RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/82
26 June 2000
(00-2605)
Dispute Settlement Body
25 May 2000
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 25 May 2000
Chairman:  Mr Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Appointment of an Appellate Body member......................................................................1
2. Progress report on informal consultations on the question of harmonization of the
terms of office of Appellate Body members and selection processes for future
appointments to the Appellate Body ...................................................................................4
1. Appointment of an Appellate Body member
1. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting on 7 April 2000, the DSB had authorized the
previous Selection Committee composed of the 1999 Chairs of the General Council, the DSB and the
Councils for Trade in Goods, Services and TRIPS as well as the Director-General, to continue its
work in relation to the selection of an additiona l candidate to fill the vacancy left by the late
Mr. Christopher Beeby.  At that meeting it had also been agreed that the deadline for submission of
candidates would be 5 May 2000.  Two candidates had been nominated by the time of the deadline.The Selection Committee had conducted thorough interviews with both candidates and had made
itself available, once more, to hear the views of Members.  He drew attention to a fax from the
Council Division, dated 19 May 2000, which had conveyed the Selection Committee's
recommendations on the appointment to replace the late Mr. Beeby.  The text of the fax read as
follows:
"The Chairman of the Selection Committee established by the DSB,
Ambassador Kåre Bryn, wishes to notify Members of the following conclusion which has
been reached by the Committee:
"The Selection Committee was established by the DSB with a view to making
recommendation on an appointment to replace the late Mr. Beeby.  The Selection Committee
conducted thorough interviews with the two candidates nominated, and made itself available
to hear the views of Members.  Throughout the process, the Committee had constantly in their
minds the guidelines, rules and procedures in the DSU and WT/DSB/1 governing the
selection and appointment of Appellate Body members.  The Committee also had regard to
the (then) Chairman of the DSB's statement in November 1995 to the effect that composition
of the Appellate Body could vary over time, that no rights should be derived from the initial
composition, and that initial appointments did not compromise the scope for different regional
or national compositions in future (WT/DSB/M/9).  The Committee has now reached a firm
recommendation that the following person be appointed:WT/DSB/M/82
Page 2
Professor Yasuhei Taniguchi
"The Committee is of the view that this outstanding individual is highly qualified for
appointment to the Appellate Body.  In the light of the foregoing, the Chairman of the DSB
proposes that, at a special meeting on 25 May 2000, the DSB decide to appointProfessor Taniguchi as a member of the Appellate Body for the remainder of the late
Mr. Beeby's term: i.e. up to and including 10 December 2003."
2. The Chairman proposed that first the DSB take a decision on the above-mentioned
recommendation and then delegations would be in vited to make comments.  Accordingly, he
proposed that, as recommended by the Selection Committee, the DSB decide to appoint
Professor Taniguchi as a member of the Appellate Body for the remainder of the late Mr. Beeby'sterm, that was up to and including 10 December 2003.
3. The DSB so agreed.
4. The representative of Japan expressed his country's gratitude to Members for accepting the
recommendation by the Selection Committee to appoint Professor Taniguchi as a member of the
Appellate Body to replace the late Mr. Beeby.  He thanked the Selection Committee for, once again,conducting its task in a fair and efficient manner.  Although only two candidates had been nominated
both of them were highly qualified and competent.  It had, therefore, been difficult for the Selection
Committee to make its decision.  Japan was glad that its candidate had been selected as an Appellate
Body member.  At the same time Members woul d continue to benefit from the insight and
cooperation of Dr. D. Georgiev (Bulgaria) who had made a valuable contribution to the evolution of
the dispute settlement mechanism over the past few years.  He thanked those Members who had
supported the candidacy of Professor Taniguchi.  He believed that the best way for
Professor Taniguchi to show his sense of appreciation for the support received from Members was to
discharge his duties with the maximum fairness, sincerity and passion.  He was confident that
Professor Taniguchi would live up to the trust placed in him and would make a valuable contributionto the dispute settlement system.
5. The representative of Australia said that his country welcomed the appointment of
Professor Taniguchi as a member of the Appellate Body and congratulated the Selection Committee
for, once again, conducting a very fair and efficient selection process.  He noted that Australia had
supported the candidate on the principles of merit and broad representation of the WTO as enshrined
in Article 17.3 of the DSU. His country did not wish the Appellate Body membership to become part
of a rigid arrangement based on national or regional seats.
6. The representative of the United States said that her delegation welcomed the choice made by
the Selection Committee.  A considerable amount of time had been devoted by the Selection
Committee in order to select a candidate.  Her delegation congratulated the new member of the
Appellate Body who would have to face many challenges and welcomed his tenure.  The
United States thanked Bulgaria for putting forward its candidate.  Since there had been two excellentcandidates it had been difficult for the Selection Committee to make a choice.  Her delegation
welcomed the new member of the Appellate Body who had an excellent reputation and was well
regarded in the area of international law.
7. The representative of Bulgaria said that his country congratulated Japan on the appointment
of Professor Taniguchi as a member of the Appellate Body, as well as Professor Georges M. Abi-Saab
(Egypt) and Mr. Arumugamangalam V. Ganesan (Indi a).  He believed that they would make a
valuable contribution to the work of the Appellate Body.  He expressed gratitude to those delegations
who had supported Bulgaria's candidate in the course of the present and the previous selection
process.  He wished to make a few general observations on the process of selection of Appellate BodyWT/DSB/M/82
Page 3
members.  Article 17.3 of the DSU required that: "Appellate Body membership shall be broadly
representative of membership in the WTO". In Bulgaria's view since economies in transition were
recognized by the WTO Agreement as a separate category of countries, it was highly appropriate to
include members from those countries in the Appellate Body.  In order to ensure greater consistency
with the requirement for broad representation of the WTO membership it would also be preferable toprovide for rotation and to appoint members to the Appellate Body from countries other than those of
outgoing members.  Small countries like Bulgaria were not the main users of the dispute settlement
mechanism.  Nevertheless, they had a strong interest in the system as the principal guarantee for the
rules-based multilateral trading system.  It was of vital importance for small and trade dependent
economies that world trade be based on rules. At the same time, because small countries were not the
main users of the dispute settlement system, members from such countries could make a useful
contribution in terms of ensuring impartiality in the work of the Appellate Body.
8. With respect to the professional criteria for Appellate Body members, the DSU provided that
the "Appellate Body shall comprise persons of recognized authority and demonstrated expertise in
law, international trade and the covered agreements generally".  Unlike the appointment of other
office holders, for which no special requirements for the candidates were foreseen in the WTO
Agreement, with regard to the selection process for Appellate Body members, the DSU establishedcertain legally binding criteria, both representational and professional.  In order to maintain the
credibility of the multilateral trading system and th e confidence in the WTO, it was essential that the
rules relating to the composition and functioning of the WTO, which was entrusted with guaranteeing
the rules-based character of the system, be taken seriously.  The Appellate Body members should
fulfil all personal criteria, enumerated in Article 17.3 of the DSU, which required expertise not only inlaw, but also in international trade and the covere d agreements.  And, not or, as every Appellate Body
member, in each appeal, had the responsibility for the entire report signed by him and not only for
some aspects thereof.
9. In terms of improving the procedure, the selection process should first address the
requirements of Article 17.3 of the DSU and only then consider the level of support for thecandidates, expressed by Members.  This seemed appropriate since there might be delegations, which
would prefer to hear the recommendation of the Se lection Committee based on the qualities of the
candidates and the representational requirements, before making up their minds whom to support.
Should the Selection Committee not base its recommendation on the criteria of Article 17.3 alone, the
position of such countries would not be taken into account on an equal basis.  From the point of view
of the requirements of the DSU, the recent selectio ns of Appellate Body members were discouraging.
The WTO had had a good opportunity to demonstrate that it operated on the basis of rules and that itwas an Organization for all participants in international trade including small countries and countries
in transition.  Regrettably, this opportunity had not been used. It remained to be hoped that such
opportunities would not be missed in the future.  The successful development of the multilateral
trading system depended on the responsible choices to be made in the WTO.
10. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegations was pleased that
the Selection Committee had taken a quick and effective decision.  The EC welcomed the
appointment of Professor. Taniguchi who had the required qualities and thanked Bulgaria for
submitting its candidate. It was important to have a choice.  He noted the statement made by Bulgaria
regarding the procedures.  However, the EC considered that the selection procedures were correct and
that the requirements of Article 17.3 of the DSU had been followed.  The concept of broadrepresentation did not mean that each and every geographical group could be represented.  That was
not possible and it had to be interpreted in some broader way.  He considered that the current process
should serve as a model of how to arrive at decisions quickly, effectively and speedily for other
selection procedures such as the selection of a future Director-General.WT/DSB/M/82
Page 4
11. The Chairman said that there had been a general feeling that the Selection Committee had had
before it two highly qualified candidates and expressed appreciation to both of them as well as to their
sponsoring Governments. He congratulated Professor Taniguchi on his appointment as a member of
the Appellate Body.
12. The DSB took note of the statements.
2. Progress report on informal consultations on the question of harmonization of the terms
of office of Appellate Body members and selection processes for future appointments to
the Appellate Body
13. The Chairman said that he wished to make a short report on one matter to do with the
Appellate Body arising from consideration of the appointments of Messrs. Abi-Saab and Ganesan at
7 April DSB meeting.  He recalled that, as reflected in the minutes of that meeting, he had been
requested by a number of delegations to hold informal consultations on the harmonization of the terms
of office of Appellate Body members and selection processes for future appointments to the Appellate
Body.  Informal consultations had got underway and, on 17 May 2000, an open-ended informalmeeting had been held.  While those consultations had not been conclusive, they had revealed a high
degree of support for a "two group" approach to cons idering future appointments to Appellate Body.
In other words, to consider the appointments in one group of three members and in one group of four
members.  It had also been noted that the group of three should the next to be addressed.  The
appointments of the three members concerned were due to expire co-terminously in December 2001.A range of options to consider the group of four at a later stage had been canvassed.  Members wished
to reflect further on this matter and more informal consultations would be held in due course.
14. The DSB took note of the statement.
__________