  No organization applied to hold a public event to commemorate the 4 June 
anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.  Police arrested at least six people on 4 June 
2022, in what media described as an effort to thwart attempts to commemorate the event.  In May 
2022, the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong announced that no Catholic Churches in the city would hold 
memorial masses for the victims of Tiananmen Square on 4 June, citing concerns that the masses 
could violate the National Security Law.15  
4.6.  As the United States had documented to the panel in the dispute, the National Security Law 
had a chilling effect on school campuses when the Education Bureau released guidelines for schools 
on national security and banned any political participation or expression on campuses.16 In 
furtherance of that, in December 2022, the Education Bureau published new guidelines for primary 
and secondary school teachers that barred them from encouraging speech that "violates the social 
order " and from promoting "biased values ", and require d teachers to have a "correct understanding " 
of the National Security Law.17 As travel ha d resumed, some US citizens with ties to people or 
organizations that ha d been critical of Hong Kong 's or China 's central governments were held and 
questioned by immigration authorities upon entering Hong Kong regarding their local contacts.  Since 
the imposition of the National Security Law in June 2020, China had increasingly exercised police 
and security power in Hong Kong, subjecting US citizens who were publicly critical of China to a 
heightened risk of arrest, detention, expulsion, or prosecution in Hong Kong.18  
4.7.  The United States was not alone in its concerns. During the UN Human Rights Committee's 
periodic review of Hong Kong, China's compliance with its obligations under the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in July 2022, the experts on the committee indicated that they 
were "deepl y concerned" that the National Security Law prevailed over Hong Kong local laws and 
thus "overrides fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Covenant"19, as well as  "deeply 
concerned about the overly broad interpretation of and arbitrary applicatio n" of the National Security 
Law.20 The committee urged Hong Kong's and China's authorities to repeal the National Security Law 
and Hong Kong's sedition law, and to ensure that any new national security legislation conformed 
with the ICCPR and was passed vi a an inclusive and transparent legislative process.21 
4.8.  These events reflected the ongoing damage to democracy and human rights in Hong Kong by 
China. And these facts further demonstrated the error in the panel's finding that the pattern of 
human rights abus es and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China did not "meet the requisite 
 
12 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2023).  
13 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2023).  
14 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Repor t (31 March 2023).  
15 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2023).  
16 DS597 U.S. Opening Statement, para. 30; 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2021); 
Education Bureau Circular No. 3/2021, National Security: Maintaining a Safe Learning Environm ent Nurturing 
Good Citizens ( 4 February 2021) available at 
https://applications.edb.gov.hk/circular/upload/EDBC/EDBC21003E.pdf . 
17 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March  2023).  
18 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2023).  
19 Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Hong Kong, China, 
CCPR/C/CHN -HKG/CO/4 ( 27 July 2022) at 2, available at 
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FCHN -
HKG%2FCO%2F4&Lang=en . 
20 Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Hong Kong, China, 
CCPR/C/CHN -HKG/CO/4 ( 27 July 2022) at 3, available at 
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FCHN -
HKG%2FCO%2F4&Lang=en . 
21 CCPR/C/CHN -HKG/CO/4 ( 27 July 2022) at 4.  WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 11 - 
 
 
  
 level of gravity to constitute an emergency in international relations under Article XXI(b)(iii)".22 
Again, the United States fundamentally disagreed with the panel's approach, which suggested a 
state ought to defer consideration of its essential security interests until after a breakdown in 
relations. A WTO Member could not be expected to wait until it was too late to act, or be required 
to sever relations as a prerequisite for other action it considered necessary. The WTO did not have 
the competence or the authority to assess the foreign affairs relationships of a Member. Nor did it 
have the competence or authority to pass judgment on the value that the United States – and some 
other Members – placed on freedom and human rights, and the actions they took in seeking to 
secure those values. The United States reiterated that Members needed to address this issue to 
prevent undermining of the WTO, and clarify and adopt a shared unders tanding of the essential 
security exception . 
4.9.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Members would note that this was the third 
time that the panel report in the  DS597 dispute was discussed in the DSB, since circulation of the 
panel report on 21 December 2022 and the US notification to the DSB on 26 January 2023 of its 
decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the panel 
report. First, on a point  of procedure, Rule 27 of the Rules and Procedures for the General Council, 
which were applicable to DSB meetings, set out that "[r]epresentatives should make every effort to 
avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has alrea dy been fully debated 
in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members ' positions already on 
record ". Further, from a systemic point of view, Hong Kong, China harbour ed serious doubts about 
whether it serve d the interests of the dis pute settlement system, for a party to a dispute to keep 
coming back to DSB meetings to repeat its arguments in a dispute settlement  case that ha d already 
been duly heard and ruled on by a panel, especially when th at Member ha d also lodged an appeal 
under the DSU against the panel ruling. The fact that the U nited States had blocked appointment to 
the Appellate Body thereby incapacitating the A ppellate Body  from considering its appeal was not 
intended by any Member except the US. Hong Kong, China could  not see how it would help resolve 
the dispute, for the U nited States to present its one -sided arguments time and again at DSB 
meetings, when those arguments  should be heard by adjudicators in accordance with the relevant 
rules and procedures in the DSU .  
4.10.  Turnin g to the law enforcement actions and judicial system as discussed by the United States, 
Members would recall that , as Hong Kong, China ha d pointed out several times before, the DSB was 
not the right forum for discussions of internal affairs of any individu al Member and Hong Kong, China  
continue d to hold this view. Hong Kong, China's  refusal to be engaged in political discussions  about  
its internal affairs in DSB meetings, was not to be construed as its agreement with the US wrongful 
allegations. Its refusal stem med from its respect for the DSU and the DSB functions, and its firm 
belief that the DSB should not be used by anyone to seek to achieve ulterior, political motives not 
related to nor conducive t o resolving trade disputes. But to Hong Kong, China's  disappointment, the 
United States had presented yet again at this meeting  its biased and untrue descriptions of the 
present  state of affairs in Hong Kong, so Hong Kong, China had  to set out the facts fo r the record.  
4.11.  Hong Kong, China strongly object ed to the groundless and out -of-context statements about 
the situation  in Hong Kong just made by the U nited States. Hong Kong, China  reiterate d that it was  
a society underpinned by the rule of law , which  had always adhered to the principle that laws  had 
to be obeyed and lawbreakers be held accountable. The H ong Kong Special Administrative Regime 
(HKSAR)  Government safeguard ed independent judicial power and fully support ed the Judiciary in 
exercising its judicia l power independently, safeguarding the due administration of justice and the 
rule of law. All judges and judicial officers were appointed by the Chief Executive on the 
recommendation of an independent commission composed of local judges, persons from the legal 
profession and eminent persons from other sectors. All judges and judicial officers so appointed 
would  continue to abide by the Judicial Oath and administer justice in full accordance with the law, 
without fear or favour, self -interest or deceit. Est ablishing the mechanism for safeguarding national 
security in the HKSAR w ould not undermine the independent judicial power. Hong Kong, China's  
judicial system continue d to be protected by the Basic Law. When adjudicating cases concerning 
offence endangering national security, as in any other case, judges remain ed independent and 
impartial in performing their judicial duties, free from any interference.  
 
22 Panel Report, US – Origin Marking Requirement , para. 7.353.  WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 12 - 
 
 
   
 4.12.  In view of the in creasingly pronounced national security risks faced by the HKSAR, the 
enactment of the National Security Law in 2020 was both necessary and urgent in order to plug the 
loophole in national security in Hong Kong, and restore stability in the society. The Na tional Security 
Law provide d clear rules and legal basis for preventing, suppressing and imposing punishment for 
acts endangering national security. The National Security Law only targeted an extremely small 
minority of persons endangering national securit y. It clearly stipulate d the four categories of offences 
that endanger ed national security. Apart from providing that the principle of the rule of law s hall be 
adhered to, Article 5 of the National Security Law provide d for the presumption of innocence, th e 
prohibition of double jeopardy, the right to defend oneself , and other rights in judicial proceedings 
that a criminal suspect, defendant , and other parties in judicial proceedings were entitled to under 
the law.  
4.13.  Following the implementation of the National Security Law in 2020, chaos stopped and stability 
had been restored in Hong Kong. It helped to bring the society back on track to focus on developing 
the economy, enhancing people 's livelihood, sustaining Hong Kong 's long -term stability and 
prosperity, and achieving good governance. The National Security Law ensure d the resolute, full and 
faithful implementation of the "one country, two systems " principle under which the people of Hong 
Kong administer ed Hong Kong with a high d egree of autonomy, and it also clearly stipulate d that 
human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in Hong Kong. The 
rights and freedoms  – including the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, 
of assembly, of procession , and of demonstration – enjoyed by residents of the HKSAR under the 
Basic Law, and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as 
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural R ights, as applicable to Hong Kong shall 
be protected in accordance with the law. As in many other jurisdictions that uphold the "rule of law ", 
so long as people, institutions or organization s observe d the laws in Hong Kong, they w ould not 
unwittingly viola te the law, including the National Security Law. Meanwhile, any law enforcement 
actions taken by Hong Kong law enforcement agencies under the National Security Law or any local 
laws of Hong Kong were based on evidence, strictly in accordance with the laws,  based on the acts 
of the persons or entities concerned, and ha d nothing to do with their political stance, background , 
or occupation.  
4.14.  With regard to  the dispute DS597,  Hong Kong, China  was a staunch supporter of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core. Hong Kong, China  respect ed the 
WTO, its rules, and its dispute settlement  system , which resolve d trade disputes among WTO 
Members. As a small delegation, Hong Kong, China  had followed and gone thr ough all the steps in 
accordance with the rules and procedures under the DSU in handling DS597, from requesting 
consultations, to establis hment of  the panel , and participat ing in the panel proceedings. The U nited 
States, in the DS597  dispute , was given amp le opportunities to put forth, elaborate and clarify its 
arguments , and to respond to Hong Kong, China 's submissions and responses before the panel, 
composed of three independent and fair -minded experts. The panel had considered the submissions 
of the U nited States  and Hong Kong, China, as well as from the third parties, in full and in totality, 
and came to the unanimous decision that the challenged measure in question was discriminatory 
and WTO -inconsistent, and that the U nited States should bring its WTO -inconsistent measure into 
conformity  with WTO rules.  
4.15.  As Members were aware, the U nited States did not agree with the ruling and ha d lodged an 
appeal to the Appellate Body, when that Body ha d been single -handedly wrecked by the U nited 
States since the end of 2019. Reading all th ose acts together, one could not help but question 
whether the purpose of the US lodging an appeal was to stall its obligations to implement the panel 
ruling : in short,  a procedural abuse. The U nited States notified the DSB of its decision to appeal 
issues of law covered in the DS597 panel report on 26 January 2023. Presumably, a notice of appeal 
had to  include "a brief statement of the nature of the appeal ", which in tu rn include d "an indicative 
list of the paragraphs of the panel report containing the alleged errors ", as well as an appellant 's 
submission. As the US notice of appeal was not accompanied by th ose required documents, Hong 
Kong, China, despite being the resp ondent of the appeal, was not privy to the issues of law that the 
United States contemplated in the appeal, if they exist ed at all. This show ed a lack of respect for 
the well -established rules set out in the working procedures for appellate review.   
4.16.  Meanwh ile, and outside of the appeal and the adjudicative process, the U nited States had 
been continuously and unilaterally clamouring its objection to the panel's ruling and, as mentioned 
in its statement at the previous DSB meeting on 31 March  2023, "the serious consequences of the WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 13 - 
 
 
  
 flawed interpretation of Article XXI of the GATT 1994 " in the DS597 panel report. Hong Kong, China  
consider ed that  the US attempts to keep repeating the issues regarding the  DS597  dispute  and 
criticising the specific panel r uling show ed no respect to the panel, the panelists and, most 
importantly, the rules -based multilateral trading system. What add ed to the US disrespect of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system was that the U nited States had already initiated an appea l 
and would have sufficient opportunities to present its case before the Appellate Body, had the 
appointment s to the A ppellate Body not been held hostage by the U nited States, result ing in the 
present impasse. If the U nited States  was genuine in its quest for a "correct " ruling, perhaps it 
should consider unblocking the appointment process of the A ppellate Body so that DS597, as well 
as other cases being held up, c ould be heard and adjudicated on expeditiously. But instead, the 
United States  had turned to D SB meetings to continue its "appeal ", by repeating its arguments and 
political claims against Hong Kong, China. Hong Kong, China  strongly believe d that the DSB should 
not be subjected to such needless and repeated distractions, not least those which serve d nothing 
but the political purpose of one single Member.  
4.17.  The representative of China  said that, a t the outset, China wished  to raise its serious concerns 
on the US request to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly debated item on the Agenda  of the present 
meeting.  China  considered that this  action  by the United States contradicted  the rules of procedure 
for meeting s of the DSB, which require d that Members make every effort to avoid the repetition of 
a full debate at each meeting on any issue that ha d already been fully debated in the past and on 
which there appear ed to have been no change in Members ' positions already on record. China  was 
more disappointed to see this Agenda  item at the present  meeting,  in the background of the ongoing 
WTO reform process, in which the vast majority of Members, including the U nited States, called for 
enhancing the efficiency of WTO meetings and making discussio ns more focused and meaningful. 
China wonder ed how th at could be achieved by the US request to continue discussion on an issue 
that ha d been already debated twice. Furthermore, the U nited States would have sufficient 
opportunity to express its views and provide its argument s should they agree to unblock the selection 
process es of Appellate Body members , and in no event  should  DSB meeting s bear the responsibility 
of discuss ing cases in which the panel r eport ha d been appealed .  
4.18.  Second, China reject ed in the strongest terms the US false allegations and unilateral 
judgement  of and interference in other Members ' internal affairs. The permanent representative of 
Hong Kong, China ha d just provided detailed ex planations with regard to Hong Kong 's law 
enforcement actions and judicial system, so China limited itself to  reiterating that the WTO, including 
its dispute settlement mechanism, was a forum to discuss trade issues and resolve trade disputes 
rather than a  place to engage in discussion s on political issues. As a third party in this dispute, China 
appreciate d the panel's impartial and objective rulings and recommendations. It was clear from the 
text, the context, the object and purpose , and the negotiating history that the security exception 
under the GATT 1994 was not entirely self -judging, as found by this panel and six previous panels. 
Any Member, regardless of its power and si ze, shall refrain from taking unilateral and protectionist 
measures in the name of "national security ", or using it as a vehicle to disregard the core principles 
of the WTO or to interfere with other Members ' internal affairs.  China urge d the United States  to 
faithfully hono ur its multilateral obligations and stop abusing national security.  
4.19.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished  to recall 
the mandate of the WTO, which was to provide a common institutional framew ork for the conduct 
of trade relations among st Members. Th at mandate preclude d the Membership from diving into the 
political discussions that were being reopened at this meeting by the U nited States. The Russian 
Federation also wished to recall Article 1.1  of the DSU  – the DSU  applie d to disputes brought 
pursuant to provisions of the WTO Agreements. Th ose rules and procedures also appl ied to 
settlement of disputes between Members concerning their rights and obligations under the WTO 
Agreements. As the Russi an Federation  underst ood, that was exactly the case in US – Origin Marking 
Requirement.  The panel in that dispute considered whether the US measures were consistent with 
provisions of the GATT 1994.  Whether or not the U nited States was complying with its commitments 
under the covered agreements – that was the question to be determined by panels, in particular the  
panel  established in US – Origin Marking Requirement . Whether or not any Member was compliant 
with the relevant international commitments in the area of human rights , as well as other political 
matters raised by the U nited States – those were questions for designated forums to decide. The 
WTO was not one of them. Whether or not a Member was compliant with the US vision of human 
rights and democ racy – the Russian Federation was not even sure that such a forum exist ed, but it  
definitely was not the WTO. The Russian Federation also wished  to note that the U nited States, who WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 14 - 
 
 
   
 had brought an appeal against the panel report in this dispute,  would be in a position – to the same 
extent as Hong Kong , China or any third party – to express their appreciation of or disappointment 
with said report, justify their position , and provide relevant evidence and facts. However, that w ould 
be done when – and only when  – the U nited States would unblock the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. Raising the issue of incorrect interpretation of a provision of a WTO Agreement either at this 
meeting , or during the previous DSB Meeting under the "Other Business ", in the context of this 
particular panel r eport under appeal , and from a purely political perspective , was a deliberate waste 
of everybody 's time. It was also quite cynical given that the U nited States merely expresse d its 
disagreement with the report while  not allowing th at disagreement to be res olved once and for all.  
4.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States took note of Hong Kong, 
China's and China's concerns with raising matters on the internal affairs of a Member in the DSB. It 
was, of course, not the United States t hat had brought these circumstances into the WTO. It was 
Hong Kong, China's choice to challenge a US national security action and to encourage the WTO 
panel to review the US invocation of the essential security exception. It was, therefore, Hong Kong, 
China that invited WTO Members in the Dispute Settlement Body to review its actions eroding 
protected rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, which undermined its obligations under the Hong Kong 
Basic Law and the Sino -British Joint Declaration. The US presentation a t this meeting was grounded 
in the facts. Those facts demonstrated the pattern of human rights abuses and erosion of autonomy 
in Hong Kong, China. And those facts formed the basis for the challenged US actions taken to protect 
US essential security interes ts. 
4.21.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China had to take the floor 
again because the U nited States in its second intervention continued its repeated accusation that it 
was Hong Kong, China bringing politics into the WTO  and the DSB. From Hong Kong, China's 
perspective, both the U nited States and Hong Kong, China were Members of the WTO, and as such 
both were subject to the rights and obligations , as provided for under the WTO covered agreements 
and would expect each other to comp ly with their obligations in handling all aspects of trade matters , 
in accordance with the covered agreements. The US revised origin marking measure imposed on 
exports from Hong Kong , China  was a discriminatory trade measure, as it accord ed less favourable  
treatment to Hong Kong, China 's products. Hong Kong, China rightfully sought  to address the 
impairment suffered by its exports through the established rules and procedures under the DSU. 
The entire dispute settlement  process, by design, was legal, technic al, and professional. The focus 
of the dispute ha d all along been whether the US trade measure was inconsistent with the rights 
and obligations under the WTO covered agreements. In Hong Kong, China's  view, the fact that the 
US decision to impose the measur e stemmed from its own political decision, and that the U nited 
States sought to rely on the security exceptions under Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994 as a defence 
before the panel for the measure in question are perhaps where the so -called "bringing politi cs into 
this case " may have come from. But they were all actions initiated by the U nited States, rather than 
by Hong Kong, China, so it w as neither accurate nor fair to lay the blame on Hong Kong, China.  The 
United States seem ed to believe that the securit y exceptions provisions were entirely self -judging 
and once it invoke d the security exceptions, the measure in question c ould no longer be reviewed 
by any dispute panel. Th at argument was not accepted by the panel, nor by any third party involved 
in this case. Other panels , which ha d considered similar arguments under other cases in the past 
had also come to the same conclusion. It seem ed to Hong Kong, China  that the United States was  
blaming Hong Kong, China for defending its rights under the WTO cov ered a greements  when it was 
being discriminated against by another WTO Member . The United States seem ed to expect that Hong 
Kong, China should submit to its discriminatory actions once the U nited States had claimed to have 
invoked security exceptions, othe rwise Hong Kong, China was bringing politics into the WTO/DSB. 
That could not be  further from the truth in this case. The DS597 panel ha d rightly ruled that: the 
security exceptions provision was not entirely self -judging; the US origin marking measure in 
question was according less favourable treatment to products of Hong Kong, China and hence was 
not WTO -consistent; and the US origin marking requirement was not justified by its claim of invoking 
the security exceptions. Hong Kong, China called on the U nited States to follow the panel's decision 
to bring its measure into conformity early with its obligation under the GATT 1994. Should the U nited 
States genuinely wish to pursue its appeal against the panel's ruling in accordance with the DSU, 
Hong Kong, China w ould be obliged to follow the established rules and procedures to assist the 
adjudicators in considering the appeal so as to resolve the dispute in a timely manner.  
4.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 15 - 
 
 
  
 5  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHAN ISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM;  BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; 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. 24) 
5.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations. He then drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 24 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
5.2.  The representative of Guatemala  said that,  at the outset , he wished to announce that Brunei 
Darussalam ha d decided to co -sponsor the joint proposal to be considered  under this Agenda item. 
He thank ed Brunei Darussalam for its interest in joining the proposal and welcome d it to the group 
of co-sponsors.  Guatemala, s peaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 4, said that the delegations in question h ad agreed to submit the 
joint proposal, dated 17 April 2023, to launch the selection processes for the vacancies of the 
Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 8 Members, Guatemala wished to state the following.  
This Agenda item and  the extensive numb er of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a 
common interest  in the functioning of the Appellate Body and, more generally, in the functioning of 
the dispute settlement system. The joint proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes; 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation s within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents invited and urged all 
Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading 
systems.  
5.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, at the outset, the United States would like 
to note that the  United States and other Members had jointly issued WTO document  WT/GC/244, 
"The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of 
Belarus," which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and 
fundamental principles of international peace and security. The United States reiterated its support 
for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time. The United States paid tribute to the heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and Leaders. Turning to the present Agenda item, Members 
were aware of the longstanding US concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained 
unaddressed, and the United St ates did not support the proposed decision. The United States 
believed that fundamental reform was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement 
system. A well -functioning dispute settlement system supported WTO Members in the resolution of 
their disputes in an efficient and transparent manner, and in doing so limited the needless complexity 
and interpretive overreach that had characterized dispute settlement in recent years. The first step 
towards reform was to better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. 
The United States had been engaging with Members to advance that goal and looked forward to 
continued engagement. The United States acknowledged that considerable work remained and that 
achieving dispute settlement  reform – that is, fundamental reform to meet the needs of all WTO 
Members to the greatest extent possible – would not be easy. But the United States continued to 
believe that working collectively towards that goal provided the greatest chance of achieving  durable, 
lasting reform. The United States was committed to working towards an improved system. The WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 16 - 
 
 
   
 United States looked forward to engaging further with those Members that also saw value in an 
improved and reformed dispute settlement system that was acce ssible to all .  
5.4.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine,  once again , sought  to emphasize that it was 
ready to contribute to and support the process of improving the functioning of the dispute settlement 
mechanism and in particular the functioning o f the two -stage dispute settlement system.  Despite 
the full -scale war unleashed by Russia,  which had been ongoing  for more than  14 months , as well 
as daily attacks, Ukraine wished to underline that it remain ed strongly committed to the fundamental 
rules of the WTO and ma de every effort to ensure a  fully functioning WTO dispute settlement  system . 
Ukraine believe d that a rules -based multilateral trading system was in the interest of every Member 
and that was wher e Members  should focus every effort. Ukraine reiterate d its sincerest gratitude to 
all Members that st ood with Ukraine in the face of the unprecedented , illegal and terrifying 
aggression of Russia,  and urge d them to remain strong and united in their support of Ukraine for as 
long as it took.  
5.5.  The representative of Brunei Darussalam  said that Brunei Darussalam wished to thank 
Guatemala for presenting the proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors and wish ed to add Brune i 
Darussalam's voice on the importance and urgency of restoring the two -tiered dispute settlement 
system by filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body, in compliance with the DSU. In that regard, 
as a strong supporter of rules -based multilateral trading s ystem, Brunei Darussalam was pleased to 
join 127 delegations in co -sponsoring this very important initiative. Like others, Brunei Darussalam 
also stresse d the need to deliver the MC12 Ministerial mandate of having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settl ement system accessible to all Members by 2024. In that connection, Brunei Darussalam  
support ed the ongoing Member -driven informal discussion s on dispute settlement reform  with the 
hope to achieve solutions to Members concerns whilst delivering the mandate . 
5.6.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and refer red to its previous 
statements made on this issue. The United Kingdom  noted the increasing number of Members 
co-sponsoring this proposal, and, at th e present  meeting in particular, welcome d the addition of 
Brunei Darussalam. The United Kingdom  encourage d all remaining Members to support the proposal. 
The United Kingdom continue d to be seized of the urgent need to reach a resolution to the current 
impasse: achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system was in the interest of all 
Members who value d an effective multilateral trading system. As such, the United Kingd om was 
actively participating in the ongoing Member -led discussions on dispute settlement reform. The 
United Kingdom welcome d the ambition of phase 3 of th ose discussions.  A pragmatic and dedicated 
approach was required to find solutions that w ould command  the support of all WTO Members. The 
United Kingdom call ed on all Members to continue to prioritise th at work. As Members  discuss ed 
these issues concerning how Members  ensure d that rules were respected, the United Kingdom had 
to address the egregious viola tions of international law and the UN Charter committed by one WTO 
Member against another.  The United Kingdom unreservedly condemn ed Putin's outrageous and 
illegal war of aggression. Russia 's assault on Ukraine was an unprovoked, premedi tated, and barbaric 
attack against a sovereign democratic state. What happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of the 
WTO and matter ed to all Members . As well as the direct consequences of Russia 's actions in the  
WTO – impeding the ability of Ukraine to fully pa rticipate in the work of this institution and the global 
trading system – Members had to  recogni ze the enormous global impact of Putin 's chosen war. The 
United Kingdom  and the international community ha d made it clear to President Putin that his attack 
on the Ukrainian people had to  stop, and that he had to  withdraw from Ukraine and restore regional 
and global stability. As the people in Ukraine continue d to face relentless Russian bombardment, the 
United Kingdom st ood with Ukraine and w ould continue to sup port the Ukrainian government in the 
face of this assault on their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United Kingdom had to  stand 
for freedom, democracy, and the sovereignty of nations around the world.  
5.7.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil  thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item. Brazil also welcome d Brunei Darussalam as a co -sponsor. Having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was a top priority for Brazil and it was Members'  
collective obligation under the DSU. Brazil c ontinue d to engage constructively in informal discussions 
on dispute settlement  reform, which it hoped would  contribute to that  outcome, within the deadline 
set by Ministers at MC12. Finally, Brazil recall ed that, while the impasse with the appointment of 
Appellate Body members was not resolv ed, Members c ould ensure the resolution of their disputes WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 17 - 
 
 
  
 by joining the MPIA. Once again, Brazil encourage d Members to do so. Brazil was  ready to discuss 
the MPIA with any delegation wishing  to learn more about the Arrangement and its functioning.   
5.8.  The representative of Canada  said that , first of all, Canada strongly condemned the unjustified 
and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President Putin. Canada wished to express its solidarity with 
the Ukrainian people. President Putin's plans to "annex" Ukrainian territory were devoid of legitimacy 
and would n ever be recognized. Those hostile acts had now continued for more than a year. Those 
acts were a flagrant violation of international law and of the rules -based international trading system. 
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to be respecte d and the Ukrainian people had to 
be free to determine their own future. Canada urged Russia to immediately cease all acts of hostility 
and provocation against Ukraine and to withdraw from the country its military and intermediary 
forces. Concerning the ap pointment of Appellate Body members, for over three years the Appellate 
Body had no longer a quorum and had been unable to hear new appeals. Canada supported the 
statement made by Guatemala at th e present  meeting on behalf of the sponsors and thanked 
Guate mala for its statement.  Canada welcomed Brunei Darussalam as an additional co -sponsor of 
the proposal and invited those Members that had not yet endorsed the proposal to consider joining 
the 128 Members that were calling for the selection process to be lau nched. The critical mass of 
WTO Members that supported the proposal was a clear testimony to the importance they all accorded 
to a fully functioning Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada 
recalled the Membership's objec tive, which was to have a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system that was accessible to all by 2024. Canada would continue to actively participate 
in solution -oriented discussions on the current situation. In short, Canada's priority remained  to find 
a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the  United States. Meanwhile, the MPIA 
was the best way to safeguard their rights to binding dispute settlement that included the possibility 
to appeal in disputes among Members. Fifty -three WTO Members had now joined the MPIA. Canada 
invited all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA. Canada was available to discuss the details 
of the MPIA with interested Members.  
5.9.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for its statement and 
for presenting the proposal on behalf of the now 128 co -sponsors. On that note, it would be remiss 
if Indonesia d id not congratulate its ASEAN family  member , Brunei Darussalam, for becoming a 
co-sponsor . Even though to date Brunei Dar ussalam ha d no dispute its decision was a testament 
that no matter how big or small the Member , or how frequent that Member  used the system, it 
boiled down to the fact that all Members believe d in and need ed the dispute settlement system to 
be fully function al as soon as possible. With that in mind, Indonesia also encourage d more Members 
to consider positively becoming co -sponsors of this proposal. Moreover, Indonesia wishe d to refer 
to its statement s made at  previous DSB meetings on this matter. In this regard, solving the Appellate 
Body impasse should be the utmost priority for all Members, notwithstanding the ongoing dispute 
settlement reform discussion s. Therefore, Indonesia  also wished  to remind Members t hat their target 
was to have a fully operational dispute settlement system by 2024. In th at context, Indonesia wishe d 
that the informal discussion s could evolve to wards  text-based negotiation s soon while taking full 
consideration of Members ' capacity const raints. Indonesia reiterate d its readiness and openness to 
work with other Members, as well as its commitment to participate actively and constructively in the 
discussion s. 
5.10.  The representative of Cambodia  said that, a t the outset, Cambodia warmly welcome d Brunei 
Darussalam 's decision to co -sponsor the joint proposal  contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/ Rev.24. Cambodia  support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on behalf of  the 
128 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join th e proposal. Cambodi a referred to its 
previous statements made on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment and support 
for the well-functioning of an independent and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system with 
accessible to all , including the least -develope d countries. In conjunction with  dispute settlement 
reform, Cambodia wishe d to urge all Members to work together in good faith and in a constructive 
manner , as mandated by Ministers at the MC12  on, inter alia , the appointments of A ppellate Body 
members  and towards achieving a true multilateral solution.  
5.11.  The representative of Norway  said that  as the work of the DSB directly concern ed the 
upholding of the rules -based international order, Norway  found it pertinent to address the current 
situation i n Ukraine. Norway continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on its 
neighbour Ukraine. Russia 's war of aggression against Ukraine constitute d a gross violation of 
international law  and the rules -based system , which also underpin ned the WTO . Norway was WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 18 - 
 
 
   
 contributing extensively to the effort s to support Ukraine and collaborate d closely with the Ukrainian 
authorities, other donors, the UN, the World Bank , and humanitarian organization s, on coordinating 
efforts to  ensure that aid reache d those who were most in need and was u sed as effectively as 
possible. Turning to Appellate Body appointments, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal 
presented by Guatemala, and co -sponsored by 128 Members, to launch the process f or appointments 
to the Appellate Body. At the present  meeting,  Norway  warmly welcome d Brunei Darussalam as a 
co-sponsor of the  proposal. Norway very much welcome d the ongoing informal discussions among 
Members and participate d constructively in  those discu ssions  to address the current impasse. Th ose 
discussions should, however, not prevent Members  from launching the process for appointments to 
the Appellate Body, and the present meeting  further underline d the urgency of th at matter. Norway, 
like several other s, took this opportunity to invite other Members to join the MPIA. The Arrangement 
was open to WTO Members to join for as long as the Appellate Body remain ed unable to fully 
function. Norway  also w ished to refer to its previous  statements made under this Agenda item.  
5.12.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand joined other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Those 
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 Ukraine's sovereign territory 
had deep implications for global peace, security, and economic stability. New Zealand continued t o 
stand firmly against any steps by Russia that risked a further escalation in this conflict. In relation 
to Agenda item  5, New Zealand reiterated its support for the proposal co -sponsored alongside 12 7 
other WTO Members and referred to its previous statem ents made on this matter. New Zealand also 
warmly welcomed Brunei Darussalam as the most recent  co-sponsor.  Reform of the dispute 
settlement system to ensure a fully and well -functioning system accessible to all Members remained 
a priority for New Zealand.  New Zealand urged all Members to engage in the ongoing discussions 
constructively and pragmatically in order to address this situation as a priority in line with the 
direction of their Ministers  at MC12 . New Zealand also took this opportunity to invite those Members 
who had not joined the MPIA to consider doing so. The MPIA provided an avenue to safeguard access 
to an appeal level of review, while Members worked collectively towards reform in order to restore 
a fully functioning dispute settlement  system.  
5.13.  The representative of Moldova  said that Moldova f irst wished to thank the representative of 
Guatemala for its statement and welcome d the new co -sponsor of the joint proposal. Moldova join ed 
other Members in reiterating its support regarding ongoin g efforts focused on unblocking the 
Appellate Body selection process es and recall ed its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item. Second, Moldova reiterate d its voice of support  for Ukraine, condemning in the strongest terms 
the ongoing war initiate d by Russia against a sovereign and independent state  – a war that cause d 
destruction and suffering in a neighbo uring country on a daily basis. The previous day and night,  for 
example, Russia had  committed another missile attack against civilians in Dnipro , Nikolaev , and Kiev 
region , killing 8 people and injuring 17 and many more remaining under the rubble. The economic 
and social impacts of th e war were strongly felt in and around Ukraine,  including in Moldova. From 
the trade perspective, it should be noted that due to the war initiated by Russia against Ukraine, 
Moldovan exporters  had lost access to an important share of their markets and transit  route s to 
Asian partners. Some of the top e xported products, for example fresh fruits and vegetables, ha d 
been totally blocked and exporters were being required  to go bankrupt or reorient their trade flows 
in a rapid manner towards other trading partners. Full or partial loss of export markets was 
exacerbated  by an energy crisis and high inflationary pressures . During the previous  year, for 
example, the inflation spikes in Moldova reached 30 %. Despite th ose challenges, Moldova w ould, 
with the help of donor partners, be able to withstand  the crisis a nd offer the necessary shelter and 
assistance to people fleeing th e war from Ukraine. In conclusion, Moldova wished  to reiterate that it 
would  continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine for as long as it t ook, and call ed upon Russia to 
stop th e war immed iately and unconditionally.  
5.14.  The representative of Malaysia  said that  at the outset  Malaysia wished to warmly welcome its 
fellow ASEAN member, Brunei Darussalam, as the latest co -sponsor of the joint proposal to launch 
the selection process es for the  vacancies of the Appellate Body members, contained in document  
WT/DS/B/W/609/Rev.24. Mal aysia also wished to thank Guatemala for presenting the proposal and 
supported the statement made.  With this newest addition, 128 Members represented  78% of the 
total WTO Membership supporting this proposal. Malaysia referred to its statements made  at 
previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item and wished to reiterate its strong view that the 
dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body, was most critical and required the urgent WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 19 - 
 
 
  
 attention of all Members. WTO Members had the responsibility to saf eguard and preserve the dispute 
settlement system and should not further delay the commencement of the selection process for the 
AB vacancies. Mal aysia invite d other Members to support the proposal. Malaysia also hoped that all 
Members would work together towards having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024 , as mandated by Ministers at MC12.  
5.15.  The representative of the Philippines  said that t he Philippines welcome d Brunei Darussalam 's 
decision to join as a co-sponsor of the  proposal to immediately start the appointment processes of 
new Appellate Body members.  Brunei 's co-sponsorship demonstrate d its belief that the multilateral 
dispute settlement system deserve d a second chance. Brunei  had chose n to side with 
reasonableness.  The Philippines , therefore, commend ed Brunei, its neighbo ur and fellow ASEAN 
member -state, for sharing the commitment to a rules -based multilateral trading system that was 
beneficial for all WTO Members. The Philipp ines t ook this opportunity to reiterate its commitment to 
support the revival of a functional two -tier dispute settlement system. The Philippines  urged 
delegations to rethink their positions, engage , and find practical solutions in confronting shared 
challenges of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
5.16.  The representative of Australia  said that , first, Australia wished  to note that it continue d to 
condemn in the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified , and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. 
Australia continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of 
international law and the fundamental international norms on which organization s such as the WTO 
were based. Australia  stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw 
its troops. Turning to th is Agenda item, Australia  joined other Members in warmly  welcoming Brunei 
Darussalam as a co -sponsor. Australia reiterate d that its number one WTO refor m priority was 
delivering a fully and well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 
2024, as agreed by Ministers at MC12. A fully functioning system was critical to the rules -based 
multilateral trading system.  Australia  welcom ed ongoing discussions to develop meaningful reforms 
to improve the dispute settlement system, that me t Members ' interests and concerns. Australia 
would continue working constructively with all Members and urge d all Members to continue doing 
the same as they sought  to deliver on the MC12 mandate. While they collaborate d to restore a fully 
functional dispute settlement system, Australia  encourage d all Members to join the MPIA as the best 
interim mechanism for ensuring Members ' rights under the WTO Agreements  could be enforced and 
protected. Australia  was ready to engage with any delegation interested in joining  the MPIA.  
5.17.  The representative of Iceland  said that a fully functional dispute settlement system was 
directly connected to the upholding of the rules-based international order , which had been seriously 
undermined by the unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. Iceland condemned in 
the strongest possible terms Russia's actions, which violated international law and the UN Charter, 
and undermined the international order and laws on which organizations such as the WTO w ere 
based. Turning to item 5 of the Agenda , Iceland wished to thank Guatemala for presenting the 
proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors, and reiterated its previous stateme nts on th is matter.  As one 
of the many co -sponsors of the proposal, Iceland was concerned with the longstanding lack of 
progress in resolving this important issue. Iceland  welcomed all ongoing efforts to advance 
discussions on dispute settlement reform wit h the aim of being able to deliver on the MC12 mandate. 
Until then, Iceland encouraged other Members to join the MPIA as an interim mechanism for ensuring 
Members' access to a binding, two -tier, and independent dispute settlement system , which they  
would w ork to restore  until a fully -functional dispute settlement system  was put in place.  
5.18.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland joined other delegations in 
condemning Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms . Such 
aggression blatantly violated international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and 
the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland called upon Russia to take military 
de-escalation measures, end hostilities, and i mmediately withdraw its troops from Ukrainian 
territory. Switzerland called on all actors to respect international law, in particular international 
humanitarian law. Switzerland thanked Guatemala for placing this matter  on the Agenda  of the 
present meeting , and wished to refer to its statements made on this matter at previous DSB 
meetings. Switzerland  called upon all Members to commit to ensuring a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system by 2024, as set out in the MC12 Outcome Document. Switzerland would continue 
to participate constructively in the newly initiated phase of informal discussions and hoped that 
concrete solutions could be discussed in the coming weeks and months.  WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 20 - 
 
 
   
 5.19.  The representative of Korea  said that, like others, Korea reaffirm ed its consistent position on 
the Ukrainian war that the sovereignty, territorial integrity , and independenc e of Ukraine should be 
respected. Korea, as a responsible member of the international community, support ed various 
diplomatic and economic efforts of the international community to contribute to the end of the 
Ukrainian war and the restoration of peace, an d would more actively participate in those efforts. 
With regard to the item on Appellate Body appointments, Korea thank ed Guatemala for its statement 
and reiterate d its support for the joint proposal. Korea  also refer red to its previous statements on 
this issue and wished  to warmly welcome Brunei Darussalam as a co -sponsor. The WTO dispute 
settlement system ha d been a central element in providing security and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system. In this regard, Korea very much welcome d Members ' continuous interest 
and participation in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform, recalling Members ' 
commitment on the MC12 mandate. Korea reaffirm ed its commitment to engaging in pertinent 
discussions on reform with a view to having constructiv e solutions to enrich the functioning of the 
WTO dispute settlement system, with the objective of accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  
5.20.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associated with the 
statement made  by Guatemala on the joint proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thanked 
Guatemala for delivering the statement on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa equally wished to 
welcome Brunei Darussalam as a co -sponsor. South Africa reiterated its previ ous statements 
regarding the urgency of this matter. When Members agreed to bind themselves to the  Uruguay 
Round Agreements, it was on the understanding that their rights would be protected by a  predictable, 
binding, rules -based order underpinned by a two -tiered dispute settlement mechanism . The 
assurance that their trade relations would be subject to rules rather than soft power was a 
fundamental element of the bargain struck in Montevideo and the continued dysfunctionality of the 
Appellate Body undermined  the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperilled the 
multilateral trading system. A fully functioning Appellate Body was a top priority for reform of the 
WTO and it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. South Africa 
welcomed the commitment by Members undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. That commitment was being 
reiterated during  the recent informal discussions on WTO dispute settle ment reform. South Africa 
would work actively and constructively with all Members to find a lasting solution to the present 
impasse and to  ensure an effective dispute settlement system.  
5.21.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , wished to thank the 
delegation of Guatemala for its statement regarding the joint proposal on Appellate Body 
appointments, of which the African Group were co -sponsors. The African Group also wished to 
congratulate the latest Member to join  the list of co -sponsors, Brunei Darussalam. The African Group 
reiterated its support for a fully functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to all 
Members  by 2024 , in accordance with the mandate from Ministers at MC12. The fact that the 
Appellate Body cou ld not hear new appeals remained a concern. The African Group urged the DSB 
to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they arose, so as to 
maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system. Th is would maintain the securi ty, credibility, and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system. The critical mass of Members asking for the launch 
of the selection process indicated the importance Members attached to having a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system for the mu ltilateral trading system. Finally, the African Group stood ready 
to engage constructively in the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform in order to restore 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as agreed at MC12.  
5.22.  The representa tive of Japan  said that Japan would first touch upon the situation in Ukraine. 
In this regard, Japan strongly condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine and its missile attacks 
against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urged Russia once again to 
stop its aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine, within its internationally 
recognized borders, immediately. Japa n would also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of 
imposing strong sanctions on Russia and providing logistical support to  Ukraine in cooperation with  
the international community. With regard  to Agenda item 5,  Japan wished to refer to its statement s 
made at previous DSB meetings and supported the  joint AB proposal. Japan absolutely shared a 
sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system and had set as the utmost priority to 
achieve a reform that would contribute to a long -lasting solut ion to the structural and functional 
problems of the dispute settlement system. Members should discuss that reform, including how to 
address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. In this regard,  Japan welcomed the new step 
in the informal dispute se ttlement  reform discussions currently led by Members. With a view to WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 21 - 
 
 
  
 having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement  system by 2024, as agreed at MC12, Japan 
wished to work actively and constructively with all WTO Members .  
5.23.  The representative of Peru said that Peru  thank ed Guatemala for its statement , and support ed 
that statement  made now on behalf of 128 co -sponsors , including Peru. Peru also took  the 
opportunity to welcome Brunei Darussalam as the newest co -sponsor and call ed on Members who 
were not yet  co-sponsor s to consider doing so.  Peru wished  to stress the need to continue to work 
with a sense of urgency for the restoration of the full functioning of the DS system , which was a 
priority for Peru. Within th at framework, Peru support ed and participate d in the informal discussions 
that were being held in order to move forward towards  fulfilling the mandate to have a fully 
operational dispute settlement system that function ed properly and was accessible to all  Members  
by 2024. In t he meantime, and in order to preserve the security and predictability of the system, 
Peru joined the call already made by others  to join the MPIA , to which Peru was a party, and which 
allowed Members , under the text of the DSU, to safeguard, for the durati on of th e impasse, their 
right to binding dispute settlement that include d two levels of adjudication.  
5.24.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore  warmly welcomed its fellow ASEAN 
member Brunei Darussalam as the most recent co -sponsor of this proposal , and thanked Guatemala 
for its statement , which Singapore strongly supported.  Singapore reiterated its previous statements 
regarding the proposal's urgency and importance. Singapore was committed to participating 
constructively and with an open mi nd in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform. While 
the Appellate Body impasse persisted, Singapore encouraged Members to join the MPIA as an interim 
solution that preserved Members' right to appeal, until Members  collectively found a durable and  
lasting solution. Singapore, together with other MPIA participants, stood ready to engage with any 
delegation that wished to learn more about the Arrangement.  
5.25.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand thank ed Guatemala for the statement , which 
Thailand fully support ed. Thailand  also warmly welcome d the decision of Brunei Darussalam to join 
the AB proposal , bringing the total number of co -sponsors to 128, demonstrating the strong 
commitment by the critical mass of Members to restoring a fully functioning, two -tiered binding 
dispute settlement system. It was the shared responsibility of all WTO Members to res olve this issue 
as soon as possible and to fill the outstanding vacancies as required by the DSU. Thailand refer red 
to its previous statements made under this Agenda item and reiterate d its commitment to working 
constructively with other Members in finding  a meaningful solution and fulfilling the MC12 mandate.  
5.26.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished  to first thank 
Guatemala for presenting the proposal on behalf of other Members . Hong Kong, China also wished  
to welcome Brunei  Darussalam on board. Under  the previous  Agenda  item, Hong Kong, China ha d 
pointed out the very importance of having the Appellate Body 's appointments unblocked so that 
Members  could  overcome the current A ppellate Body  impasse  and Members c ould have their cases 
heard by the A ppellate Body properly. Hong Kong, China thus continue d to join other Members to 
reiterate its concerns about the Appellate Body impasse. Hong Kong, China wished  to emph asize its 
commitment to work constructively with all WTO Members to restore a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system by 2024 , as mandated by the MC12 Outcome Document.   
5.27.  The representative of China  said that China supported the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of the co-sponsors  and warmly welcomed Brunei Darussalam as a new co -sponsor of  the 
proposal. China referred to its previous statements on this urgent matter, and called upon more 
Members to join the proposal . China reiterated its firm commitment to an independent, impartial 
two-tier dispute settlement system, which not only facilitated prompt and fair resolution of disputes 
between Members, but also provided security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. 
To fulfil such objectives, China believed that the most urgent task was to immediately launch the 
selection processes and fill the vacancies for the Appellate Body. This was a treaty obligation of all 
WTO Members. No prerequisite should be attached to it. Like others, China would continue its 
constructive engagement with all Members in the ongoing discussion s on dispute settlement reform 
with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 , as mandated 
by Ministers at MC12. China called upon all Members to engage in that exercise in good faith and 
with pragmatic, outcome -oriented spirits. Before concluding, China also wished to take this 
opportunity to encourage more Members t o join the MPIA as a contingent measure to safeguard 
Members' right to appeal until the Appellate Body was restored. China stood ready to discuss with , 
and provide further information to, any interested Members.  WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 22 - 
 
 
   
 5.28.  The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam wished  to echo other Members in thanking 
Guatemala and almost 130 co -sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the 
appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. At the present  meeting , Viet Nam warmly 
welcome d Brunei Darussalam,  an ASEAN member , to become a new co -sponsor of the Appellate  
Body proposal. Viet Nam reiterat ed its support for launching the appointment process es as soon as 
possible and hope d more Members would  join this proposal. Regarding the informal discussions on 
dispute settlement reform, Viet Nam was ready to engage constructively in the process to reinforce 
the building of an effective , fully functioning dispute settlement system.  
5.29.  The representative of th e Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished  to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Guatemala and the co-sponsors for 
their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body 
members. Russia wished  to warmly welcome Brunei Darussalam as a new co -sponsor. Russia 
reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. In th at regard, 
Russia welcome d the attempts to start the informal discussions on dispu te settlement issues and 
was ready to engage constructively with any delegation that intend ed to reinforce the building of 
the effective fully functioning dispute settlement system rather than demolish it. At the same time, 
the present discussions ha d not been formali zed and therefore , being an informal process with a  
limited number of participants , was not in a position to produce consensus -based result s. The 
Russian Federation had consistently support ed the idea to start discussions on  dispute settlement 
reform in a formal mode, as agreed by WTO Members at MC12. Th at wa s the only process that could 
bring Members  to a meaningful result supported by every Member. Such a formal process could 
serve as a guarantee of transparency and inclusi vity. Hence, Russia call ed upon all Members to 
launch such a process , as agreed at MC12 , in order to urgently restore  a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system. It was also necessary  to address certain political declarations made by some 
WTO Members under this Agenda item . First, Members should keep to the Agenda of the present 
meeting, circulated in document WT/DSB/W/71 7 and adopted  at the present meeting. The political 
discussions suggested by some WTO Members did not concern any of the issues listed in the Agenda. 
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 orga nization and Members shall refrain from trying to 
address issues in the DSB that were not in the competence of the organization. Russia considered 
that some of the root causes of the crisis of the multilateral trading system that Members were  
facing were t he actions that blocked the Appellate Body appointments as well as the attempts to 
politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the present meeting. Russia encouraged WTO 
Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and not create new ones, unless any 
WTO Member had an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral trading system further.  
5.30.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union reiterated its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violated the UN Charter and disregarded the rules -based international order. That war undermined 
internation al security and stability and had no place in the  21st century. The European Union's 
support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of self -defence was 
unwavering. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to sto p its acts of aggression and 
withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia had to cease actions endangering civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other cr imes committed against Ukraine and its people. On the 
proposal for appointment of Appellate Body members,  the European Union referred to its previous 
statements made on this matter  and thanked all Members who had co -sponsored the proposal to 
launch the app ointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guaranteed access 
to a binding, two -tier, independent, and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully functioning 
WTO dispute settlement system was crucial. That was evidenced by the large number of Members 
co-sponsoring the present proposal. The European Union believed that restoring a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system and appointing members of the Appellate Body was a key priority. That 
task was a shared responsibility of WTO Mem bers. In order to achieve that objective, the European 
Union agreed that a meaningful reform was needed. The European Union supported a reform that 
preserved the core features of the dispute settlement system. The European Union treated very 
seriously the commitment, made at MC12, to conduct discussions with a view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement accessible to all Members by 2024. It was with that objective in 
mind, and in a constructive spirit, that the European Union had been eng aging in the discussions on 
dispute settlement reform for almost a year . The European Union welcomed the recent change of WT/DSB/M/47 8 
 
- 23 - 
 
 
  
 gear in those discussions, which now related to specific reform topics. The European Union was keen 
to see DS discussions continue in a focused and result s-oriented manner, with a view to having a 
well and fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. Members had an ambitious schedule 
in place, but they had to be ambitious if they were to deliver on the MC12 commitment. Indeed, 
those discussions had to pave the way for agreement on dispute settlement reform at MC13. In the 
meantime, the European Union was concerned with the impact that the absence of a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system was having on the international trad ing order. In that context, the MPIA 
had been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system among its participants and to support rules -based trade. The MPIA was open to any WTO 
Member and the European Uni on invited any WTO Member to join the MPIA as long as a solution to 
this impasse had not been found.  
5.31.  The representative of Guatemala , speaking on behalf of the 128 co -sponsors, regretted that 
for the sixty -fifth occasion, Members had not been able to launc h the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body. Thus, Members  continued to fail fulfilling their duties as WTO 
Members . He noted that Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated  that: "vacancies shall be filled as they 
arise". He said that o ngoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should 
not prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with 
their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies as they arose. The co -sponsors note d with deep 
concern that by failing to launch the selection processes at th e present  meeting, the Appellate Body 
would continue to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members.  
5.32.  The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements. He said that, a s in the past, the 
DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected 
in the minutes of  the present  meeting. Once again, the Chair  took the opportunity t o 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.  At this point, he also wish ed to note 
that informal discussions on this matter, at  the technical level, were ongoing and at the previous  
DSB meeting in March the representative of Guatemala, Mr Marco Tulio Molina, speaking in his 
personal capacity and under his own responsibility, had provided a report on this matter for 
transparency pu rposes. Th at was also an opportunity for many delegations to express their views 
on this matter for the record. The Chair man encourage d all delegations to work together with Mr 
Molina  on these important issues . He thank ed Mr Molina  for his tremendous effor ts in this regard.  
Finally, he recall ed that the issue of dispute settlement  reform was also raised at the previous  TNC 
meeting, held on 19  April 2023, in the context of the preparations for MC13. He said that he  hoped 
that collectively Members w ould be able to find a solution to this matter. He then propose d that the 
DSB take note of the statements made under this Agenda item.  
5.33.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________