RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 64 
2 June 2022 
(22-4205) Page: 1/13 
Dispute Settlement Body  
27 April 2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 27 APRIL 20221 
Chair person : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present meeting both in -person and remotely . She said that she wish ed to take  the opportunity 
to welcome to the meeting , in person,  Assistant Minister of Trade and Industry  Ms Beauty Morukana 
Manake of Botswana , and Deputy  United States Trade Representative  Ms María Pag án, the new 
US Ambassador  to the WTO; (ii) the Chairperson  recall ed a few technical instructions regarding th e 
virtual meeting. She said that i f a Member was  unable to take the floor during the me eting because 
of a technical issue, the delegation could inform the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain 
open until the delegation could take the floor. In the alternative, the item would remain open 
temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the n ext Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the 
open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a technical issue remained unresolved, the 
delegation had the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with the 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 (iii) the Chairperson  made a short statement 
regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeti ng pertaining to the DS574 
dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, that matter had been removed from the proposed 
Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each interested party regarding that Agenda 
item. At the present meeting, she wished to inform delegations that , like the previous Chair, she 
continued to consult with each interested party on this matter and  said that  these  consultations were 
ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda.  
 
Table of Contents  
 
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ .........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..............  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/4 64 
- 2 - 
  2 PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
3 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; 
CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; 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; 
SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; S OUTH AFRICA; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; 
UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA; AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/ W/609/REV.21)  ...............  6 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE 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 26) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.201) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.164) 
 
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.48) 
 
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.40) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.35 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.35) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were  six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members  recalled, 
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 pe riod of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chair invited delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts. She also reminded delegations that, as 
provided for in R ule 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 ch ange in Members' 
positions already on record."  WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 3 - 
  A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 26) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 26, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from  Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 April 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings wit h respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with  respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting. Japan, once again, called on th e 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 agree d 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. 201) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 201, 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 t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 April 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administratio n 
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 thanked the United 
States for its status report and its statement  at the present meeting . The European Union referred 
to its previous statements and wished to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 64) 
1.10.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 164, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Aut hority 's (EFSA)  risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe.  To update the 
Membership concerning the progress of the applications through  the authorisation process, the 
European Union noted the following . First, the Commission ha d authorised on 31 March  2022 three 
genetically modified crops (1 soybean, 1 oilseed rape and 1 cotton)2 and renewed the authorisation 
for one genetically modified cotton crop  used for food and animal feed. All of these genetically 
modified organisms  had gone through a comprehen sive and stringent authorisation procedure, 
including a favourable scientific assessment by EFSA. Second, on 1 April 2022, the Commission  
had presented to the Standing Committee a draft decision authorising genetically modified 
 
2 GM soybean GMB151, GM oilseed rape 73496 and GM cotton GHB811.  WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 4 - 
  maize  NK603 x T25 x DAS -40278-9. The vote resulted in "no opinion " and the draft measure had 
been referred to the Appeal Committee of 26 April 2022.  Finally, the written procedure on the draft 
decision authorising a genetically modified soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788 (which was presented 
at the online Appeal Committee meeting of 5 April 2022) resulted in "no opinion ". It was 
subsequently  for the Commiss ion to decide on the adoption of this implementing decision.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States continued to engage with the 
European Uni on in good faith on these issues and had provided recommendations on several 
occasions as to how the European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. 
The United States had described these problems in detail, at nearly every monthly  meeting of the 
DSB since the European Union began submitting reports on the status of its implementation. As the 
United States had noted on multiple occasions, its concerns related to delays at every stage of the 
approval process resulting from the action s or inactions of the European Union and its member 
States at the Standing Committee or Appeals Committee. The United States again requested that 
the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that had completed science -based 
risk assess ments at European Food Safety Authority, including those products that were with the 
Standing Committee and Appeals Committee .  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 48) 
1.14.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 48, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progr ess in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 April 2022,  in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation  of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States had 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute . 
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thanked the  United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting. Korea again urged the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such" measures at issue 
in this dispute.  
1.17.   The repre sentative of Canada  said that m ore than four years ha d passed since the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB recommendations arising from the 
Appellate Body report in "US – Washing Machines ", according to which the "differential pricing 
methodology " (DPM) was inconsistent "as such " with the WTO Agreements. Despite this, the United 
States continue d to apply the DPM "as such " in investigations with respect to foreign companies and 
continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the basis of this non -compliant 
methodology. Canada was deeply concerned about this violation  and invite d the United States to 
put an end to it as soon as possible.  
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 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. 40) 
1.19.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 40, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 April 2022 , 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 wished to thank the United States for its status 
report and its stateme nt made at the present meeting . China was  disappointed that the United 
States had failed to implement the adopted rulings and recommendations after more than three 
years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time. China  urged the United States to take prompt 
action to honour its obligation to bring its measures into conformity.  
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 produc ts, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 35 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 35) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 35 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 35, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the impl ementation 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 submit ted its status  report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Indonesia wished  to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  On measure 18, as reported in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found inconsistent 
with WTO rules following  the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation.  With respect to 
measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished  to reassure the parties that significant adjustments, to comply 
with the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB, ha d been carried out through amendments of the 
relevant M inistry of Agriculture and M inistry of Trade Regulations. Those adjustments also include d 
the removal of disputed measures, inter alia , harvest period restriction, impor t realization 
requirements, six –months harvest requirement, and reference price.  Indonesia was commit ted to 
engaging with New Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB  in these disputes . 
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
As stated at the previous DSB meeting, the U nited States understood that Indonesia's Constitutional 
Court had ordered the government to revise the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020). The 
United States would appreciate further confirmation of how that ruling affected Indonesia's 
implementation  of the DSB recommendation concerning measure 18. With respect to 
measures  1-17, the United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently 
comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect 
those regimes. In particular, the United States understood that Indonesia had issued Presidential 
Regulation No. 32/2022 on Commodity Balances. The United States would welcome an explanation 
of how this regulation affected Indonesia's import l icensing regimes, as applied to beef and to 
horticultural products. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve 
this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and  acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings.  Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired and a number of measures  remain ed 
non-compliant.  New Zealand referred to questions posed at previous DSB meeti ngs and invited WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 6 - 
  Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible. This included information related to the 
impact of recently issued import regulations on the implementation of Indonesia's new commodity 
balance mechanism, as well as the impact of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the Law on Job 
Creation  (No. 11/2020 ). New Zealand looked forward to receiving further details from Indonesia as 
soon as possible.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at it s next regular 
meeting . 
2  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND NON -
GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/696)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/696 , which contained two new 
nominations proposed by the Kingdom of Saud i Arabia for inclusion on the Indicative List of 
Governmental and Non -Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. She 
proposed that the DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/696.  
2.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; 
CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA 
RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; 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 ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; 
SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENG HU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; 
TURKEY ; UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA;  AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 21) 
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of t he present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 February  2022, contained in th e mentioned  document,  to launch 
the selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 
123 Members, Mexico wished to state the following. The extensive number of Members submitting 
the joint proposal reflected a common concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that 
was seriously affecting the overall dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its 
Members. WTO Members had a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the 
dispute settlement system, and the multil ateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, 
without further delay, with the launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, 
as submitted to the DSB at the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selectio n 
processes (one process to replace Mr . Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired 
on 30 June 2017; a second process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr . Hyun 
Chong Kim with effect from 1  August  2017; a third process to r eplace Mr . Peter Van den Bossche, 
whose second term had expired on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr . Shree Baboo 
Chekitan Servansing, whose four -year term of office had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth 
process to replace Mr . Ujal Singh  Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a  
sixth process to replace Mr . Thomas Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; 
and a seventh selection process to replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had 
expired on 30  November  2020); (ii)  to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 7 - 
  30 days for the submission of candid ates; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nomina tions of candidates. The proponents 
were flexible in the determination of the deadlines, but Members should consider the urgency of the 
situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the interest of 
the dispute settleme nt and multilateral trading systems . 
3.3.  The representative of the United States  said that this was her first DSB  meeting since arriving 
in Geneva, and she was pleased to participate therein. The United States valued the work of Members 
in the DSB, and she looked forward to supporting the Chair in this important body. Members were 
aware of the long -standing US concer ns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained 
unaddressed, and the United States did not support the proposed decision. But, to be clear, the 
United States supported WTO dispute settlement reform. The representative of the United States  
said that , like Ambassador Tai, she had personally participated in various dispute settlement 
proceedings, and she could appreciate the benefits of a system that effectively met the needs of 
Members. WTO dispute settlement currently failed in this regard – for many  years it had not met 
the needs of Members, including the United States, for example, due to its complexity, delays, lack 
of transparency, and interpretive overreach. The United States knew well that many Members shared 
US concerns with the functioning of the system and its negative impact on the WTO's negotiating 
and monitoring functions. This fact underscored the importance of understanding better the interests 
of all Members, and not just "what does the United States want". A true reform discussion shoul d 
aim to ensure that WTO dispute settlement reflected the real interests of Members, and did not 
prejudge what a reformed system would look like. The representative of the United States  said that 
her delegation had been, and would continue to be, hard at w ork meeting with Members to better 
understand the interests of all Members. That important first step provided Members with the 
greatest chance of achieving durable, lasting reform. That was the goal of the United States and the 
United States was prepared for continued and deepened engagement with Members on that basis .  
3.4.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine wished to reiterat e the importance of the WTO 's 
two-tier dispute settlement system for the stability and predictability of the multilateral trading 
system. Ukraine considered that i t was of paramount importance to launch a process of selection of 
the Appellate Body members in order to preserve the WTO dispute settlement system and Ukraine 
was ready to further take part in substantive discussions on th at issue, which c ould terminate  the 
current crisis and would enable to find a solution to this matter. But while countries were currently  
working together to support  the multilateral trading system and maintain the WTO's system of 
peaceful settlement of disputes , the Russian Federation , in its turn, had commit ted a blatant act of 
aggression against Ukraine through its brutal and unprovoked military invasion. Ukraine was 
convinced that the military aggression of one WTO Member towards another WTO Member put the 
multilateral trading system in an unprecedented situation.  Russia 's actions d id not fall under the 
fundamental principles of the organization, and Members should not  ignore the present 
circumstances, in which  Ukraine had been forcefully  deprived of its right to fully participate in dispute 
settlement proce edings , because of the Russian war against Ukraine.  Ukraine was  very grateful to 
all Members that stood with Ukrai ne in these terrifying times , in response to Russia's blatant violation 
of the fundamental principles of international peace, security and the breach of international law.  
3.5.  The representative of Australia  thanked  Ukraine for its statement. Australia continue d to 
condemn in the strongest terms Russia 's unprovoked, unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine. 
Russia 's actions were a gross violation of international law, including the Charter of the UN, and 
were inco nsistent with the global rules and norms that underpin ned multilateral organisations such 
as the WTO. Australia  continue d to call on Russia to cease all hostilities.  In relation to  Agenda item  3, 
Australia underscore d the importance and urgency of resolvin g the challenges facing the dispute 
settlement system, including its ability to deliver binding resolution of disputes.  Australia  strongly 
welcome d recent steps to begin a substantive discussion on dispute settlement reform, to allow 
Members  to have a full y and well -functioning dispute settlement system by MC13.  Australia  
encourage d all Members to harness th at momentum, and to work actively and constructively to 
achieve th at shared objective.  The credibility and effectiveness of the multilateral trading sys tem 
relied on it. 
3.6.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustifiable and 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine ordered by President Putin. Th ose attacks were having a 
considerable humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of innocent people. 
This was not only about an attack on Ukraine. It was about an attack on international law, including 
the Charter of the United Nations, as well as o n democracy, freedom and human rights. In terms of WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 8 - 
  dispute settlement, th ose attacks prevent ed Ukraine from participating in disputes in the way that 
it should be able to do  so. With regard to the appointment of Appellate Body members , for over two 
years , the Appellate Body ha d no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. 
Canada support ed Mexico's statement and share d the concerns expressed by other Members  at the 
present meeting . Canada  invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet co-sponsored t he proposal to 
consider joining the 123 Members requesting the launch of the selection process es. The critical mass 
of WTO Members that support ed the initiative was a clear testimony to the importance that they all 
accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate  Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. 
The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals was of great concern. Canada reiterate d 
its interest in contributing to discussions focused on finding solutions regarding the functioni ng of 
the Appellate Body. Canada's  priority remain ed finding a multilateral and lasting solution for all 
Members, including the United States. Meanwhile, Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d approved 
the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) as an emergency measure. The 
purpose of this measure was to safeguard Members'  rights to a binding settlement of disputes that 
include d the possibility to appeal in disputes between them. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. 
Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement 
rights to the greatest extent possible until Members  collectively f ound a permanent solution to the 
Appellate Body impasse. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
3.7.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t his Agenda item concern ed a shared 
priority to restore a fully  functioning and improved dispute settlement system as a key tenet of the 
rules-based international trading system. As the United Kingdom  had noted at previous DSB 
meetings, when speaking of the rules -based international order, one could not ignore the Russian 
Federation 's invasion of Ukraine, which violate d international law and the UN Charter. The use of 
force by one country  against another was a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d 
committed to uphold. As Ukraine had set out, Russia 's actions were causing widespread and horrific 
suffering. They were also preventing Ukraine from fully exercising its rights und er the DSU. While 
Russia continue d to violate international law, human rights , and multiple commitments to peace and 
security, the United Kingdom  would work with its allies and partners across the multilateral system 
to condemn Russia 's appalling actions and to isolate it on the international stage. The values of 
respect for international law and international institutions also underpin ned this proposal. The United 
Kingdom continue d to support the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body  and 
wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter.  Members had to maintain the 
momentum they had  started to  build, and the United Kingdom looked forward to proceeding with 
sustained and substantive discussions. A fully functioning dispute settlement system benefit ted all 
Members by  ensuring that the rules that they had  negotiated were enforceable. The United Kingdom 
stood ready to work with the Membe rship and play its part to achieve a successful outcome.  
3.8.  The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the WTO 
Members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) , commend ed the Chair for her 
expert leadership of th e present meeting  and thanked Mexico as well as the co -sponsors for the AB 
proposal . The OECS ha d consistently called for the urgent reconstitution of the full y and 
well-functioning  WTO dispute settlement system , which  require d a working Ap pellate Body. 
The OECS  therefore support ed the AB proposal for the DSB to launch the selection processes to fill 
the seven vacancies on the Appellate Body. The OECS  further support ed the proposal to establish a 
Selection Committee as per the procedures set  out in document WT/DSB/1. The OECS was  
supportive of the recommendation to set a 30 -day period for Members to submit nominations of 
candidates. Furthermore, the OECS j oined the call for the Selection Committee to carry out its work 
within 60 days after th e deadline for nominations  of candidates . The dispute settlement function had 
once been heralded as the jewel in the crown of the WTO and it had worked formidably well for 
many years, having proven its effectiveness on many occasions. It was true that some Members had 
frustrations concerning the functioning of the Appellate Body.  The OECS was  not there to 
delegitimize those frustrations. However, t he Appellate Body and the entire DSB should not be held 
to ransom due  to those frustrations. The OECS call ed on all WTO Members to agree to the 
reconstitution of the Appellate Body in compliance with their obligations under the DSU.  
3.9.  The representative of Norway  said that t he work of the DSB concern ed directly the upholding 
of the rules -based international order. Therefore, a s several speakers before him, he found it 
pertinent to use this opportunity to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway continue d to condemn 
Russia 's egregious attack on its neighbour Ukraine. Norway was  appalled by Russia' s continued 
aggression, which was  causing extensive human suffering, civilian casualties, enormous damage,  
and a possible global food crisis, which particularly impact ed developing countries. On 2 March  2022, WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 9 - 
  the UN General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, deplored in the strongest terms the 
aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine,  in violat ion of the UN Charter , and demanded 
that the Russian Federation cease its use of force and withdraw all of its military forces from the 
territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. Th ose demands were later echoed 
by the International  Court of Justice in its ruling of 16 March 2022 on interim measures. Norway 
reiterated its  unwavering support for Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its 
internationally recogni zed borders. With regard  to Agenda item 3, Norway said that  it fully support ed 
the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 123 Members, to launch the process es 
for appointments to the Appellate Body. Norway  wished to refer to its previous  statements made on 
this matter.  Norway continue d to stand ready to engage in urgently needed discussions to address 
the current impasse  and was encouraged by the statement  made  by the US Ambassador  at the 
present meeting.  
3.10.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand wished  to thank Ukraine f or its 
statement. New Zealand join ed other Members in condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and 
unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose actions were a grave breach of international rules  – 
the use of force to change borders was strictly prohibit ed under international law, as was the 
targeting of civilians. Russia 's invasion ha d implications for global peace, security, and economic 
stability – deeply undermining the work of this Body and the multilateral cooperation underpinning 
it. In relation to  Agenda item 3, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the co -sponsored proposal 
and wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter.  New Zealand continue d to urge 
all Members to constructively engage on the issues with a view to addressing this situation as a 
priority, in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system. New Zealand  joined others 
in welcoming the progress made at the end of 2021 towards setting clear parameters and 
time-frames for advancing this important work. New Zealand was ready to continue th at momentum 
and get to work.  
3.11.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland welcome d Ukraine's commitment to 
a fully functional dispute settlement system, which, under t he circumstances,  was a clear sign of its 
commitment to international law. Switzerland condemn ed Russia's military aggression against 
Ukraine in the strongest terms. Such aggression blatantly violate d international law, most notably 
the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland 
called on Russia to honour its international obligations, reconsider its actions, withdraw its troops 
and help de -escalate the situation. Switzerland call ed on all actors to  respect international law, in 
particular international humanitarian law. Regarding the Agenda item 3, Switzerland wished  to refer 
to its statements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional dispute 
settlement system was in everyone' s best interest, and it was vital that constructive discussions 
take place without delay, so as to find concrete solutions to resolve the impasse in which Members 
had remained  for far too long.  Switzerland s tood ready to take steps to achieve th at objectiv e and 
called on all other Members to do the same.  
3.12.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that t he African 
Group wished  to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter  at previous DSB meetings. 
The African Group commend ed Mexico for its statement on this urgent matter. The fact that the 
Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The African Group urg ed the DSB 
to urgently meet its obligation under the DSU , which was to fill vac ancies as they ar ose so as to 
maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system . This w ould ensure predictability within the 
multilateral trading system . Finally, the African Group  stood ready  to engage constructively in future 
discussions so as to address t he specific concerns raised against the functioning of the Appellate 
Body with a view to finding a solution. However, th ose discussions should not delay the launch of 
the selection process to fill vacancies of the Appellate Body members. The African Group , therefore , 
urged all Members who were yet to co -sponsor th e proposal to do so as soon as possible.  
3.13.   The representative of Iceland  said that Iceland wished to join others in condemning in the 
strongest possible terms the brutal, unjustified , and unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation 
on Ukraine. By doing so, Russia had violate d international law, and undermine d the international 
order that was based on multilateralism and the rule of law , which this very Organization was based 
on. Icelan d condemn ed in the strongest possible way this unacceptable behaviour. Iceland reiterate d 
its unwavering support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine within 
its international ly recognized borders. Iceland's  thoughts were with the people that now suffer ed 
because of th at aggression , which Russia had to  end immediately. With regard to  item 3 of the 
Agenda  of the present meeting , Iceland, as one of the main co -sponsors of this proposal, was WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 10 - 
  concerned over the long -standing lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body. 
Iceland view ed a two -step, independent and impartial WTO dispute settlement system as a key 
feature providing predictability and security and a fair playing field for all participants of the 
multilateral trading system. Iceland,  therefore , called on all Members to engage constructively to 
solve this impasse without further delay.  
3.14.   The representative  of the United States  said that the United States joined others in 
condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The United States and other Members had jointly 
issued WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukrain e 
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 unimagina bly difficult time. The United States paid 
tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, and its armed forces and Leaders . 
3.15.   The representative of Botswana  thank ed the Chairperson  for the warm welcome  to the present 
meeting  and said that Botswana  was conce rned about the prevailing crisis and the functioning of the 
dispute settlement system,  in particular the Appellate Body , which ha d not been functional for some 
time. As Members all kn ew, a fully functional  dispute settlement  system  would ensure stability of 
the global economy hence making trade relations more secure and predictable , thus maintaining the 
multilateral system. Botswana  called upon the Membership through the DSB to expedite the 
establishment  of a fully functional dispute settlement system. Botswana reiterat ed its  commitment 
to the rules -based multilateral trading system. As a developing country, th is platform was crucial as 
it offer ed Botswana  an opportunity to participate in matters that affect ed it. It was therefore 
opportune for al l Members  to reaffirm the principles and objectives set out in the Marrakech 
Agreement , which established the WTO, in particular Article III relating to the functions of th is 
Organization.  
3.16.   The representative of Chinese  Taipei  thanked  Ukraine for  its statem ent. Chinese Taipei  
condemn ed the Russian Federation's military attack in Ukraine, which had  jeopardized regional and 
global peace and stability and caused devastating losses of lives of civilians including children. This 
was absolutely not acceptable from any perspective and was a clear violation of human rights and 
an obvious breach of rules -based international law. Chinese Taipei  called on the Russian Federation 
to end its acts of aggression immediately. Chinese Taipei  stood firmly by Ukraine and its people. As 
for Agenda item 3  regarding  the Appellate Body appointments, Chinese Taipei  consider ed it critical 
that Members  started and continue d substantive discussions on the reforms required for a fully and 
well-functioning multilateral dispute settlement system. Chinese Taipei looked forward to working 
with all Members constructively to achieve t hat shared objective.  
3.17.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wished  to thank Mexico for presenting the 
proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors and the statement made at the present meeting. Malaysia 
referred to its statements made  at previous DSB meetings. Malaysia wished  to reiterate its strong 
support for a fair, open, and non -discriminatory rules -based multilateral trading system. Malaysia 
believed that i t had to be ensured that t he two -tier dispute settlement system remain ed the central 
pillar of th is institution.  It was WTO Members'  responsibility to preserve the system and maintain 
the credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading system. Malaysia  looked forward to having 
constructive discussions to find tangible solutions to the impasse with a view to restor ing the fully 
functioning dispute settlement system.  
3.18.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to join the previous speakers  in 
thanking Mexico for its  statement . Thailand supported Mexico's stat ement made at the present 
meeting and wished  to refer to its statements made on this urgent matter at previous DSB meetings.  
Thailand underlined  the importance of t he two -tier, binding dispute settlement system  as a central 
element in ensuring security and predictability within the multilateral trading system.  Therefore, 
Thailand stood ready and , once again , renew ed its call on all Members to engage in constructive 
discussions with a view to resolving the impass e and restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system as soon as possible.  
3.19.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to thank Mexico for the presentation of  
the AB proposal on behalf of the co-sponsors . Brazil wished to refer to its previous statement s made 
on this matter. Brazil  stood ready, as it ha d always been, to engage with all Members in order to 
find a lasting solution to th e AB impasse.   WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 11 - 
  3.20.   The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of 123 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join th e AB proposal. China  wished to 
refer to its previous statements made on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to 
an independent and impartial two -tier dispute se ttlement system.  The paralysis of the Appellate 
Body ha d posed serious challenges to the multilateral trading system, and more and more cases ha d 
been appealed into the void. This severe and unsustainable situation not only deprive d Members  of 
their right to defend their interests, but also jeopardize d the security and predictability of this 
rules-based organization. China  welcome d the positive momentum emerg ing from recent activities  
and call ed upon all Members to engage constructively in  solution -based consultation s with a view to 
breaking the selection impasse and restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system at the 
earliest date, which China  believe d was in the interest of the entire Membership. China  looked 
forward to substant ive discussions in the coming days and st ood ready to provide its inputs in th at 
process.  
3.21.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished  to join others in condemn ing Russia 's 
aggression against Ukraine, which  clearly infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial 
integrity, constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting use of force, and was a grave 
breach of the United Nations Charter. Any unilateral change of the status quo by force was totally 
unacceptable. This was an extremely serious situation that sh ook the foundation s of international 
order , not only in Europe but also in Asia. Japan condemn ed the actions in the strongest terms. 
Further, the atrocious and inhumane acts of Russia ha d been revealed one after anothe r, in Bucha, 
near Kyiv, as well as other areas of Ukraine. The mass killing of innocent civilians was a grave breach 
of international humanitarian law and constitute d a war crime that was absolutely unacceptable. 
Russia had to be held strictly accountable for such atrocious acts. Japan st ood in solidarity with 
Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and continue d to cooperate with the members of the international 
community , including G7 members , to normalize the situation. In relation to Agenda item 3, Japan 
wished to refer to its statements made at previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. 
Achieving an expeditious reform of the dispute settlement system that w ould contribute to a 
long-lasting solution to its structural and functional problems was Japan 's utmost priority. Japan 
consider ed it essential that every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, restart constructive 
discussions on such a reform, including on how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate 
Body. Japan spare d no efforts to coll aborate with all WTO Members to that end.   
3.22.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  on this matter at previous DSB meetings . Indonesia  again avail ed itself of  this opportunity to 
urge all Members to give their serious attention, willingness, and commitment for the immediate 
appointment of the Appellate Body members.  
3.23.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished to  thank Mexico 
for its statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors. Hong Kong, China reiterate d its grave concerns 
over the Appellate Body impasse  and said that it was important to  resolv e this impasse. Hong Kong, 
China welcome d any constructive discussion s in this regard  and was prepared to participate therein.  
3.24.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea wished to express  its deep concern about  
Ukraine 's inability to participate in the WTO dispute settlement system, which was essential for 
providing security and predictability to the rules -based multilateral trading system.  The Korean 
government join ed others in strongly condemning Russia 's armed invasion against Ukraine as a 
violation of principles of the UN charter and interna tional law.  The use of force that cause d innocent 
casualties c ould not be justified under any circumstances. Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity 
and independence should be respected. Korea  also share d its deep concerns about  the international 
community over the unfolding humanitarian situation in Ukraine. With regard to  item 3, Korea 
thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d its support for the joint AB proposal.  Korea  also 
wished to refer to  its previous statements made  on this matter.  Korea was ready to engage 
constructively in relevant discussions to find a solution to enhance the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system with a view to accommodat ing the needs of WTO Members.  Korea also st ood 
ready to work together with other Members building on what they had achieved in preparation for 
an outcome for MC12 on this  matter.  
3.25.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made on this matter.  Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully 
functioning WTO dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 12 - 
  This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such 
a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. This  matter  
should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union  had consistent ly noted, WTO Members 
had a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding 
vacancies , as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  agree d that a meaningful 
reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The E uropean Union  therefore renew ed its call 
on all WTO Members to engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in order to restore 
a fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system. The European Union  thank ed all Members that 
had co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes. In relation to the crisis in 
Ukraine, t he European Union  condemn ed in the strongest possible terms the Russian Federation's 
unprovoked and unjustified military aggression in Ukraine. This aggr ession grossly violate d 
international law and undermine d international security and stability. It was causing massive loss of 
life and injury to civilians. Russia was directing attacks against the civilian population and was 
targeting civilian objects, inc luding hospitals, medical facilities, schools and shelters. These war 
crimes had to  stop immediately. The European Union  called on Russia to end immediately its acts of 
aggression, to withdraw its troops , and to respect fully Ukraine 's territorial integrit y, sovereignty 
and independence within its internationally recogni sed borders. The European Union stood  firmly by 
Ukraine and its people.  
3.26.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore wished to thank Mexico for its statement , 
which Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  wished to reiterat e its previous statements  made on 
this matter and look ed forward to constructive discussions with all Members, including the United 
States, with the view to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement sys tem as soon as possible.  
3.27.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thanked Mexico and the co -sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the  appointment processes of members of the Appellate 
Body. Russia reiterated its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately and 
called upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully functioning 
dispute s ettlement system as soon as possible. To address certain political declarations made by 
some WTO members at the present meeting, the Russian Federation wished to stress again the 
following. First, Members should consider the items on the Agenda of the pres ent meeting contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/697, and adopted by the DSB at the present meeting. The political 
statements made by some Members at the present meeting did not concern the surveillance of 
implementation of the adopted DSB recommendations under Article 21.6 of the DSU. They also did 
not address the Appellate Body appointments problem. Second, the WTO was not a political 
organization and Members should refrain from trying to address the issues that were not in the 
competence of the organization. T hird, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate set out in different 
provisions of the DSU. Russia considered that some of the root causes of the crisis of the multilateral 
trading system the Members were facing were the 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 Member had an intention to cont inue to destroy the multilateral 
trading system further.  
3.28.   The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 12 3 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-third occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
this Organization. The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this 
body and dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of 
the AB selection processes, wh ich resulted in  nullification and impairment of Members ' rights. As 
Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply  with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the AB vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to 
act at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
3.29.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wishe d to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings. For more than two years, Members ha d been requesting that this joint AB 
proposal be adopted by the DSB so as to preserve the right to appeal , as set out in the DSU. Mexico 
remain ed deeply concerned and continue d to feel a sense of urgency in the face of the Appellate WT/DSB/M/4 64 
- 13 - 
  Body that was not operational and a dispute settlement system that was not fully functional. All 
current  disputes were being aff ected, and this had put at risk prompt compliance with, and the 
adoption of , panel  reports. Now more than ever, it was important and a priority to work towards  
finding a real and multilateral solution. Mexico continue d to stand ready to work constructively . 
Mexico  thank ed the co -sponsors of th e proposal and call ed on Members who ha d not yet done so to 
do so.  
3.30.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. She 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. She said that , as Members were  aware, this matter 
require d political engagement on the part of all WTO Members . She then recall ed that, in the context 
of the preparations for MC12, which had been  postponed in 2021 , the previous Chair of the General 
Council had consulted with Members on this matter . As Members were aware , MC12 was now 
scheduled to be held from 12  to 15 June 2022. She hoped that, going forward , Members  would  be 
able to find a solution to this matter.  
3.31.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________