RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/45 6 
2 December  2021 
(21-9085) Page: 1/33 
Dispute Settlement Body  
27 September  2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 27 SEPTEMBER 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the virtual meeting of the DSB , both in person and remotely , and said that he wished to recall a few 
technical instructions regarding this virtual meeting. If a Member was unable to take the floor during 
the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform himself or the Secretariat and 
that Agenda  item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the alternative, the 
item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda item, and the 
DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been r esolved. 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; (ii) the Chairman  made a short 
statement regarding item  4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 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 
item. At the present meeting, he wished to inform delegations that he continued to consult with 
each interested party on this matter and that thos e consultations were ongoing; and (iii) China  
requested the inclusion of an item under "Other Business" in order to make a statement concerning  
due process in panel composition s.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as amended.  
 
 
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  ................................ ................................ ..... 4 
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/45 6 
- 2 - 
  2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  6 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
4  PANAMA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM COSTA RICA  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica  ................................ .....................  8 
5  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINL ESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM 
JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  9 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan  ................................ ............................  9 
6  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON WINE 
FROM AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  10 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia  ................................ ........................  10 
7  STATEMENT BY MOROCCO REGARDING THE PANE L REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE 
BOOKS FROM TUNISIA" (DS578)  ................................ ................................ ...................  11 
8  STATEMENT B Y CHINA REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF CRYSTALLINE 
SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC PRODUCTS" (DS562)  ................................ .............................  13 
9  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
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; HONDUR AS; 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; NE W ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; 
NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; 
SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, K INMEN 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.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  17 
10  STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA AND GUATEMALA REGARDING THE TWENTIETH 
ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADVISORY CENTRE ON WTO LAW (ACWL)  ................................ . 22 
11  STATEMENT BY CHINA REGARDING DUE PROCESS IN PANEL COMPOSITION S .........  33 
 
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 19) 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the  US Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.194) 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.157) WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 3 - 
  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.41) 
 
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.33) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.28 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.28) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman said 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 requires that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implement ation 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 Age nda item, the Chairman invite d delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts. He also wished to remind delegations 
that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "Representatives should 
make ever y 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-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 19) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 9, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in th e 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 16 September 2021, 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 respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for its 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 dispute . 
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.1 94) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.19 4, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 16 September 2021, 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 thanked the United 
States for its status report and its statement at the present meeting . The European Union  referred 
to its previous s tatements. The European Union 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 . WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 4 - 
  C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 57) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.15 7, 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 t he United States  frequently refer red to 
products that ha d successfully passed the European Food Safet y Authority's (EFSA) risk assessment, 
but not yet received final approval through comitology. The E uropean Union wished  to point out that 
there were administrative procedures between the publication of EFSA 's favourable opinion and the 
comitology vote that ha d to be respected. These include d, among others, procedures related to 
transparency, such as a one -month public consultation. The E uropean Union  failed to see how these 
procedures c ould be characterised as "undue delay ". The E uropean Union acted in line with its WTO 
obligations. The European Union  recall ed that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings.  
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 European Union had previously suggested that, with 
respect to these delays, the fault lay with the applicants. The United States disagreed; the US 
concerns related to delays at every stage of the approval process resulting from  the actions or 
inactions of the European Union and its member States. 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 implementatio n. While it had been welcome to see the 
European Union issue approvals and renewals in August, the persistent delays in the European 
Union's biotech approval system had yet to be addressed. For example, the average approval time 
for the seven biotech crops  approved in August was approximately 72 months (6 years) – from the 
time that European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) accepted the dossiers for review to the approvals 
granted the previous month. One of those products had been within the EU's approval syste m for 
over nine years.  It was the US understanding that there were still approximately eight products for 
which EFSA had successfully completed a risk assessment, yet which had not received final approval 
through comitology. Several of those products had a lso been under EU evaluation since before 2010. 
The United States continued to engage with the European Union in good faith on these issues, and 
had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the European Union could address 
the undue delays i n its approval procedures. The United States requested that the European Union 
move to issue final approvals for all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at 
EFSA, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appe als 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. 41) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 41, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervai ling 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 16 September 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of 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 U nited 
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 othe r measures challenged in this dispute . WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 5 - 
  1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and 
appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue in  
this dispute.   
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that t he United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, a rising out of the Appellate Body report in "US – Washing Machines ", that the 
"differential pricing  methodology" (DPM) was "as such" inconsistent with the WTO agreements. 
The United States ha d also ignored the DSB's recommendation that it must comply with i ts 
obligations. Instead, the United States continue d to apply the "as such" DPM in investigations with 
respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the 
basis of this WTO-inconsistent methodology. The reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations relating to the "as such" WTO -inconsistency of the DPM had expired more than 
three years prior. However, in its latest status report, the United States declare d that it continue d 
to consult with in terested parties. Furthermore, the continued use of the DPM by the United States 
had obliged Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning this measure. 
This was an inefficient and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement resource s. Canada remain ed 
deeply concerned at the US continued failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in "US – Washing Machines ". This failure seriously undermine d the security and predictability of the 
multilateral trading system.   
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 33) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 3, 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 16 September 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United St ates would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report. However, it was disappointing that more than three ye ars after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the adopted rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States to hono ur its obligation under  
Article  21.1 of the DSU by bringing  itself into  full compliance with its obligations in this dispute 
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, anim als and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 28 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 28) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.2 8 – WT/DS478/22/Add.2 8, 
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 submit ted its status  report in accordance 
with Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished  to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and ruling of the DSB in these disputes. On measure 18, as reported in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Art icles in the relevant Laws that had been  found to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With 
respect to measure s 1–17, Indonesia w ished to reassure that significant adjustment s in complying WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 6 - 
  with the recomm endations and rulings of the DSB ha d been performed through amendments to the 
relevant Ministry of Agriculture  and Ministry of Trade  Regulations. Those adjustments also include d 
the removal of disputed measures, inter alia : harvest period restriction, impo rt 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 d isputes.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
The United States also reiterated the question it had a sked the previous month. It seemed that 
Indonesia was in the process of issuing new regulations implementing Law No. 11/2020 on Job 
Creation that would affect Indonesia's import licensing regimes. In particular, the United States 
understood that Indonesia was developing a Presidential Regulation on Commodity Balances, as well 
as new Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade regulations. The United States indicated that  it 
would appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's import 
licensing regimes and on forthcoming regulations that would affect the regimes. 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, however, long since expired, and a number of measures 
remain ed non-compliant. New Zealand contin ued to review recent legislative adjustments in order 
to assess what impact this w ould have on Indonesia 's compliance, in particular in respect of 
Measure  18. New Zealand understood  that Indonesia was in the process of issuing new regulations 
under the rec ently enacted Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation, which w ould impact this assessment. 
New Zealand invite d Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible. New Zealand  looked 
forward to further bilateral engagement to th at end. 
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and he invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that d espite long -standing reassurances of the 
United States that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings were fully implemented by adopting the 
Deficit Reduction Act, disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act ( CDSOA ) 
had been made every year since then. Every disbursement that still t ook place under th at legal basis 
was clearly an act of non -compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings. For the item to be 
considered resolved and removed from the DSB's surveillance, the  United States  had to  fully stop 
transferring collected duties. The E uropean Union  maintain ed that such full compliance was needed, 
independently of the cost resulting from the application of such limited duties. The E uropean Union  
renew ed its call on the United States to abide by its obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to 
submit status  reports  on implementation  in this dispute, as the issue remain ed unresolved. If the 
United States  did not agree that the issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed the United States  
from seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure.  
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repe aling the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been enacted into law more than 15 years prior, in 
February 2006. The Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1 October 2007, more tha n 13 years prior. Accordingly, the United States had long 
ago implemented the DSB's recommendations and informed WTO Members of its implementation. 
At the prior DSB meeting, the European Union had once again stated its view that the United States 
had an "o bligation" under Article 21.6 to submit a status report in this dispute. Notably, the European 
Union did not call on any other Member in any other dispute to abide by this so -called "obligation," WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 7 - 
  despite the fact that several Members – including the Europe an Union – were in the same situation 
as the United States. As the United States had explained repeatedly, there was no obligation under 
the DSU for a Member to provide further status reports once that Member informed the DSB that it 
has implemented  the DS B recommendations. The widespread practice of Members – including the 
European Union as a responding party – confirmed this understanding of Article 21.6. Under the 
next Agenda item, the United States would discuss a dispute in which the European Union, as  a 
responding party, applied a standard different from the standard it applied to the United States in 
the present dispute . 
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of the United States, and  
he invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had placed this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting to highlight that the European Union had once again not provided 
Members with a status report concerning the dispute EC – Large Civi l Aircraft (DS316). As Members 
were aware, on 15 June 2021, the United States and the European Union reached an "Understanding 
on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircraft." This agreement sought to forge a more 
cooperative future by suspending the tariffs related to this dispute for five years, agreeing to clear 
principles that any financing for the production or development of large civil aircraft would be on 
market terms, and committing to joint collaboration to address non -market practices in thi s sector. 
These efforts would help their companies and workers compete fairly, and the United States 
welcomed the collaboration with its European partners. As part of this significant effort to enhance 
cooperation, the United States intended to discuss its  concerns relating to outstanding EU support 
measures with the European Union bilaterally. The United States was therefore disappointed to again 
see the European Union inscribe the preceding Agenda item for DS217, and call for a US status 
report, while not  submitting an EU status report for DS316. The United States had put this item on 
the Agenda as an opportunity for the European Union to explain its contradictory approach to the 
application of Article 21.6 of the DSU. In both disputes, the responding part y had claimed that it had 
implemented the DSB recommendation. In both disputes, the complaining party did not agree with 
that claim. But the European Union persisted in calling for a status report and Agenda item for DS217 
– where it was the complaining pa rty – while not providing such a report to the DSB in DS316 – 
where it was the responding party. The US position on status reports had been consistent across 
disputes: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a responding Member announced to the DSB that it 
had complied, there was no further "progress" on which it could report, and therefore no further 
obligation to provide a status report. The United States considered this understanding to be based 
on the text of the DSU and reflected in every responding Member 's behaviour in other WTO disputes 
– including the European Union's own behaviour. The United States would continue to engage 
bilaterally with the European Union on the tension created by its position under these two items. 
The United States wished to rein force its more cooperative relationship and focus its attention on 
bilateral challenges and opportunities .  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union welcome d the fact that 
the parties ha d reached an Understanding on a Cooperative Framework for Large Civil Aircraft that 
had allowed the United States and the European Union  to suspend their respective retaliation 
measures for five years. The European Union  noted that, in the Airbus case, the European Union had  
notified a new set of compliance measures to the DSB. That new set of compliance measures was 
subject to an assessment by a compliance panel and that panel report  had been  issued on 
2 December 2019. As noted in its statement at the Decem ber 2020 meeting of the DSB, the 
European Union was of the view that significant aspects of the compliance panel 's report c ould not 
be regarded as legally correct and were very problematic from a systemic perspective when it came  
to assessing compliance wi th the subsidy disciplines of the WTO agreements. In order to have th ose 
legal errors corrected, the E uropean Union had filed an appeal against the compliance panel report 
on 6 December 2019. Whether or not the matter was "resolved " in the sense of Article 21.6 was the 
very subject matter of th at ongoing litigation. The defending party was not required to submit "status WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 8 - 
  reports " to the DSB in th ose circumstances. Th at wa s what differentiate d the situation in this case 
from the situat ion in the Byrd Amendment case  discussed under the previous Agenda item . Unlike 
the EU position in Airbus, the U nited States had not requested reverse compliance proceedings in 
the Byrd Amendment case, so the issue of compliance was not sub judice . As ther e were no 
compliance proceedings pending in the Byrd Amendment case, the EU approach was that under 
Article 21.6  of the  DSU, the issue of implementation had to  remain on the DSB's Agenda until the 
issue was resolved. In the Byrd Amendment case, the Europea n Union did  not agree with the 
assertion that the United States ha d implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings. This mean t 
that the issue remain ed unresolved for the purposes of Article 21.6 of the  DSU. The European Union 
hoped that the spirit underlying the Understanding on a Cooperative Framework for Large Civil 
Aircraft w ould allow the parties to resolve their disagreement also in relation to the provision of 
status reports to the DSB in the Airbus case . 
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  PANAMA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM 
COSTA RICA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica (WT/DS599/4)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Costa Rica contained in document 
WT/DS599/4 and he invited the representative of Costa Rica to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of Costa Rica  said that a t the DSB meeting on 30  August  2021, Costa Rica 
had presented its request for the establishment of a panel in  the dispute  "Panama - Measures 
Concerning the Importation of Certain Products from Costa Rica" , contained in document 
WT/DS599/4. At that meeting, Panama had objected to the establishment of a panel and the DSB 
agreed to revert to the matter at a future meeting. On 15  Septembe r 2021, Costa Rica had 
requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the  DSU, re -consideration of the panel request at the present 
meeting. Costa Rica  wished to reiterate a few points relating to this dispute. As neighbouring 
countries, Costa  Rica and Panama were strategic allies who share d a history and common interests. 
They had  maintained long -standing and prosperous trade relations. They both aspire d to economic 
integration and the growth of trade between  their two countries as a source of development and 
well-being. Over the previous  two years, Panama ha d implemented a series of measures that ha d 
resulted in a ban on Costa Rican exports of agricultural produce such as bananas, plantains, 
pineapples , and strawberries. All of these products had been exported to Panama for decades and 
Costa Rica  consider ed that the decision to ban their entry was scientifically unfounded, as there ha d 
been no change in the national phytosanitary status , which would imply a change in their 
phytosanitary risk.  Furthermore, in June  2020 - amid the international crisis caused by the COVID -19 
pandemic - Panama allowed the approvals for Costa Rican companies  exporting animal products to 
expire, despite repeated renewal requests submitted on time and in due form. Again, there had been 
no change to the sanitary status, nor had any other situation arisen regarding the risk pose d by 
these products. The decision not to renew the approval of these plants ha d greatly affected the 
export of milk products, pork, beef, processed poultry meat, cured meats, fish food and pet food.  
4.3.  The concerns due to these restrictions on Costa Rican exp orts led Costa Rica to raise this 
issue - in the first instance - before the Committees on Agriculture and Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures and the Council for Trade in Goods. This did not, however, result in the restrictions being 
lifted.  For th at reason, Costa Rica had decided, in January  2021, to request consultations with 
Panama pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
Article  11 of the SPS Agreement, and Article XXII of the GATT  1994. Unfortunately, the co nsultations 
held in February  2021 did not result in any joint solution that made it possible to settle the dispute.  
In parallel to th at request for consultations, Costa Rica ha d also tried to engage in dialogue with the 
Panamanian authorities in order to u nderstand their reasoning and find mutually satisfactory 
solutions. However, Costa Rica  had been unsuccessful in reaching a mutual understanding that would 
secure the reopening of the Panamanian market to these products, even though the Costa Rican 
exporti ng companies  had compl ied with all the regulations applicable to exports and had met the 
highest international sanitary, phytosanitary and quality standards.  WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 9 - 
  4.4.  In this situation, while there ha d been no changes to Costa Rica's sanitary or phytosanitary 
status that justif ied these measures right in the middle of the pandemic, the Panamanian authorities 
were still failing to provide any reasoned explanations or scientific basis for implementing measures 
that were contrary to their international trade commitment s. That was why Costa Rica consider ed 
that the measures implemented by Panama were inconsistent with its obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATT  1994.  Costa Rica acknowledge d and 
appreciate d the willingness of the Panamanian authorities to engage in constructive dialogue and 
seek solutions during the consultations and on the various occasions when they came into contact 
and were able to exchange information and points of view. However, in the  absence of a satisfactory 
solution after months of discussion, it was imperative to take the next step  and request the 
establishment of a panel.  Considering the above -mentioned facts and having exhausted various 
means of dialogue, while its exporters suff ered economic damage due to the implementation of 
unjustified measures that prevent ed its products from accessing the Panamanian market, Costa Rica 
respectfully request ed the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article  19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 11.1 of the SPS Agreement, and Article XXIII of 
the GATT  1994.  
4.5.  The representative of Panama  said that, a s on previous occasions, Panama wishe d to express 
that the dispute brought by Costa Rica ar ose from the Costa Ric an authorities' refusal to initiate the 
process to renew the expired plant authorizations, thereby allowing the aforementioned products to 
be exported from Costa Rica to the  Panamanian market. Panama was entitled to require such 
authorizations. This requir ement was also necessary given that – as was clear from Costa Rica's 
very request – prior to the measures, Panama informed Costa Rica that it had detected residues, 
pests and disease risks in products originating in Costa Rica. The authorizations s ought  to safeguard 
food safety, human life and health and Panama's  animals and plants, in accordance with the rules 
in force and in conformity with WTO Agreements. Since the expiry of the Costa Rican processing 
plants' authorization s, the Panamanian sanitary an d phytosanitary authorities ha d maintained 
ongoing and open dialogue with their Costa Rican counterparts in order that they initiate and carry 
out the corresponding authorization procedures. The Costa Rican authorities had stated in response 
that Panama's concerns and requirements were unwarranted, and that it should immediately open 
its market. For the sake of their neighbourly ties, and to facilitate trade, Panama had temporarily 
extended the processing plants' authorization periods, in the expectation th at Costa Rica would 
initiate the process for new evaluations or inspections. This was not carried out. Temporarily 
extending expired authorizations neither invalidate d nor reduce d WTO Members' rights and 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. Panama regret ted that Costa Rica decided to proceed with its 
panel request under  these circumstances. Panama nevertheless expresse d its willingness to 
participate in a timely manner and in good faith in th ese proceedings, as required by the DSU. 
4.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
4.7.  The representatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , China , the European Union , Honduras , India, 
Mexico , Nicaragua , the Russian Federation , the United Kingdom  and the United States  reserved their 
third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings . 
5  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel  by Japan (WT/DS601/2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Japan contained in document 
WT/DS601/2 and he invited the representative of Japan to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Japan  said that , at the present meeting,  Japan w ould not wish to reiterate 
its position on this matter  as this had been  explained, in detail, in Japan's panel request and in its 
statement  made  at the 30 August 2021  DSB meeting . Japan recalled that this case concern ed China's 
measures to impose  anti-dumping dutie s on imports of stainless steel products from Japan. His 
country  consider ed China's measures to be inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT 1994 
and the A nti-Dumping  Agreement, as set out  in Japan's panel request. Th at panel request appeared 
on the Agenda of the previous DSB meeting . As Japan  continue d to see that the inconsistency had 
not been r emoved, Japan once again was requesting,  pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, that a panel WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 10 - 
  be established to examine the matter , as set out in Japan's  panel re quest , with standard terms of 
reference in accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU . 
5.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that Japan had decided to proceed with  
its panel request in this dispute . China maintai ned its domestic ant i-dumping regime in line with 
relevant WTO rules, and the Investigating Authority, by adhering to its legal mandate . China  had 
conducted a transparent, thorough and fair investigation in relation to the imports concerned from 
Japan. It fin ally determined the existence of dumping and found these trade distortions had caused 
material injury to China's  domestic industry. As a necessary remedial step, certain anti -dumping 
measures ha d been imposed by the Chinese Investigating Authority. As it had stated at the August 
DSB meeting, China had engaged with Japan in good faith and provided upon its request information 
with regard to the challenged  measures. China was  also open to further consultations through 
appropriate channels aim ing at exploring a satisfactory solution. Therefore, China believe d that 
Japan 's request for the establishment of a panel was premature . 
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
5.5.  The representatives of  Australia , Brazil , Canada , the European Union , India, Korea , the Russian  
Federation , Saudi Arabia , the United States  and Viet Nam  reserved their third -party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
6  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON WINE FROM 
AUSTRALIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia (WT/DS602/2)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew at tention to the communication from Australia contained in document 
WT/DS602/2 and he invited the representative of Australia to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of Australia  said that , on 22 June 2021, the Australian Government had 
requested WTO dispute settlement  consultations with China with respect to provisional and definitive 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on bottled wine in containers of 2 litres or less 
imported from Australia. China had imposed definitive anti -dumping duties of up to 218.4 %, and 
calculated countervailing duties of up to 6.4 %. The measures were set forth in Notice No.  59 of 2020 
(issued on 27 November 2020); Notice No. 58 of 2020 (issued on 10 December 2020); and Notices 
No. 6 and 7 of 2021  (both issued on 26 March 2021 ) by th e Ministry of Commerce of the People's 
Republic of China . In Australia's view, China's measures were inconsistent with China's obligations 
under the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994. Prior to the imposition 
of these duties, China  had been Australia' s most valuable wine export market in 2019 -20, 37 % of 
Australia' s total wine exports, by value, were exported to China. However,  Australian wine exports 
to China had declined significantly since anti -dumping duties had been imposed, eff ectively closing 
the market for Australian producers. Australia had expressed its concerns to China on numerous 
occasions bilaterally and at the WTO, including on 27 and 28  April 2021 at the WTO Subsidies and 
Anti-Dumping Committees respectively, and most recently, bilaterally on 2 June 2021. Australia and 
China had held consultations on 9 August 2021. Unfortunately, those consultations had failed to 
resolve this matter. As no concrete steps had been taken to date to respond to its concerns, Australia 
was n ow requesting the establishment of a WTO panel to examine this matter with standard terms 
of reference.  Australia  value d China and Australia' s strong economic and community ties and 
remain ed open to further discussions in good faith with China with a view to resolving the issues 
Australia had  raised.  
6.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that Australia had decided to request that 
a panel be established in this dispute. At the present meeting, China was  not in a position to support 
such requ est. China maintain ed its domestic anti -dumping and countervailing regime in line with  the 
relevant WTO rules. Specifically , in this dispute, through a transparent and fair investigation, the 
Chinese Investigating Authority  had determined the existence of dumping as well as material injury 
it had caused to China's  domestic industry, and decided to impose anti -dumping duties on the 
Australian product s. To avoid a double remedy, China had  decided not to impose countervailing 
duties on the imports concerned from Australia. China  noted that Australia d id not include in the 
panel request matters related to countervailing duties, and believe d that this  was a constructive WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 11 - 
  move for settlement of this dispute. China had engaged with Australia in good faith during the 
consultation and had provided required information with respect to  the challenged  measures. China  
recalled that both sides had agreed that the consultation s were constructive. Therefore,  China 
believe d that it was premature to establish a panel in this dispute, and st ood ready to further engage 
with Australia on this matter.  
6.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
7  STATEMENT BY MOROCCO  REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS 
FROM TUNISIA " (DS578)  
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of Morocco , and he invited 
the representative of Morocco  to speak . 
7.2.  The representative of Morocco  said that, with regard  to the dispute on anti-dumping measures 
applied to school exercise books and the statement made by Tunisia at the 30 August DSB meeting 
Morocco w ould like  to make some points of clarification. He said that with regard to an appellate 
review, the appellant was bound by Rule 21(1)  of the Working Procedures  for Appellate Review  
whereby the appellant shall, on the same day as the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, file 
with the Secretariat a written submission, and provide  a copy of the submission o f the other parties 
to the  dispute. However, in this case, Morocco had not yet filed a written submission to the Appellate 
Body due to the fact that there was no functioning Appellate Body and  there was no jurisdiction to 
receive such a submission under Rule 21 of the Working Proce dures. Therefore, no submission could 
be provided  by the appellant to the other party to th is dispute,  namely,  Tunisia. Morocco's written 
submission to the Appellate Body would be filed once the Appellate Body became operational 
following the appointment o f its members and in accordance with the working procedures . Once a 
Notice of Appeal was filed with the DSB, the adoption of the panel report was automatically 
suspended , pursuant to  Article 16.4 of the DSU. The DSB could no longer consider such a  report for 
adoption until after the completion of the appeal. Therefore, until such time as the Appellate Body 
circulated  its report, adoption of the Panel Report depended neither on Tunisia nor on the DSB, 
including the Chair of the DSB.  For th at reason, the requ est made by Tunisia for the Chair of the 
DSB to become involve could not be justified, since the DSB Chair had no jurisdiction over this 
report. Contrary to Tunisia's claim, there was no provision regarding  the automatic adoption of a 
panel report if the deadline  for completion of  an appeal under the DSU had expired. Moreover, the 
DSB Chair did not have the right to place such a panel report for adoption on the DSB Agenda . In 
Morocco's view, Tunisia's statement  demonstrated a subjective and extraneous readi ng of the DSU  
provisions.  If Tunisia's interpretations were accurate, the Appellate Body deadlock would not in any 
way have affected the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system since panel reports would 
have been automatically adopted 90 days afte r the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal . This would 
be irrespective of whether such reports were reviewed  by the Appellate Body . Morocco had not 
violated Rule 21(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review since it had not filed a written 
submission. That would be done in accordance with the Appellate Body's working procedures once 
the Appellate Body became operational. The Pa nel Report was subject to an appellate review. 
Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU, the Report shall not be considered for adoption until after 
completion of the appeal. Thus, consideration  by the DSB of a report  whereby an  appeal ha d not 
been completed wo uld be a clear violation of Article 16.4  of the DSU. Consequently, the report in 
question was outside the purview of the DSB and the DSB Chair. Tunisia's proposed reading of the 
provisions of the DSU had serious systemic implications for the rights and obl igations of the parties  
to this dispute. Morocco was and remained ready to settle th is dispute with Tunisia through bilateral 
consultations , but was opposed to the proposed mediation  by the DSB Chair. As Morocco  had 
indicated on several occasions and most recently to Tunisia, technical consultations at the bilateral 
level would allow both parties to resolve the substan tive issues  in this dispute.  
7.3.  The representative of Tunisia  said that Tunisia  noted the clarifications made by Morocco. First, 
Tunisia  wished to again thank  the Chairman for having responded favourably to Tunisia's  request to 
invite the parties to hold discussions under his supervision. Tunisia also wished  to thank the 
Secretariat for having swiftly made contact with the parties. In this respect, although Tunisia was 
surprised by Morocco's change of position regarding the Chairman's  involvement, and its preference 
for bilateral consultations at this stage, Tunisia was  ready  to use all available means to reach 
common ground and had agreed to re -engage in bilateral discussions, provided that the parties WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 12 - 
  engage d in good faith. With that in mind, the parties had met on 22 October  2021 to set out the 
most importa nt elements regarding their discussions  and had agreed that the parties should look at  
the conclusions of the panel report.  He said that t he consultations were likely to continue over the 
coming weeks. At the next regular DSB meeting  in October , Tunisia would propose to review the 
progress of those bilateral consultations  and, if necessary, it would request that the Chair  of the DSB 
be involve d should the parties  were unable to reach an agreement . In Tunisia's view , the Chairman's  
involvement w ould be very useful in reaching common ground in this dispute.  
7.4.  Tunisia also wished to respond to Morocco's criticism of Tunisia's  interpretation presented  at 
the 30 August 2021 DSB meeting . Tunisia did not understand why Morocco ha d raised t his matter  
at the present meeting  while bilateral consultations were ongoing.  Tunisia  had already explained its 
interpretation , which  it deem ed appropriate in accordance with  Articles  3.3, 3.7, 3.10, 16.4 and 17.5 
of the DSU . In its view, Tunisia believed that it could request, under the negative consensus rule, 
the adoption of the panel report at the 29  November  2021 DSB meeting.  Tunisia also believed that, 
at this point,  it was premature to discuss  Tunisia's right to request the adoption  of the panel repo rt 
since the parties ha d entered into negotiations to reach an agreement, either on settlement of the 
dispute, or possibly on the appeal procedure. Such an agreement would enable the parties  to avoid 
a request for the adoption of the panel report at the November  DSB meeting.  He hoped that, like 
Tunisia, Morocco w ould engage in good faith in these negotiations  
7.5.  The representative of the European Union  noted  that t his was another dispute that 
demonstrated  the grave consequences of the blockage of Appella te Body appointments since 2017. 
That blockage frustrate d the basic rights of Members that had been  agreed multilaterally . Under the 
DSU, the parties to a dispute ha d the right to appeal a panel report and to have their case heard by 
the Appellate Body. At  the same time, under the DSU, the complainant was entitled to the resolution 
of the dispute through adjudication. In this case, Morocco ha d formally notified the DSB of its 
decision to appeal. Therefore, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU, the panel repo rt must not be 
considered for adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal. The fact that Morocco ha d 
not filed an appellant 's submission in accordance with  Rule 21 of the Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review was irrelevant in that respect. It would be for the Appellate Body, once the work 
on this appeal resume d, to decide on any procedural consequences related to the absence of filing 
of an appellant 's submission on the same day as the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The 
European Union  expect ed that, in the interest of fairness, the Appellate Body would, in th ose 
exceptional circumstances, modify the relevant time -periods set out in the Working Procedures  for 
Appellate Review.  
7.6.  The European Union also noted that t he partie s had expressed certain views on the effect of 
the passage of 90 days without an Appellate Body report in this case . The European Union  wished 
to underscore that Article 16.4 of D SU was clear: "… the report by the panel shall not be considered 
for adoption  by the DSB until after completion of the appeal ". While Article 17.5 of the DSU provide d 
for certain time -frames for appellate proceedings, it attache d no procedural consequences to the 
fact that th ose time -frames were exceeded. Consequently, there was no basis in the DSU for the 
assertion that a panel report that was under appeal could be adopted by the DSB after the expiry of 
the 90 -day period  following the notice of appeal. This was all the more so in the exception al 
circumstances where the Appellate Body was unable to function. Indeed, the lack of at least three 
Appellate Body members was not a legal bar to a Member exercising its right to an appeal, and this 
was the right of any WTO Member under the DSU.  At the sa me time, Members should be mindful 
that, in the present  specific circumstances where the Appellate Body was not operational, the 
decision by a respondent to appeal a panel report m ight amount in effect to dispute resolution 
through adjudication being block ed, unless that respondent agree d to the appeal being adjudicated 
through appeal arbitration under  Article 25 of the DSU . This was precisely why the E uropean Union 
and many  other Members ha d put in place the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangeme nt 
(MPIA) , to allow the above -mentioned rights to be preserved in a balanced manner, despite the 
blockage of the Appellate Body appointments. In particular, the MPIA preserve d the right to an 
appeal review of the panel report and the right to have the disp ute resolved through adjudication. 
The standard default appeal arbitration procedures  could also be used on  an ad hoc  basis by 
Members who did not participate in the MPIA. In the absence of a functioning Appellate Body, the 
European Union  invite d Members engaged in appeals to resort to appeal arbitration procedures, such 
as those foreseen in the MPIA, which  preserve d the rights under the DSU  for both parties in a 
balanced manner . In any case, the European Union support ed consultations  between the parties  to 
this dispute, which would help  them to  find a way forward in a manner that was balanced for both 
parties.  WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 13 - 
  7.7.  The representative of Morocco  thank ed Tunisia  and the European Union for their respective  
statement s. Morocco did not wish to create any  legal controversy , but to underline a few points as 
to why  the adoption of a panel report by the DSB was not possible  after the automatic expiry of the 
90 days. It was important for  Morocco that bilateral consultations ha d been launched in a 
constructive  manner  and a brotherly frame of mind with a goal-oriented approach. Morocco  hoped 
that th e consultations  would soon lead  to a solution  and the parties  would keep the DSB  informed 
of the results of these consultations.  
7.8.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that, first,  the Russian Federation welcome d 
the bilateral consultations between the parties to th is dispute . Second, the Russian Federation 
wished to refer to its statement made at the  30 August 2021  DSB meeting  with respect to  the 
practice of appealing into the "void". The Russian Federation  reiterated its disappointment with the 
fact of filing appeals, notwithstanding the A ppellate Body's critical state , with the effect of leaving 
the cases unresolved. The Russian Federation w ished to h ighlight that unfortunately such actions 
threaten ed the effect iveness of the dispute settlement mechanism and undermine d confidence in 
the relevance of the WTO.  
7.9.  The Chairman  noted that bilateral technical consultations  had been launched by the parties to 
this dispute  with a view to finding a mutually agreeable solution. He encouraged the parties  to pursue 
such consultations  and stood ready to assist the parties to th is dispute if they both so wished.  
7.10.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
8  STATEMENT BY CHINA REGARDING T HE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: "UNITED 
STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC 
PRODUCTS" (DS562)  
8.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of China, and he invited 
the representative of China to speak . 
8.2.  The representative of China  said that China appreciate d the opportunity to express its deep 
concern with the systemically harmful findings made by the panel report in the dispute: " United 
States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products " (DS562). Over 
the past 26 years of the WTO, all of the safeguard measures challenged prior to this case had been 
found to violate the WTO rules. However, the panel report in the  DS562  dispute  had severely 
deviated from this jurisprudence  and substantially lowered the threshold of imposing safeg uard 
measures. The erroneous and dangerous signal sent by this panel report to WTO Members w ould 
lead to abuse of safeguard measures and thus seriously undermine the rules -based multilateral 
trading system.  In China 's view, the panel report contain ed serious legal errors, including a gross 
misreading of legal requirements for imposing safeguard measures, as well as a major 
misunderstanding of a panel 's proper role in examining trade remedy investigations.  China wishe d 
to take this opportunity to address som e of the obvious errors of the panel report , because of the 
systematically harmful implications for WTO safeguard disciplines.   
8.3.  He said that China had initiated this dispute because the United States had imposed safeguard 
measures on crystalline silicon ph otovoltaic ( CSPV ) products in violation of the disciplines set forth 
in Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. Under these agreements, it ha d long 
been recognized that safeguard measures were exceptional remedies for extraordinary situat ions 
only. In particular, because safeguard measures were adopted to restrict trade in the absence of 
any unfair trade practices, and applied globally to imports from all sources, their imposition had to 
meet very high thresholds. This include d demonstrati ng an unforeseen development that led to the 
surge in imports, establishing a causal relationship between increased imports and serious injury, 
and ensuring that the injuries caused by other factors were not attributed to the increased imports 
through a non -attribution analysis.  The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)  met 
none of these requirements in its CSPV safeguard investigation challenged by China in DS562. During 
its investigation, the USITC had failed to demonstrate "unforeseen " development s leading to the 
increase in CSPV imports, failed to establish a causal link between increased imports and serious 
injury, and failed to separate and distinguish other factors ' injurious impact on its domestic industry. 
These factors in cluded failure of domestic producers to focus on the utility sector of the market, 
quality and service problems of domestic producers, and wider market trends leading to a decline in 
the market price.  Essentially, the United States was using the safeguard measure to save a domestic WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 14 - 
  industry, not from imports, but from its own bad performance and poor business decisions.  
Regrettably, the panel  had failed to address these issues as raised by China and many third parties 
in its report. Instead, the panel repor t suffered from three most severe legal errors.   
8.4.  First, the panel 's decision impermissibly lowered the legal standards for safeguard measures 
under the established WTO disciplines. For example, the panel  had dismissed the argument that 
when an overall coin cidence in trends does not exist, the competent authority 's explanation for the 
existence of a causal link must be "compelling ", contrary to the decisions made on this same issue 
in many prior WTO cases. This mistaken reading of the applicable legal standards ha d allowed the 
panel  to uphold the USITC 's causation finding, even though the domestic industry showed a number 
of positive developments in fundamental injury factors during the period of investigation.  As another 
example, despite the fact that  the Agreement on Safeguards require d, and prior cases emphasize d, 
the importance of examining conditions of competition in a causation analysis, the panel  had refused 
to take into account evidence that the CSPV market in the U nited States was highly segmen ted, and 
that the domestic industry did not focus on the utility market segment which experienced the highest 
growth. As a result, the panel 's finding had failed to consider how  the domestic industry 's lack of 
participation in the utility segment affected its performance. Instead, the panel 's erroneous 
application of the legal standard ha d made imports the scapegoat for the domestic industry 's poor 
business decisions.   
8.5.  Second , the panel  had failed to observe its duty under Article 11 of the DSU to conduct an 
objective assessment of the matter before it. The panel  had simply failed to make an objective 
assessment of China 's claim on causation, including any factual issues underlying China 's claim. In 
many places, the panel  had deferred to the findings of the USITC as valid without any further inquiry 
of its own. A typical example was the panel 's treatment of the issue of unforeseen development s. 
The USITC asserted that, somehow, the industrial policies in China created a global  increase in CSPV 
production. It did not demonstrate what these alleged industrial policies were, nor establish any 
linkage between industrial policies in China and the increase in imports, which predominately c ame 
from th e rest of the world. While acknowledging these factual and logical deficiencies, the panel  
nevertheless had upheld the USITC 's findings without further inquiry.  The panel 's failure to observe 
Article 11 of the DSU was also apparent from its findings on non -attribution. During the CSPV 
safeguard investigation, the respondents had explicitly argued that the domestic industry suffered 
injury from a number of other factors, including lack of participation in the utility sector, the falling 
raw material price, t he pressure to attain grid parity, quality and service issues, and changes in 
government incentive programs. Despite evidence on the record , which was overlooked by the 
USITC, the panel  had simply upheld the findings of the USITC. The panel report was repl ete with 
other examples where the findings of the USITC were confirmed, without any concrete assessment 
into the alternative views presented by the respondents during the investigation. Instead of 
evaluating whether the USITC provided reasoned and adequate  explanation in its report, the panel  
turned itself into a rubber stamp for the USITC 's determinations.   
8.6.  Third, the panel report had completely disregarded the proper standard of review of trade 
remedy measures. In all trade remedy cases, the report of the investigating authority had to  be 
examined as it was published at the time. A Member c ould not offer additional rationalization for the 
conclusions and determinations set forth in the report. However, in the present dispute, the panel  
allowed the United States to remedy omissions or deficiencies in the USITC 's report during the 
proceedings, refurbishing the USITC report through impermi ssible post hoc justifications. The panel 's 
approach created a harmful practice: it allow ed an investigating authority to make an unsound 
determination and impose WTO -inconsistent trade remedy measures, and allowed the Member of 
that investigating authorit y to rescue that decision during the dispute settlement proceedings.   
8.7.  China said that l owering the applicable standards for safeguard measures ; deferring to the 
investigating authority 's determination without objective assessment ; allowing a Member to resc ue 
a deficient decision through post hoc rationalization – through each of these steps, the panel  had 
normalized the safeguard measure from an exceptional remedy to a convenient tool for trade 
protectionism, which c ould be put to use whenever a domestic industry wishe d to complain about 
imports , even when imports were not to blame for the domestic industry's  own failures. The 
systematically harmful impact of these findings and the troubling logic behind them had to be po inted 
out, not just for safeguard cases, but for all trade remedy disputes.  As provided in Article 3.2 of the 
DSU, security and predictability were core values of the dispute settlement system. It was of 
systemic importance that the principle of security a nd predictability had to be upheld through 
ensuring the quality of panel reports, especially under the severe situation of paralysis of the WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 15 - 
  Appellate Body since the end of 2019. By sharply deviating from the WTO disciplines and the 
established jurisprudenc e, the panel  had not only upset this fundamental objective, but  had also 
undermined the trust of all Members in the dispute settlement mechanism and had created 
irreversible damage to the multilateral trading system.   
8.8.  Once again, China wishe d to remind Mem bers that safeguard measures were extraordinary 
measures for extraordinary situations. Safeguard measures could not be used as a convenient tool 
to rescue a domestic industry in bad shape because of its own business decisions and injuries caused 
by other f actors not attributed to the increased imports. Any other characterization of the safeguard 
measure than a measure subject to stringent legal threshold could open the door to the dangerous 
use of safeguard measures for protectionist purposes. However, this  panel report amounted to an 
approval of doing just that , which in consequence w ould seriously undermine the rules -based 
multilateral trading system.  In closing, China recall ed that in the WTO's 26 years of existence, this 
was the first time in a dispute w hen all challenges against a global safeguard measure ha d been 
rejected. In a step that sharply deviate d from existing WTO jurisprudence, the panel had issued a 
report that not only misunderstood the proper role served by safeguards in the WTO system, but 
also misconstrued the duties of an investigating authority and the proper role of a WTO panel in 
trade remedy cases. China remind ed all Members of the dangerous situation this might create if 
future investigating authorities were allowed to impose trade re striction measures without satisfying 
stringent requirements.  China ha d already notified the DSB of its decision to appeal and w ould await 
further instructions from the division of the Appellate Body, when it m ight eventually be composed, 
regarding any further steps to be taken by China in this appeal.  
8.9.  The representative of the United States  said that China as a WTO Member had the righ t to 
bring a matter to the attention of the DSB. Why China should want to highlight for Members that 
China was the first complaining party ever to lose a WTO challenge to a safeguard action – or the 
second, if Members counted China's own previous loss in i ts challenge to the China -specific tires 
safeguard – was a matter for Beijing alone to consider. But in bringing this matter forward, China 
should focus on what mattered. First, it mattered that the WTO panel had found the US safeguard 
to be consistent wit h WTO rules. The United States welcomed those findings – but could not pass 
without mentioning the very high cost of that victory. A thriving US industry was essentially crushed 
by China's massive non -market excess capacity – and this formed the factual ba sis for the US 
safeguard action. So, while the United States welcomed the panel report findings, this dispute 
demonstrated, perversely, that WTO rules did not effectively constrain China's damaging non -market 
behaviour. Second, it mattered that China, once  again, had sought to use the WTO dispute 
settlement system as a vehicle to create new rules that would limit a Member's ability to defend 
itself from China's non -market practices. The United States had expressed grave concerns with 
Appellate Body interpre tations that went well beyond the terms of WTO safeguards rules. But in this 
dispute, China sought to go even beyond those erroneous interpretations. China had encouraged 
the panel to read Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards as cre ating a 
procedural minefield with no realistic path for Members seeking to use a safeguard measure for its 
intended purpose. The panel had rightly rejected every single one of China's misplaced arguments . 
8.10.  The United States said that China tried to depict t he uniform failure of its arguments as 
evidence that the panel must have been wrong or that the panel committed certain missteps. But 
the panel's thorough evaluation demonstrated that it was China that committed fundamental errors 
in its approach to this c ase. In particular, China attempted to read the relevant WTO safeguard 
provisions in a way that was inconsistent with the text of the covered agreements, and in a way that 
no competent authorities or no Member could ever meet in practice. That, and not som e malfeasance 
by the panel, was why China lost this dispute. It was China's burden to establish a prima facie  case 
that the US solar safeguard measure was inconsistent with one of the enumerated provisions of the 
GATT 1994 or the Agreement on Safeguards. T he panel held China to that burden. It had addressed 
each of China's arguments, and explained why China failed to discharge that burden in each instance. 
The United States would focus on just a few of those rejected arguments in its statement at the 
presen t meeting . 
8.11.  Before the panel, China had conceded that the US competent authorities correctly found that 
the domestic industry was suffering from serious injury. That was beyond dispute, as numerous US 
producers had exited the industry, and remaining produce rs suffered profitability losses and 
declining investment. China had conceded that imports were increasing from multiple sources, or 
that import prices were decreasing over the course of the period covered by the investigation. This 
was exactly the situati on that Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement were WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 16 - 
  designed to address. And, after a massive investigation with multiple parties and thousands of pages 
of evidence and arguments, the  US International Trade Commission  (USITC ) had found t hat 
increased imports had caused serious injury. In its challenge, China instead had sought to avoid the 
logical implication of these facts by attacking the competent authorities. It had asked the panel to 
essentially conduct a new investigation and issue a new determination, uncritically accepting the 
views of Chinese producers and rejecting out of hand any contrary evidence and argument. The 
panel had correctly rejected this view of its role. In line with the terms of the Safeguards Agreement, 
it had eval uated the report of the competent authorities and whether the report provided findings 
and reasoned conclusions in support of the ultimate determination. The panel had properly declined 
to make new findings or a new determination . 
8.12.  The panel had also correc tly focused on the substance of the USITC's findings, and had 
rejected China's efforts to portray Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement as 
mandating formulaic cookie -cutter approaches to the analysis. One can see a good example of this 
correct approach in the panel's handling of whether the United States had showed that increased 
imports were a result of US tariff concessions. There was no dispute that the US bound rate on CSPV 
solar products was zero, or that the binding prevented the U nited States from raising tariffs in 
response to the documented surge in imports. China had nonetheless argued that the United States 
had failed to satisfy the obligation because the USITC did not couch its findings in the exact words 
used in Article XIX. The panel had correctly focused on substance over form, finding that : 
[T]he USITC identified the United States' domestic tariff treatment of CSPV products 
when it observed that CSPV products covered by the safeguard measure "are provided 
for in subheading 8541.40.60 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule [and] have been 
free of duty under the general duty rate since at least 1987". Although we recognize 
that this statement does not explicitly establish that such tariff treatment was required 
under the Unite d States' WTO obligations, we consider that the supplemental report 
appropriately demonstrates that this was the implication of the USITC's statemen t.2 
8.13.  That was exactly what a panel should do in evaluating a safeguard measure. It should examine 
the totali ty of the competent authorities' findings, and not fasten on quibbles over phrasing as 
excuses to reject their conclusions. The United States was disappointed that China had now decided 
to press onward by appealing the panel report in spite of overwhelming  evidence of the damaging 
effects of China's non -market practices, instead of focusing its energy on changing those practices 
that were harming workers and businesses worldwide. Indeed, it was important to recall why the 
United States had imposed the solar  safeguard in the first place. The safeguard measure served to 
support the US domestic industry's efforts to adjust to import competition, after global excess solar 
cell and module capacity pushed the US industry to the brink of extinction. Chinese produce rs in 
China and around the world were largely responsible for this excess capacity, fueled by China's 
non-market practices, which were in direct contradiction to the commitments China made when it 
joined the WTO in 2001. Meanwhile, China's solar industry h ad attempted to undercut US anti -
dumping and countervailing measures on imports from China for years by shifting operations to 
other countries. The United States would not stand idly by while China continued trying to undermine 
the solar safeguard measure and to continue harming US solar producers and indeed market -
oriented solar producers worldwide . 
8.14.  The representative of the European Union  said that t his was yet another dispute that 
illustrate d the grave consequences of the blockage of Appellate Body appointments since 2017. That 
blockage undermined  the essential rights of Members that had been  agreed multilaterally under  the 
DSU. In that regard the European Union  had referred to its statements made  under the previous 
Agenda item as well as under item 7 of the DSB meeting on 28 September 2020, where the European 
Union had  elaborated on these consequences and on the possibility of appeals being adjudicated 
upon through appeal arbitration under  Article 25 of the DSU, consistently with the principles of the 
DSU. The European Union  did not wish to reiterate  those points under this Agenda item. The DSB , 
therefore , was not to adopt the panel report at this stage. The European Union had participated as 
a third party in this dispute  and look ed forward to commenting further at the appellate stage when 
the proceedings would resum e. In the meantime, as it was uncertain when appellate proceedings 
would resume, the E uropean Union  noted with interest certain asp ects of the approach which this 
panel ha d taken to the interpretation and application of the WTO disciplines on multilateral 
safeguards in this case. Th is panel report would appear to be the first completely successful defence 
 
2 Panel Report, US – Safeguard Measure on PV Products  (China) , para. 7.53.  WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 17 - 
  of a multilateral safeguard m easure (subject to the pending appeal proceedings). Therefore , the 
European Union consider ed that th is panel report and its approach to the WTO rules on multilateral 
safeguards deserve d close attention.  
8.15.  The representative of China  said that China did  not wish to comment on the substance of this 
dispute,  but wished  to respond to the US comments  made at the present meeting. It was not China's  
intention to take advantage of the appeal to delay the adoption of the panel report in this dispute . 
It was also  not China's  intention to create new rules, or establish new rules , but China  sought the 
interpretation of the WTO rules in a fair and reasonable way and for panels to respect the 
jurisprudence. As Members were aware, China was one of the active proponents  for swiftly launching 
the AB selection process and restor ing the normal functions of the A ppellate Body. China was also  
one of the proponents in WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 and also  worked with other parties to establish the 
MPIA as a contingent measure  during the present  time of a  defunct Appellate Body. China  looked 
forward to the early resumption of the A ppellate Body to hear this appeal and was also open to the 
other channels provided under Article  25 of the DSU , if the U nited States  so wishe d. Also, China 
wished to emphasize that it was  a staunch supporter of the multilateral trading system in the dispute 
areas . With regard to rulings, which were fair and reasonable even if they were not in favour of 
China,  it would  faithfully implement such rulings and recommendations as it had done  during the 
previous  cases . However, China  would  not hesitate to defend its interests when the ruling was biased 
and erroneous.  
8.16.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada w ished to address the context in which the 
appeal of the panel report ha d been made  in this dispute . Canada  noted that in this dispute, the 
panel ha d not found the measures of the respondent to be inconsistent with its obligations. Canada  
also note d that it was the complainant that ha d appealed this panel report to the non -functioning 
Appellate Body. Those circumstances were different than those that Members had  previously seen 
when a party ha d appealed panel reports to the non -functioning Appellate Body. However, the DSU 
provide d that a disputing party has the right to appellate review of panel reports, and this right 
remain ed in the circumstances at issue in th is dispute. Since  11 December 2019, the Appellate Body 
had effectively been non -functioning. Canada reiterate d that finding a solution to the Appellate Body 
impasse was of the highest importance. Article 3.10  of the DSU  provide d that, where a dispute ar ose, 
Members would  engage in dispute settlement procedures in good faith and in an effort to resolve 
the dispute. The inability of the Appellate Body to carry out its appellate review responsibilities ha d 
undermined the established process under the DSU for d ispute settlement.  But the obligation under 
Article 3.10 of the DSU to make good faith efforts to resolve the dispute still st ood. 
8.17.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
9  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; 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; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH 
AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TURKEY ; UGANDA ; 
UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGU AY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; 
VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.1 9) 
9.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. He then drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/ W/609/Rev.19 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
9.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19, said that the delegations in question had agreed to WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 18 - 
  submit the joint proposal, dated 7 December  2020 to  launch the selection processes for the 
vacancie s of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 121 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 seriou sly affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was t heir duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members  to the DSB at the present 
meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to replace 
Mr Ricardo Ramí rez-Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second process 
to fill the vacancy resulted from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had  expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office 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 Comm ittee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candid ates; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 60 
days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading system s. 
9.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States continued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US Administrations. The United States believed that 
Members had to undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. The 
dispute settlement system could and should better support the WTO's negotiating and monitoring 
functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions with Members on those concerns 
and to constructive engagement with Members at the appropriate time . 
9.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union refer red to its previous 
statements 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. This was why 
the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such a sy stem and 
proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. This task should be addressed 
as a priority. As the European Union  had consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared 
responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and t o 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 this objective. The E uropean Union  therefore renew ed its call on all WTO 
Members to engage in a const ructive discussion as soon as possible in order to restore a fully 
functioning WTO dispute settlement system. The European Union  thank ed all Members that ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes.  
9.5.  The representative of Canada  said t hat Canada support ed Mexico's statement and share d the 
concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting . Canada  invite d those WTO Members 
who ha d not yet endorsed the proposal to consider joining the 121 Members who were calling for 
the selection  process to be launched. The critical mass of WTO Members who support ed that proposal 
was a clear testimony to the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as 
an integral part of the dispute settlement system. The fact that the Ap pellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals was very worrying. Canada reiterate d its interest in contributing to discussions aimed 
at finding solutions regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body. Canada said that it  would 
appreciate it if the United States would commit to th ose discussions and invite d it to do so. It 
remain ed Canada's priority to find a lasting multilateral solution for all Members, including 
the United  States. Meanwhile, Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the MPIA as a 
contingency measure. This measure s ought to safeguard their rights to binding dispute  settlement 
including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. The MPIA was open to all WTO 
Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard their 
dispute settlement rights to the greatest extent pos sible until they collectively f ound a permanent WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 19 - 
  solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada was available to discuss the MPIA with any 
interested Member.  
9.6.  The representative of Brazil  said that  Brazil thank ed Mexico for the presentation of the pro posal 
on behalf of the co -sponsors  and wished to refer to its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item. Members  needed to restore the multilateral integrity of the dispute settlement system , as 
demonstrated by the two previous Agenda items . The current situation was affecting Members'  
ability to enforce their rights under the WTO Agreements . Moreover, it was also threatening to 
undermine the credibility of the multilateral trading system. Brazil  stood ready to engage with all 
Members  to seek a rapid resolution to this impasse.  
9.7.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  on this matter at previous DSB meetings . Indonesia wished to  avail itself of this opportunity 
to urge all Members to give their serious attention, willingness, and commitment towards immediate 
appointment s of new Appellate Body members.  
9.8.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China support ed Mexico 's 
statement. Hong Kong, China wished to join Mexico and other Members who also suppor ted the 
statement to reiterate the importance of according priority to restoring a fully functioning two -tier 
WTO dispute settlement system, which was a key pillar of the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. In Hong Kong, China 's view , it was essential tha t Members could agree on a work 
programme by the MC12 in order to resolve  the Appellate Body impasse.  
9.9.  The representative of India said that India wished to refer to its previous statements made on 
this matter and r equest ed all Members to start the Appellat e Body appointment process es urgently.  
9.10.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of 121 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 settlement system. The paralysis of the Appellate 
Body ha d posed a serious challenge to the multilateral trading system, and  more than a dozen cases, 
including the one mentioned at the present  meeting, ha d been appealed into the void. This severe 
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. Therefore, China  called upon all Members 
to prioritize the restoring of the Appellate Body function, and to engage constructively in the 
solution -based consultation s with a view to breaking the selection impasse at the earli est date. China 
also wished to echo the statements made  by other  delegations , and call ed upon Members to join the 
MPIA as a contingent arrangement during  the A ppellate Body deadlock . 
9.11.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan refer red to its statements made at the previous 
DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan share d the sense of urgency for reform of the 
dispute settlement system. As Japan ha d stated consistently, Japan consider ed it the utmost priority 
to achieve an exped itious reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural 
and functional problems of the dispute settlement system. Every WTO Member, as the owner of the 
system, had to take seriously  the current situation where the Appellate Body vi rtually ceased its 
operation a long time ago, and meanwhile, a number of cases ha d been appealed into the void. 
Furthermore, Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO Member restart ed constructive 
discussions on reform of the dispute settlement system, including on how to address the concerns 
surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan spar ed no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members to 
that end .  
9.12.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
this Agenda item t o launch the selection process es for appointments to the Appellate Body, and 
referred to its previous statements on this issue.  The dispute settlement system was a central pillar 
of the rules -based multilateral trading system.  Members had to  restore a fully effective and binding 
system, to ensure the fair and timely resolution of disagreements and preserve the rights and 
obligations of Members. As Members  headed towards the Twelfth Ministerial Conference, the United 
Kingdom  welcome d all engag ement to find common ground on this issue.  The situation remain ed 
critical, and the United Kingdom stood  ready to work together to find a long -term solution.  WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 20 - 
  9.13.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed Mexico and  reiterate d its support for the 
joint proposal . Korea wished to  refer to its previous statements made on this  matter.  The WTO 
dispute settlement system ha d been a central element in providing security and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system and Korea was ready to engage constr uctively in relevant discussions 
with a view to accommodating the needs of WTO Members. Korea also wished  to point out that 
Members  should strive for a workplan to reform the dispute settlement system by the MC12. Korea  
stood ready to work together with ot her Members and would continue to play an active and 
constructive part in relevant discussions with a view to reaching a tangible outcome . 
9.14.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland referred to its statements made on 
this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional appeals stage was in everyone's interest, 
and Switzerland  hoped that fresh impetus be given to rapidly resolve the impasse that Members had  
been facing for too long. Switzerland remain ed ready to work towards this objective, and strongly 
encourage d all Members to engage constructively in seeking concrete solutions to unlock the current 
situation.  
9.15.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway refer red to its previous  statements under this 
Agenda ite m. Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 
121 Member s. Norway wished  to thank Mexico for its continued leadership on this matter.  Norway  
again underline d the urgent need to fulfil Members'  duty as Members of the WTO and start the 
selection processes to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body, in accordance with the DSU. The 
consequences of the ongoing blockage of the appointment of members to the Appellate Body ha d 
been thoroughly illustrated in the cases discuss ed under the two previous Agenda items. Norway  
had at the same time noted the request to discuss how to improve the functioning of the Appellate 
Body and ha d on numerous occasions confirmed and re -confirmed its readiness to engage in such 
discussions to id entify possible solutions. Norway was , therefore , encouraged by the confirmation 
that the United States wa s back at the table in international fora and was ready  to engage in 
constructive dialogue . 
9.16.  The representative of Iceland  said that a s one of the many co -sponsors of the proposal, 
Iceland was concerned over the WTO's  long-standing lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the 
Appellate Body. Iceland was of the view that the two -step WTO dispute settlement system play ed a 
central role  in providing predictability within the multilateral trading system and securing a fair 
playing field for all participants – large and small. Iceland  therefore call ed on all Members to engage 
constructively and solve this impasse without further delay.  
9.17.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , said that the Group 
wished  to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter. The African Group continue d to 
regret that up until now, the DSB ha d failed in the performance of its f unctions under Article 17.2 of 
the DSU despite the overwhelming number of Members co -sponsoring this joint proposal. The fact 
that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. All WTO Members ha d a 
shared responsibility to safeguard the two -tiered dispute settlement syste m so as to prevent 
undermining the multilateral trading system , in particula r through a number of cases where some 
Members ha d appeal ed into the void. Therefore, the African Group  urged the DSB to urgently fulfil 
its obligation under the DSU , which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose, as contained in th e AB 
proposal , so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. This w ould ensure 
predictability  within the multilateral  trading system. Finally, the African Group  encourage d all 
Members to engage constructively with each other in addressing the specific concerns raised against 
the functioning of the Appellat e Body, with a view to finding a solution. The African Group  believed 
that procedural issues m ight be addressed along with substantive issues. The African Group  urged 
all Members who were yet to co -sponsor th e AB proposal to do so as soon as possible .  
9.18.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the co -
sponsored AB proposal and refer red 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. Members had to  work to refocus their collective effort on finding a solution 
that work ed for all Members.  WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 21 - 
  9.19.  The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement, which 
it strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous sta tements made on this matter and urge d 
all Members to embark on the Appellate Body selection process immediately. Singapore  looked 
forward to constructive discussions with all Members, including the United States, to find a lasting 
multilateral solution as soon as possible.  
9.20.  The representative of Zambia  said that  Zambia supported  preserving and restoring the full 
functioning of the two -tier system of the dispute settlement mechanism at the WTO in order to have 
a predictable multilateral trading system. Zambia support ed the position of the African Group of the 
need to have substantial issues raised by the United States be addressed together with the launch 
of the selection process to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body. In addressing the conc erns raised 
by the United States, Zambia wishe d to stress the need for giving due consideration to the 
aspirations of developing countries , especially least developed countries (LDCs), in order to facilitate 
their participation and utilization of the dispute settlement system. With that said, Zambia wishe d 
to acknowledge and appreciate the existing efforts that were presently in place to enable developing 
countries as LDCs to participate in the WTO dispute settlement system. These efforts include d, 
among ot hers, the existence of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law  (ACWL)  which had  recently 
celebrated its 20th anniversary and ha d been instrumental in ensuring that the LDCs participate d in 
the WTO dispute settlement system. Over the years, Zambia ha d been a beneficiary of the ACWL 
technical support and th at support ha d gone a long way in building as well as strengthening the 
capacity of Zambia's  delegates on WTO matters. Zambia was , therefore, happy to join others in 
celebrating the ACWL for its many achievements over the last 20 years. Zambia  express ed its  best 
wishes and warmest congratulations on this milestone.  
9.21.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wished  to reiterate its strong support for 
the open, fair and non -discriminatory rules -based, multilateral trading system . Malaysia  strongly 
believe d in the two -tier dispute settlement system as an indispensable pillar of this institution. All 
Members of the WTO ha d the responsib ility to preserve the system in order to maintain the credibility 
and predictability of the multilateral trading system. In December  2021, two years would hav e 
elapsed since the Appellate Body had its quorum for the last time to review new appeals. The present 
situation in the Appellate Body was seriously affecting the long-term interests of all Members which 
might  also show a lack of credibility in the WTO. With more than 70 % of the WTO Membership 
co-sponsor ing this joint proposal , this clearly reflect ed a common concern about  the current situation 
of the Appellate Body. In this regard, Malaysia w ished to join others in urging all Members to exercise 
the necessary flexibility to enable the  expeditious  unblocking  of the Appellate Body sel ection process. 
Malaysia reiterate d its firm commitment to the multilateral trading system and its rules. Malaysia  
called again for all Members to launch the Appellate Body selection process es in an efficient manner 
and adopt the decision regarding this ma tter immediately.  
9.22.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to join many  other  delegations  in 
supporting the statement made by Mexico on behalf of the  co-sponsors. Referring  to its previous 
statements , Thailand wished  to reiterate its concerns over the long absence of a fully functioning 
Appellate Body and renew its call on  all Members to continue and intensify the ir efforts as Thailand 
stood ready to work closely with others in finding ways and means to solve this imp asse.  
9.23.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation w ished to thank 
Mexico for its statement. The Russian Federation  referred to its statements made at  previous DSB 
meetings and reiterate d its strong support for the proposal to launch the appointment processes 
immediately. Russia urge d Members to prioritize the restoring of the proper operation of the dispute 
settlement system and renew ed its readiness to cooperate and engage constructively in any 
discussions on the matter with a view to reach ing an agreement acceptable for all.  
9.24.  The representative of Chad, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group,  thank ed Mexico for its 
statement and share d the concerns expressed under this Agenda item by other Memb ers. The Group 
reiterate d its call for the DSB to discharge its obligation under the DSU. It was a very urgent matter 
to unblock the current situation so as to ensure the predictability of the multilateral trading system 
and to strengthen the WTO's credibi lity. This was something the LDC Group needed  because its 
Members were the most vulnerable and needed a functioning dispute settlement mechanism  and 
the Appellate Body if they were to make any progress. It was indeed very urgent to resolve the 
current impa sse and find a consensus -based solution with regards to the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. The Group count ed on the flexibility of Members and on the Chairman's leadership to bring 
Members together to an acceptable, realistic and consensus -based soluti on. WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 22 - 
  9.25.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regretted that for 
the forty -sixth occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
the WTO . The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain asp ects of the functioning 
of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this body and 
dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the selection 
processes, which was causin g concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with t heir 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to act 
at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
9.26.  The representative of Mexico  said that f or more than two years, Members ha d been requesting 
that th e AB proposal be approved by the DSB in order to preserve their  right to appeal . Mexico 
referred to its previous statements on this matter  and continue d to express its deep concern as 
Members were  faced with an unprecedented situation , namely non -functional  Appellate Body. As 
Members had seen at the present meeting  and in previous DSB meetings, all ongoing disputes were 
being affected by not having a fully fun ctioning two -tier dispute settlement system, putting at risk 
prompt compliance and adoption of panel  reports. This matter required an  urgent  attention  and 
Mexico  therefore call ed on Members who ha d not done so to join the AB  proposal. Mexico  remain ed 
ready  to work constructively on a real and multilateral solution . 
9.27.  The Chairman  thank ed delegations for their statements  and said that, a s in the past, the DSB 
would take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected in 
the minutes of th e present  meeting. As Members were  all aware, this matter require d political 
engagement on the part of all WTO Members, and he hoped that Members  would be able to find a 
solution  to this matter as soon as possible. He recall ed that the Chair of the General Council briefly 
reported on his consultations on this matter carried out under the General Council in the context of 
the preparations  for the up coming Ministerial Conference . Finally, he said that his door was open to 
any Member wishing to contact him directly on this matter.  
9.28.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
10  STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA AND GUATEMALA REGARDING THE TWENTIETH 
ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADVISORY CENTRE ON WTO LAW (ACWL)  
10.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of Australia and 
Guatemala, and invited the respective representati ves to speak . 
10.2.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala was a founding Member o f the ACWL . 
Guatemala  welcome d this opportunity to commemorate the 20th anniversary  of the ACWL  and to 
draw the attention of the DSB to the importance that the ACWL  played in the rules -based multilateral 
trading system. Over the p revious  20 years, Guatemal a had been a frequent user of the WTO dispute 
settlement system. Its successful participation ha d been, in great part, thanks to the support and 
services provided by the ACWL . Without the ACWL's assistance, at non -commercial rates, Guatemala 
would not have been in a position to participate in, and actively learn from, the dispute settlement 
system. Additionally, Guatemala ha d been actively involved in the institutional management of the 
ACWL . He said that t he Ambassador of Guatemala ha d served on the AC WL Management Board . The 
representative of Guatemala  said that he, personally, was honoured to serve as Vice -Chairman of 
the General Assembly.  
10.3.  He said that Guatemala ha d witnessed first -hand the growth of the ACWL  and its evolution 
into an essential pilla r of the rules -based multilateral system, both through Guatemala's  use of its 
services as well as Guatemala's  active participation in its management bodies. Back in 2001, the 
founding members designed the ACWL  as an active supporter of developing countries  and LDCs in 
their efforts to effectively use the WTO dispute settlement system. This support levelled the playing 
field so that developing countries could be on an equal footing to developed -country Members that 
were better equipped. This ha d proven to be  the case. The ACWL ha d been involved in 68 disputes, 
representing approximately 20 % of the total number  of WTO disputes. Currently , 81 countries – 
roughly half of the Membership of the WTO – were entitled to the services of the ACWL . These were WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 23 - 
  38 develop ing country Members and all of the 43 LDCs that were Members of the WTO or in the 
process of accession, who are automatically eligible to access the services of the ACWL. Beyond 
support in dispute settlement proceedings, the legal advice of the ACWL ha d been instrumental in 
assisting developing countries, like Guatemala, in the effective implementation of WTO disciplines 
at the national level. Every year, the ACWL prepare d over 200 tailor -made and strictly confidential 
legal opinions. In 2020 , 34 developing  countries and 15 LDCs requested legal opinions on the whole 
spectrum of WTO disciplines. These opinions provide d a solid basis for governments to ensure that 
they were complying with their WTO obligations as well as a thorough analysis of the issues when 
they need ed to represent national interests at the WTO. Solid and substantive legal advice play ed a 
crucial role in preventing WTO disputes and benefit ed the whole Membership.  
10.4.  Over the past 20 years, the ACWL  had become a public good that combine d and catalyse d 
experience and practice in WTO dispute settlement. The ACWL  enable d its members to draw on that 
expertise to better understand and defend their rights and obligations under WTO law. Furthermore, 
the ACWL  played a pivotal role in developing and delivering technical assistance for Geneva - and 
capital -based delegates. The training programmes were excellent, as they combine d both 
substantive and practical approaches, based on their abundant experience. Guatemala  wished  to 
express its appreciation to developed country Members that ha d provided funding for the ACWL  
since 2001. Th ose Members ha d taken a step forward and recognized that the full and effective 
integration of developing country and LDC Members into the  WTO benefi ted everyone. Access to 
expert legal advice was essential to achieve a high level of integration, where all Members – 
regardless of their size – could benefit from legal advice on domestic implementation and use the 
dispute settlement system wit h confidence. Guatemala also wished  to commend donors for 
respecting the independence and impartiality of the ACWL , which ha d been essential for its success 
and well -functioning and for building trust among its users. Finally, Guatemala wished to note  that 
the ACWL was embarking on a new five -year financing plan. Guatemala  hoped that the donor 
community w ould be in a position to continue their generous and visionary support for the ACWL . 
At this particular juncture in time, when the WTO need ed to be inclusive and foster growth and 
economic recovery, Guatemala wished  to encourage developed country Members to take a closer 
look at the results and benefits that the ACWL br ought  to the rules -based multilateral trading system 
as a whole and consider  the possibility to contribute to the financing efforts of this important 
institution.  
10.5.  The representative of Australia  said that she wished to take this opportunity on behalf of 
Australia, and personally as Chair of the ACWL General Assembly, to warmly con gratulate the ACWL 
on its 20th anniversary. The ACWL ha d played a vital role for developing countries and LDCs in the 
multilateral trading system. It ha d helped strengthen their trade policy expertise to realise their 
WTO rights, respect their WTO obligati ons, participate fully in trade negotiations , and enable them 
to benefit from the open, rules -based global trading system. The ACWL should be particularly 
commended for its agile approach during COVID -19. During this difficult period, it ha d continued to 
provide timely legal advice, critical training, seminars, and secondments for developing countries 
and LDCs to  help build in -house capacity. Australia ha d been a proud contributor to  the ACWL since 
2010 and a member of the ACWL for the previous  decade  since 2011 . Australia saw the ACWL as a 
valuable component of the multilateral trading system , which help ed enable full and effective 
participation of all WTO Members, irrespective of size or resourcing.  The ACWL therefore provide d 
benefits to all Members because the essential nature of the multilateral trading system was enhanced 
when it was open to all. Australia  looked forward to continuing its active contribution, and strongly 
encourage d other Members to suppor t this important institution.  
10.6.  The representative of Tunisia  said that Tunisia  wished  to thank Australia and Guatemala for 
placing this item on the Agenda, and was pleased to join them in congratulating the ACWL  on its 
20th anniversary and to wish it well with its increasingly vital work for Members. Tunisia was 
particularly interested to note at the ACWL General Assembly in July that the ACWL ha d maintained 
an above -average level of activity, despite the constraints of the p andemic. Tunisia  also appreciated 
its swift and effective adaptation, with a view to continuing its advisory and training activities. As 
such, through its extensive cooperation with the ACWL in recent years, Tunisia could  confirm the 
results of the satisfa ction surveys which indicate d that users were fully satisfied with the ACWL's 
services. That so many delegations continue d to turn to the ACWL illustrate d the degree of credibility 
it had attained, the quality of its legal advice and the great expertise of  its staff. In this regard, 
Tunisia wished  to welcome Germany as a full member of the ACWL. Moreover, Members appear ed 
to remain interested in using the dispute settlement system to resolve trade concerns that c ould not 
be resolved through negotiation. Tunisia hoped that Members sustain ed that positive momentum in WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 24 - 
  order to restore a fully functional dispute settlement system. Finally, Tunisia  underline d its 
commitment to its collaboration with the ACWL, which it intend ed to step up in the coming years, 
particularly in the area of training and assistance . 
10.7.  The representative of Niger  wished to congratulat e the ACWL  on its 20th anniversary. Niger 
wished to express its sincere thanks on this occasion. Niger  welcomed  the efforts of the ACWL over 
the past few years to respond to Niger's  requests for legal advice and support Niger's  negotiations 
at the WTO. As an LDC which had benefited from the services of the ACWL, Niger  had used its 
services in a very satisfactory way. T he ACWL lawyers ha d made every effort to ensure that Niger's  
needs were met and Niger welcome d their active participation at the fourth South -South dialogue 
on the LDCs and Development that took place on 16 -17 September in Montreux. Niger  hoped to 
collabor ate even more closely with the ACWL in the future in order to explore capacity -building and 
assistance activities through the missions in Geneva and through measures that c ould help Niger  to 
have a better understanding of the rules and their implementation  and coherence with Niger's  
policies so that in the medium term Niger would  be able to strengthen its trade -related institutions. 
Niger  hoped to strengthen its collaboration with the ACWL over the next few years.  
10.8.  The representative of Sri Lanka  said that Sri Lanka wishe d to thank Australia and Guatemala 
for includ ing this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting. Sri Lanka join ed previous speakers to 
express its appreciation for the services rendered by the ACWL. The ACWL was now seen as a 
funda mental pillar of the rules -based, multilateral trading system. The ACWL's assistance to 
developing countries and LDCs  in dispute settlement proceedings ha d helped create a level playing 
field in WTO disputes. The ACWL's legal advice in dispute resolution, dispute prevention and sound 
implementation of international commitment s enable d developing countries as well as LDCs to 
understand fully their rights and obligations under WTO law and to take full advantage of their 
participation in the WTO system. The AC WL ha d also played a crucial role in capacity building in WTO 
law in developing countries' and the LDCs'  governments. In Sri Lanka's view, the ACWL  showed the 
degree  of credibility that the ACWL ha d attained . The quality of the legal aspects its legal opin ions 
was also highly rated  as well as spill-over effects on Sri Lanka's  ability to d efend itself in addressing 
certain trade concerns. Every time Sri Lanka face d an issue its capital request ed the Mission to 
contact the ACWL for legal advice . With the ACWL's advice Sri Lanka ha d been able to adopt  
WTO-consistent measures and policies in a manner that complie d with Sri Lanka's WTO 
commitments. While some thought of the  WTO Agreement as dealing with multilateral issues , as 
trade negotiators most of Sri La nka's colleagues valued the inputs of the ACWL even in bilateral 
matters. In  Sri Lanka's view, th at showed that there was no limitation to the extent to which 
developing countries c ould use the ACWL 's advice. Regarding Genev a-based activities, Sri Lanka ha d 
participated in a number of training activities  offered by the ACWL . While appreciating donor 
countries for the ir generous contributions to fund the ACWL's operations , which enable d the ACWL 
to provide its first-class legal advice with direct and indirect effects , Sri Lanka was convinced that 
those contributions should not be regarded as a burden but rather  as an investment geared towards 
building the capacities of the neediest. Sri Lanka  expresse d its concerns ov er the uncertainty as to 
whether the ACWL w ould receive  sufficient  contributions to f und its budget for  the period  2022-2026 
and it w ould be tragic if the ACWL was compelled to curtail its activities due to lack of funds. 
Sri Lanka,  therefore , respectfully  appeal ed to the donors for contributions of financial assistance and 
involvement in order for the ACWL to be able to continue providing its services in generations to 
come.  
10.9.  The representative of Panama  said that Panama wishe d to thank Australia and Guatemala for 
putting this item on the Agenda. As a founding member of the ACW L, Panama  fully appreciate d the 
value of its support and advice to Members and its support in the context of the dispute settlement 
procedures within the WTO. The ACWL support for resolving disputes was invaluable. The experience 
of the pandemic , with a number of proposals and initiatives within the WTO , had increased the need 
and the demand for the ACWL's services even more and Panama  hoped that it c ould continue to 
provide the necessary support to help Members  deal with trade restrictive measures that were 
affecting Members' efforts to try to overcome the crisis , and to help find solutions when questions 
were raised about th ose measures . The ACWL had helpe d Panama  to design measures that c ould be 
as least trade restrictive as possible and consistent with WTO rules. The benefits of the work of the 
ACWL  in this respect were felt by all WTO Members , not only those who ha d asked for the advice. 
Panama wishe d to underscore the importance of the ACWL and thank the voluntary contributions of 
donor countries to the ACWL, and encourage d them to continue to support the work of this 
institution. Without the necessary financing the ACWL  would not be able to continue to provide WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 25 - 
  necessary support to LDC s and developing countries and very often the ACWL was  the only one 
providing those Members with the advice they needed. 
10.10.   The representative of Chad, speaking  on behalf of the LDC Group, also wishe d to thank 
Guatemala and Australia for having put this important item on the Agenda of the present meeting . 
For the LDCs, the ACWL  was an extremely important institution . It had been invaluable in the support 
that it provide d on legal issues  connected with WTO agreement s in all th eir respects  and all of the 
legal matters it was involved in . Chad recalled  that it had  not participated often in the dispute 
settlement system . In fact , Chad had just once participa ted as a third party in the "US – Cotton " 
dispute . Chad was v ery grateful  for the ACWL's support in preparing its written submission on  the 
cotton issue. Chad had  also noted that the ACWL,  in the context of trade facilitation , provide d free 
legal advice on all of the legal issues connected with the trade facilitation ag reement , such as the 
interpretation and meaning of its provisions. On the dispute settlement system, the ACWL also 
support ed LDCs regularly on many issues helping them to fully understand their rights and 
obligations. The  ACWL  also provide d training activi ties for delegates in Geneva and from capital. 
Indeed, it also provide d support for activities in capital to help strengthen institutional human  
capacities and learn from the experience and know -how of the ACWL lawyers. To conclude, the LDC 
Group was very grateful to the ACWL for its efforts to broaden the languages  in which it provided 
support , in particular  to French -speaking Members , and the LDC Group hoped that the ACWL would  
continue to make efforts in that regard so that they could  benefit even further from the ACWL's  work 
in the future. The LDC Group  congratulate d the ACWL  on its first 20 years of support ing the LDCs 
and developing countries and wish ed the ACWL  a very happy  anniversary.  
10.11.   The representative of the Philippines  said that t he Philippines also thank ed Australia and 
Guatemala for their statements  and for bringing this matter before  the DSB . The Philippines  
congratulate d the ACWL on its 20th anniversary and commend ed the very good work it ha d done 
and the unquantifiable service it ha d given to developing countries in the  WTO. The ACWL was a 
competent and reliable institution that h ad been indispensable to the  Membership of the WTO. The 
ACWL was first and foremost a key player in dispute settlement, whether the ACWL work ed to defend 
a case, or litigate d against one . In either case, professionalism and objectivity permeate d the 
conduct and decorum of the experienced ACWL staff. Equally important ly, the ACWL was a constant 
reservoir of information, advice and guidance for the Philippines. The advice that was most valuable 
was that which allow ed the Philippines  to resolve and avoid disputes settlement proceedings. The 
ACWL ha d been extremely useful to the Philippines and , the Philippines was  sure, to many if not all 
other developing country Members as well. It  was therefore concerning to see the contributions to  
the ACWL fall from  CHF 20.36 million in 2012 -2016, to CHF 14.96 mi llion in 2017 -2021, when the 
amount of work and the value of ACWL services ha d been far from diminished. Donors should look 
at their contributions to the ACWL not as mere contributions to a third party 's project, but as an 
organization that they themselves  had established 20 years  prior to pursue the shared objective of 
enhancing the acceptability and credibility of the rules -based multilateral trading system. Over the 
next five years, the Philippines wished to see a return to the original, driving purpose that established 
the ACWL . The Philippines wished the ACWL all the best for the next 20 years.  
10.12.   The representative of Cuba said that Cuba was  pleased  that this item was on the Agenda of 
the present meeting. The ACWL had been  established to help developing countries and the LDCs to 
overcome the limitations they face d in fully understanding the WTO legal system and  to support 
them in their capacity -building efforts. Obviously , over the past 20 years the ACWL  had acquired the 
influence and authority of a well -established international organization and its work respond ed to an 
ever-greater need for legal advice on the part of those  countries. In particular, Cuba received 
technical advice on issues connected to the WTO that w as extremely useful in its decision -making 
process. The legal advice received on a number of issues ha d been a key benchmark when Cuba 
took very important decisions in this respect. There remain ed a great deal of work to be done in 
order to impro ve Members ' capacit ies to deal with the dispute settlement system  of the WTO. C uba 
reiterate d its thanks to the ACWL  for its work. Recognizing that one of the major challenges the 
ACWL  still face d remain ed ensuring the financing of its activities , Cuba  urged donors who contribute d 
to the ACWL's important work to continue to support the  ACWL , developing countries and LDCs . 
10.13.   The representative of Kenya  said that Kenya join ed other Members in congratulating the 
ACWL on its 20th anniversary, an important milestone date. Kenya also align ed itself with the 
statement that w ould be delivered on behalf of the African Group. Twenty years  ago, several WTO 
Members established the ACWL to provide a means for developing countries and LDCs to enjoy 
permanent access to specialized legal services on WTO matters which were complex for many WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 26 - 
  delegations. Many WTO Members, due to capacity constraints, ha d difficulties applying  their rights 
and o bligations under the WTO to particular situations in the course of trade. The deficit was also a 
major handicap to these Members ' contribution s to multilateral trade operations  and this had an 
impact on the credibility of the WTO. Mr Renato Ruggiero , the former Director -General of the WTO , 
on the occasion of the establishment of the ACWL , said that u niversal Membership of the WTO was 
not enough to achieve universality – this depend ed on the participation of its Members in the system. 
In this area, Kenya  faced a serious challenge which was aggravated by the necessary complexity of 
the WTO rules and disciplines and the multiple areas it cover ed. If Members were  not sensitive, this 
necessary complexity and comprehensiveness  could well result in an instrument for the 
marginalization of those who lack ed human resources and expertise. Twenty years later , it was 
evident that the ACWL ha d immensely contributed to the enhancement of the human resource s and 
expertise of many developi ng countries and LDCs. This c ould be illustrated by the number of 
Geneva -based delegates who ha d benefited from the annual training courses as well as tailored 
seminars. There was a common pro gramme  for government lawyers – for more than 40 lawyers 
thus far – to not only join the ACWL legal team and learn from the experience trade law practitioners 
but also expose them to the actual practice of WTO law, the dispute settlement process and 
consequently broaden and deepen their aptitude for trade law. Kenya,  as a beneficiary of the ACWL's 
services , commend ed this important institution for its central role in the multilateral trading system. 
The existence of the ACW L had been made possible by generous  financial donations by some WTO 
Members . Kenya was  therefore grateful for the donors and their invaluable contribution to the 
existence of the ACWL and encourage d them to continue to fund the organization.  
10.14.   The representative of Pakistan  said that Pakistan  wished to thank Australia and Guatemala 
for placing  this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting.  As one of the founding Members of the 
ACWL , Pakistan wished to congratulate the ACWL for its 20th anniversary. In the twenty years of its 
existence, the ACWL ha d proven its worth and ha d demonstrated its capacity to provide a high level 
of expertise to countries to meaningfully and effectively participate in the multilateral trading 
system. The numerous disputes in which developing countries were able to successful ly defend their 
interests with the assistance of the ACWL was one of the remarkable noble causes for which this 
institution was established and an example of the outstanding  work it was doing. Pakistan  therefore 
wished to thank the ACWL for the high qualit y of its services. Pakistan said that it  would be remiss 
not to express its appreciation and thanks to the group of developed country members of the ACWL 
and donors who ha d taken on the biggest share of financial support of the ACWL . Without their 
contribu tion, Members' access to the much needed, high -quality technical and legal expertise  
required to fully participate in this multilateral forum would have been limited. Having said that, the 
budget proposals for the ACWL were concerning for Pakistan . For twenty years, the stellar legal 
services the ACWL ha d provided had been  a contribution to the multilateral trading system. This ha d 
only been possible due to the ex cellen t human and other resources the  ACWL  had been able to hire. 
Providing market -based renumeration and adequate financing was the only way that the ACWL c ould 
provide  quality r esources and state -of-the-art infrastructure , which ha d been its hallmark for the 
previous  two decades. Insufficient financial support for the ACWL would not only lower the level of 
engagement  and compromise the quality of services but also in turn exacerb ate the imbalance in 
the playing field of the WTO and defeat the very purpose for which the ACWL was established. 
Pakistan  therefore encourage d and urge d Members and donors , who were taking stock of the 
excellent services delivered by the ACWL over the pas t twenty years, to seamlessly continue this 
much needed financial support. In recent times, with the COVID pandemic and a global economic 
crunch , the least Members  could do was  not create an imbalance in the trading system. Pakistan 
wholeheartedly support ed the continued functioning of the ACWL for the purpose for which it was 
established and founded, and believe d that the ACWL, its resources and its work had to  be 
strengthened and further supported.  
10.15.   The representative of Mauritius  thank ed Australia and Guatemala for placing  this item on the 
Agenda  of the present meeting.  Mauritius wished to be associate d with the statement  to be made 
by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. Mauritius, like many previous speakers , wished to express 
its appreciation to the ACWL for its exceptional work. Looking at its twenty years of operation, 
Members were  all impressed by the amount and quality of work carried out by the ACWL. Not only  
did a small country like Mauritius benefit from the advice from the ACWL , but since  its accession to 
the ACWL in June 2003 its officials ha d increased their knowledge and co nsolidated their expertise 
on WTO law through the capacity -building programmes and training  provided  by the institution. Over 
the previous twenty years, 30 different African countries ha d obtained legal advice on a wide range 
of subjects from the ACWL. In 2020, 17 different African countries benefited from a total of 55 legal 
opinions, which, Mauritius understood,  represent ed just over 25 % of the ACWL's legal opinion s, and WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 27 - 
  free of charge. These legal opinions helped African countries to better understand  their rights and 
obligations under the WTO Agreements and to further their integration into the rules -based system 
of the multilateral trading system. As a small island developing state with limited resources, 
Mauritius often thought that it had  limited capa city in understanding the complexities of the 
multilateral trading system . However , partners like the ACWL , with its programmes , helped breach 
the gap. To conclude, Mauritius  convey ed its heartiest congratulations to the ACWL team for ensuring 
that the ins titution fulfil led its mandate with such dedication. Mauritius lo oked forward to continue 
working with the ACWL  in the advancement of  Mauritius' interest s in the multilateral trading system.  
10.16.   The representative of Uruguay  said that Uruguay wished to thank the delegations of Australia 
and Guatemala for placing  this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting and wished  to commend 
the ACWL on their 20th anniversary and the very important role  it had been playing for developing 
countries. In the case of Uruguay, even though it had  not had any disputes since the establishment 
of the ACWL , it nevertheless  considered  the ACWL as a very important  institution.  Uruguay had  used 
the ACWL's  services a number of times to train delegates. Uruguay wished  to thank various donors 
for the ir contributions to support the budget of the ACWL. It was fundamental to keep the ACWL  up 
and running . In Uruguay's view, the ACWL  provided an essential service  to Members.  
10.17.   The representative of Angola  said that  Angola wished  to take this opportunity to express its 
strong support for the ACWL  contribution over the past 20 years.  Angola h ad had a long working 
relationship with the ACWL  and considered it to an excellent  partner  in assisting Angola and other 
countrie s in facilitating training and capacity -building for a better understanding and framing of 
various issues related to legal provisions in the WTO.  Angola commend ed the work of the ACWL and 
reiterate d its will  to continue to benefit more than ever from the experience and capacity -building 
provided by  the ACWL.   
10.18.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to reiterat e its support for the ACWL. 
The organization provide d legal services to a large segment of W TO Members. Thanks to the ACWL , 
dispute settlement procedures were accessible to developing country members of the ACWL and to 
the LDC Members of the WTO. Th ose countries also ha d access to high -quality legal advice on the 
compliance of their planned trade  measures with their WTO obligations. Finally, the various forms 
of training the ACWL  provide d to these countries was useful to building their capacity in WTO law. 
Through its activities, the ACWL support ed the security and predictability of international trade. 
Thanks to the ACWL , developing country members of the ACWL and the LDC Members of the WTO 
had a further opportunity to deepen their understanding of their rights and obligations and were 
able to enforce them when necessary. Th ose countries' confiden ce in the system was vital for the 
WTO's success.  
10.19.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to thank Australia and Guatemala for 
placing  this item  on the Agenda of the present meeting.  Brazil acknowledge d the key role th at the  
ACWL had played and continue d to play in assisting developing countries and the LDCs to build and 
strengthen their capacity to participate fully in the WTO system , including in dispute settlement 
proceedings. Although Brazil was neither a donor nor a member of th e ACWL , it had had the chance 
to interact with lawyers of the ACWL on a number of occasions . The ACWL  had always been viewed 
as a first rate, highly competent team of professionals. Brazil was  very pleased to commend the 
ACWL for its invaluable work  on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.  
10.20.   The representative of Colombia  said that Colombia wished to thank Australia and Guatemala 
for the inclusion of this item on the  Agenda  of the present meeting. Colombia view ed the ACWL as 
a highly relevant institution  and wished  to give the ACWL the recognition it deserve d as it reache d 
its twentieth year  of existence. At the present meeting, Colombia wishe d to make three comments 
about the ACWL.  First, Colombia ha d special tie s with the ACWL. It was  fair to say that the ACWL 
stemmed  from a Colombian idea. It was Claudia  Orozco, a Colombian national, now a member of 
the pool of arbitrators for the MPIA and a panelist who had served on the most cases . She had  
developed the origin al idea that later resulted, with the help of many, in the creation of the ACWL 
that Members were  celebrating at the present meeting . At th at time, Ms  Orozco had served as 
Minister Counsellor with the Colombian delegation in Geneva. Inspired by the idea of fair access to 
justice and aware of the shortcomings of the alternatives provided for in Article  27.2 of the DSU, the 
Colombian Mission had proposed a n institution  that would be independent from the WTO Secretariat, 
financially self -sustained , and committed to ensuring fair access to justice as a cornerstone of the 
proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system. With special help from the Netherlands, 
the Unite d Kingdom, Sweden,  and other developed countries, the idea had gained ground. Colombia WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 28 - 
  could not have been prouder of this idea and of how well it ha d developed. Thanks to the Member 
countries, and with the support of the funding countries and the leadersh ip of its Director and his 
excellent team, the ACWL had  functioned remarkably well over the previous  20 years, not only for 
the benefit of Colombia, but for that of a large and ever -growing number of countries.  
10.21.   Second, beyond providing legal assistance to developing countries, the ACWL was currently  
part and parcel of the present multilateral trading system. This was not hyperbole. In fact, the ACWL  
had a systemic nature that sometimes went unnoticed by some Members. The proper 
implementation of the Uruguay  Round disciplines and commitments depended in large part on the 
existence of mechanisms  that allow ed all countries to participate in proceedings on an equal footing. 
It served no purpose to have a large number of countries join the WTO if their respective  delegations 
lacked the experience and expertise needed to use the tools provided by the agreements when trying 
to solve their worst trade issues. The ACWL ha d effectively assisted in a significant number of WTO 
disputes and averted many more. The ACWL had ensured that delegations that did not have access 
to the tools necessary to defend their rights could nevertheless adequately do so. It ha d helped the 
delegations of developing countries better understand their commitments a s well as  those of their 
peers. It ha d also advised on public policy regarding the implementation of the WTO Agreements, 
and ha d provided a surprising number of developing country officials with training . Finally, the ACWL  
had enabled the WTO  Secretariat to maintai n the distance and level of independence required in its 
relations with countries when helping to settle their trade disputes. The ACWL d id not assist only 
some countries but , rather, it was a fundamental part of the multilateral trading system, which 
guarantee d the utility and effectiveness of the system for all, including third parties.  
10.22.   Third, the ACWL was one of the most elegant and constructive examples of international 
cooperation.  In the present trading world, where interactions were tense and disagre ements 
rampant, the ACWL show ed how cooperation between developed and developing countries c ould 
and should function. It was not a matter of specific projects with short -term results that c ould b e 
showcased on the political scene. This was  true cooperation  that was  disinterested in the short term , 
and effective, constructive and  systemic, in the long term. This system enabled most developed 
countries  to ensure that developing countries c ould truly make use of the tools they had negotiated 
– tools to which a ll parties had been committed . Furthermore, throughout th ose years of intensive 
discussions regarding special and differential treatment, this cooperation ha d been one of the best 
expressions of such treatment. A certain number of Members, on a voluntary b asis and because of 
their developing country status, ha d received a set of additional privileges for better application and 
understanding of trade rules. This was not a special treatment that weaken ed the rules, nor was it 
a mechanism that result ed in their inapplicability for a certain amount of time . On the contrary, it 
was an additional tool for better understanding and application of the rules and disciplines. That was 
why the countries using the services of the ACWL thank ed the cooperating and funding countries, 
and congratulate d them for moving forward with the purest form of international cooperation , 
namely,  disinterested in short -term results, systemic, and aimed at enabling all Members to take 
better ownership of the rules. Th at was  also wh y the ACWL  serve d as a model for other projects, 
such as the recent idea brought forth by the Netherlands for a similar centre focused on investment.  
10.23.   Colombia said that t hese were the three comment s that it wished to make  at the present 
meeting : first, on Colombia's pride at having contributed to the founding idea; second, on the 
importance of recognizing the ACWL  as a cornerstone of the multilateral trading system; and third, 
on the relevance of using the ACWL as an example of the right international coope ration between 
developed and developing countries.  In light of the foregoing, the ACWL deserve d the fullest 
celebration at the DSB stage,  its natural stage, where for over 20 years, it ha d been a permanent, 
judicious , and discreet player.  Colombia,  once ag ain, thank ed Guatemala and Australia, as well as 
the ACWL and its staff.  
10.24.   The representative of Costa Rica  said that Costa Rica wished  to thank Australia and 
Guatemala for  placing  this item on the Agenda of the present meeting. Costa Rica wished  to take 
this opportunity to congratulate the ACWL on its 20th anniversary , which was  very important for 
developing countries such as Costa Rica. His country was a frequent user of the services of ACWL 
and was very happy to be able to underscore the high l evel of capacity and efficiency for the legal 
assistance and legal opinions the ACWL had  provided in the various disputes that Costa Rica had 
become involved in. Costa Rica also attach ed a lot of importance to the major role played by the 
ACWL when it c ame to preventing or avoiding disputes and for helping their beneficiaries when it 
came to better compliance with WTO  obligations. For all these reasons , Costa Rica wished to thank 
the donor countries for the contributions , which made possible for the ACWL to  set up and become WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 29 - 
  a public good , and their work ma de it possible to promote  the interests of all Members in the 
multilateral trading system. Likewise, Costa Rica wished  to encourage the current donors and further 
future potential donors to continue making a contribution to secure the sustainability of the ACWL 
going forward.  
10.25.   The representative of Peru said that Peru wished  to be associated  with the statements  made  
by Aus tralia, Guatemala and other previous speakers. Peru consider ed that the work of the ACWL 
remain ed particularly relevant for developing countries and the LDCs, as it ha d allowed them to have 
real access to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Since its est ablishment, the ACWL ha d 
provided countries such as Peru with first rate advice on a number of issues related to the WTO's 
regulatory framework, which ha d undoubtedly contributed to Peru's internal assessments and 
facilitated Peru's participation in the wo rk in the WTO bodies. Accordingly, Peru also wishe d to thank 
the donor Members for their contributions to the ACWL, which ha d given developing countries  and 
LDCs invaluable support with the dispute settlement system procedures and negotiations  in the  
WTO. Peru, therefore , encourage d the ACWL  to continue to provide  their invaluable support, which 
would undoubtedly result in a more participatory, supportive, transparent , and fair international 
trading system. This was particularly important during the  COVID -19 pandemic, which ha d had a 
significant impact on developing countries' and the LDCs' economies . Peru congratulat ed the ACWL 
on its 20th anniversary, with the certainty that its hard work w ould continue to assist  Peru for many 
more years to come.  
10.26.   The repr esentative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to begin by thanking Guatemala 
and Australia for placing this item on the  Agenda  of the present meeting.  Indonesia wished  to extend 
its heartfelt congratulations to the ACWL for their 20th anniversary. Indonesia  also congratulated the 
ACWL for its significant contributions to developing countries, particularly in the area of dispute 
settlement in the WTO. The work carried out by the ACWL had been a means to address challenges 
faced by developing members participating in the WTO dispute settlement process  which , given its 
nature , demand ed a lot of  resources. Hence, the ACWL ha d been a fundamental part of the work of 
the WTO. Indonesia also highly appreciate d the fact that the ACWL always maintain ed their high 
quality  of its  legal opinions, performing legal representation, amid escalating demands for their 
assistance. Indonesia  remain ed committed to support ing the work of the ACWL and wis hed them 
the very best for their work ahead.  
10.27.   The representative of El Salvador  said that El Salvador wishe d to thank Australia and 
Guatemala for including  this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting  and to echo the views 
expressed by the previous speakers. El Salvador  wished to congratulate the ACWL  on the occasion 
of its 20th anniversary. El Salvador,  over the years , had benefited on a number of occasions from 
the legal advice given by the ACWL which ha d enabled  El Salvador  to resort to the WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism . In addition, capital -based officials ha d received training and technical 
assistance in various activities organized by the  ACWL . El Salvador wished  to stress the importance 
of the work of the ACWL and  hoped that donors w ould continue to support its activities in the future. 
El Salvador wished  to congratulate the ACWL  and its staff on this anniversary.  
10.28.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland thank ed Guatemala and Australia for  
placing  this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting. Switzerland wished  to associate itself with 
the positive statements made by the previous speakers  in their assessment of the work carried out 
by the ACWL . Through this und ertaking, the participation of developing countries and the LDCs in 
WTO dispute settlement ha d been facilitated at all stages of the system. The ACWL thus contribute d 
directly to the inclusiveness  of the system.  Confident of its relevance and added value, Switzerland 
had supported the ACWL since  2003.  
10.29.   The representative of Lesotho  said that Lesotho commend ed Guatemala and Australia for  
placing  this important item on the Agenda of th e present  meeting. Lesotho wished to be associated 
with the statement made  by Chad,  on behalf of the LDC Group , and with the statement to be made 
subsequently  on behalf of the African Group. Lesotho expressed its  appreciation for the work of the 
ACWL for th e past  20 years , which had contributed to reinforcing the legal capacity of developing 
countries and especially of LDCs like Lesotho. The ACWL was a miracle in  international law. Nobody  
would have thought in the 1990s that a number of Members would succeed in creating an 
independent office charged with assist ing the legal needs of developing countries and LDCs . For that 
reason, Lesotho wished to  pay tribute to those great minds who devised and  successfully  put in 
motion th e project called the ACWL. Lesotho had  never participated  in WTO disputes, however it 
was worth mentioning that the assistance  of the ACWL  had gone  beyond dispute settlement. The WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 30 - 
  ACWL ha d been on Lesotho's side with respect to  many trade issues . Lesotho's government routinely 
sought  assistance from the ACWL in understanding its WTO rights and obligations as well as the 
legal avenues to address any trade issues for Lesotho  or issues Lesotho  might have had with other 
Members. In addition, the ACWL was continuously providing capacity -building to Lesotho  in at least 
three different w ays, first through the courses in Geneva. Several delegates, the representative of 
Lesotho  included, ha d benefited from the expertise of the ACWL lawyers. Second, Lesotho  often 
request ed the ACWL to organize virtual thematic sessions on selected WTO legal issues to train 
government officials. And third, at least two government officials ha d participated in the nine -month 
secondment programme that the ACWL organize d and currently  those individuals were senior 
officials in Lesotho's  Ministry of Trade and thus  applying at home what they ha d learned from the 
ACWL and its lawyers. In conclusion Lesotho wished  to congratulate the ACWL on its  20th anniversary 
and wish the ACWL  many more years of good institutional health.  
10.30.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexi co thank ed Australia and Guatemala for placing 
this item on the Agenda of the present meeting and congratulate d the ACWL  on its 20th anniversary. 
The mission  of the ACWL  and purpose remain ed crucial for developing countries, LDCs , and for the 
WTO in general, thanks to its legal assistance and contribution to access to the dispute settlement  
system and rules in various forms and modalities. The performance, experience and quality of the 
ACWL's  staff – even for those Members , like Mexico, who  were not members of the ACWL  – made 
an important contribution. Mexico did not want to miss the opportunity under this item to show its 
appreciation to the ACWL , its members and staff on its anniversary.  
10.31.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wishe d to join Australia and Guatemala 
and the previous speakers in congratulating the ACWL on its 20th anniversary and expressing 
appreciation for the work done by the ACWL over the  past two decades. The WTO was undergoing 
changes and there were many challenges lying ahead of Members.  At the present critical juncture , 
the role of the ACWL ha d become even more crucial in ensuring that all Members, regardless of their 
level o f development, could participate fully in the rules -based multilateral trading system. In th at 
regard, Thailand wished  to express its gratitude for those Members who ha d taken on most of the 
burden of financing this important institution and reiterate d the importance of securing continued 
financing for the ACWL as well as encourag ing Members to support the ACWL in the interest of all 
Members in the system . 
10.32.   The representative of Egypt  said that Egypt wished to be associated  with the statement to 
be made  on behalf of the Af rican Group . Egypt  thank ed Guatemala and Australia for placing  this 
item on the Agenda  of the present meeting. Egypt  supported the statements made by previous 
speakers congratulating the ACWL on its 20th anniversary and wished to place on record its profound 
appreciation for the work the ACWL had done for the previous  two decades. Egypt  also extend ed its 
sincere thanks to the ACWL for its leadership and to each and every member of its staff for the 
dedication, commitment and the excellent quality of w ork they conduct ed. For more than 20 years, 
the ACWL ha d played a significant role in providing legal assistance to developing  countries and 
LDCs within the framework of the dispute settlement system , as well as providing technical support 
and capacity bui lding programmes for Geneva -based delegates and legal experts from capitals. 
Egypt  believe d that this contribution by the ACWL was essential in giving developing countries and 
the LDCs a fair opportunity to participate in the dispute settlement and to bett er understand the 
legal system of the WTO in general. As a developing country , Egypt  thank ed donors for their 
commitment to wards  the ACWL and hoped that  they w ould continue to be equally committed in the 
future to guarantee that the ACWL w ould continue pro viding the highest level of performance and 
services to its Members.  
10.33.   The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh t hanked Australia and Guatemala for  
placing  this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting  and for their statements. Bangladesh 
congratulate d the ACWL for its successful completion of 20 years and its Executive Director Mr Niall 
Meagher and all staff members for their sincere efforts . The WTO law consist ed of a complex wealth 
of agreements. The WTO law also include d the General Agreement on  Tariffs and Trade (GATT) , 
other decisions adapted by the contracting  parties of the GATT , and the jurisprudence of the 
adjudicatory  bodies of the GATT and WTO. Countries which lacked  human and  financial resource s 
and knowledge  were in a difficult position to implement  those complex laws , but due to different 
types of  assistance from the ACWL, these countries ha d been benefiting from, and  integrating into, 
the multilateral trading system. Since 2001, the ACWL ha d been assisting developing countries, 
especially the LDCs, through  legal capacity building, which was  necessary to enable them to take 
full advantage of the opportunities offered through  the WTO. The ACW L also provide d on demand WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 31 - 
  legal advice, assistance in WTO dispute settlement proceedings and training on WTO law , to 
developing countr y and the LDCs. The ACWL ha d provided assistance  in 68 disputes since its 
inception and Bangladesh was  among the beneficia ry countries. Bangladesh thank ed donors  for their 
continuous contributions and appreciate d the ACWL's activities and future initiatives.  
10.34.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union greatly appreciate d 
the work of the ACWL in contributing to the smooth and equitable operation of the WTO 's dispute 
settlement system and to the WTO more generally. Equitable access to the WTO 's dispute settlement 
system and, for that purpose, access to high -quality legal ad vice and representation in such 
procedures benefit ed the entire WTO Membership. It was part of the underpinnings of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system that should benefit all WTO Members, large and small. This 
was why the work of the ACWL was impo rtant. It provide d developing countries, including LDCs, 
with access to specialist legal capacity  and it play ed an important role in capacity -building on WTO 
law in developing  country governments. The European Union,  therefore , wished to  congratulate the 
ACWL on this 20th anniversary and to wish the ACWL  every success in the years to come. The 
European Union  also wished to express  its appreciation to the Members of the ACWL – among them 
several EU member States – for their role in supporting the activities of the ACWL.  
10.35.   The representative of India said that India w ished to join other Members in congratulating 
the ACWL on its 20th anniversary. India appreciate d the services and efforts made by the ACWL for 
developing countries and the LDCs, in particular by providing legal training, expertise and advice on 
WTO law. India wished  all the ACWL all best in its future work and endeavours.  
10.36.   The representative of the United  Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom join ed Australia and 
Guatemala in celebrating twenty years of the ACWL . The United Kingdom was pleased  to continue 
to support the ACWL and its mission to ensure that all Members  could  take full advantage of the 
opportu nities offered by the WTO.  Through  its expert legal advice, assistance in dispute settlement 
proceedings, and training opportunities, the ACWL help ed in enabling developing countries and the 
LDCs to pursue their trade policy interests consistently with WTO rules, to enforce their rights, and 
to build capacity.  This in turn contribute d to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the multilateral 
trading system and the achievement of development objectives.   
10.37.   The representative of Mongolia  said that Mongolia wished to thank Guatemala and Australia 
for placing  this matter on the Agenda  of the present meeting. Mongolia  also join ed other Members 
in congratulating the ACWL on its 20th anniversary. Since becoming a Member of the ACWL in 2020, 
Mongoli an delegates and trade lawyers ha d already benefited from its tailormade training 
programmes and legal advice on specific issues arising under the WTO law. The broad spectrum of 
services rendered by the ACWL help ed Mongolia to better understand the WTO reg ime while ramping 
up its participation in the multilateral trading system. Mongolia also wished to  express its sincere 
gratitude to the donor countries for  their valuable financial contribution to the ACWL to date . Indeed , 
Mongolia saw that the  contribution of the donor countries play ed an important role to ensure  
high-quality service  in the operations  of the ACWL. Therefore , it was Mongolia's  hope that the donor 
countries would  continue to make voluntary contributions with a view to supporting the outstanding 
performance of the ACWL in the years ahead.  
10.38.   The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine wished  to congratulate the ACWL  on their  
20th anniversary. Ukraine  recognize d the importance of the ACWL for the Members of the WTO. 
Ukraine had  initiated the accession process to the ACWL  in 2019 and had taken all the necessary 
steps to finalize it this summer , bringing t he total number of developing country members to 39. 
Ukraine  hoped that its membership w ould strengthen the activities of  the ACWL and c ould benefit 
Ukraine . Ukraine w ished the ACWL many more years of  unparalleled  success.  
10.39.   The representative of Nepal  said that Nepal  wishe d to thank Australia and Guatemala for 
placing this matter  on the Agenda of the present  meeting. Nepal wished to associate itself with the 
statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group . On this prestigious occasion of the 20th 
anniversary of the ACWL , Nepal also wished  to extend its heartfelt congratulations to the ACWL and 
thank the ACWL team for their valuable contributions  in extending support to developing  country  
and LDC Members of the WTO in various legal matters related to the WTO law. Furthermore, Nepal 
commend ed the ACWL for  its continuous support in capacity building through various activities , 
including internships and training programmes. Support extended by the ACWL in the process of 
submissions of the group of LDCs and LLDCs remained crucial not only in improving  their 
submissions , but also in negotiating with Members. Nepal wished to extend its thanks  to all donors WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 32 - 
  and contributors for supporting the ACWL in its  deserving  mandate. Nepal stood  ready to engage 
with the ACWL while designing and implementing its future work programme and the ACWL c ould 
count on Nepal's full support in its future endeavours.   
10.40.   The representative of Norway  said that t he importance of the ACWL  in making the dispute 
settlement system more accessible, enabling all Members to defend their interest s in WTO dispute 
settlement proceedings , and providing training on WTO law , could  not be underestimated. It was a 
fundamental piece of the architecture o f the multilateral trading system. Norway wished to  thank 
Australia and Guatemala for placing  this matter on the  Agenda  of the present meeting. Norway ha d 
been a member of the ACWL since its establishment and continue d to highlight the importance of 
its wo rk. Norway wished  to commend the ACWL  for effectively adjusting to the difficult circumstances 
brought on by the pandemic, without any significant interruptions in the services provided. Norway 
also note d with pleasure the high and increasing share of wome n participating in the ACWL' s training 
courses, seminars, and secondment program mes. Finally , Norway  warmly welcome d Germany 's 
accession to the ACWL  as a member  as of early 2021.  
10.41.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , thanked Guatemala 
and Australia for  placing  this matter on the Agenda  of the present meeting. The African Group  wished 
to congratulate the ACWL on its 20th anniversary. The African Group fully support ed the work of the 
ACWL in ensuring  that sound and confid ential legal advice was given to the countries who ha d 
requested their  assistance. This was eviden ced by the survey of satisfaction conducted annually by 
the ACWL , from the report on the meeting of the General Assembly of the ACWL. Responses showed 
that 10 0% of users were very satisfied with the ACWL's services. Regarding the ACWL's services 
provided to African countries, it was evident that over the p revious  20 years, 30 different African 
countries ha d obtained expert strictly confidential legal advice from the ACWL , of which 17 different 
African countries were beneficiaries of a total of 55 legal opinion s from the ACWL in 2020 alone. This 
constitute d about 25 % of the ACWL 's legal opinions . Those legal opinions ha d assisted  the 
beneficiary countries in better understanding their rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements 
and facilitate d their integration into the rules -based multilateral trading system. This number also 
reflect ed an increasing aware ness of the ACWL's role and activities. Since 2001, the ACWL achieved 
participation  at WTO disputes in over 20 % of WTO disputes . Through its legal advice to all WTO 
Members , the ACWL  continue d to be a motivation to African Group members who were otherwise 
constrained by their limited resources.  The African Group acknowledge d all efforts by the ACWL to 
provide access to knowledge and expertise to African members so as to enable them to obtain access 
to a similar level of knowledge as other big users of the dispute settlement system. These efforts 
would contribute to ensuring equal access and the reduction of the existing digital divide among 
WTO Members. It was commendable that , despite the pandemic, the work of the ACWL continued , 
which, among other things, enabled them to address many issues arising from the pandemic. The 
adaption  of the training activities to an online platform indicate d the institution 's responsiveness , 
which  had to  be commended. Finally, the African Group reiterat ed its support for the work of the 
ACWL and look ed forward to further utilizing its services. The African Group convey ed its heartiest 
congratulations to the ACWL's team for their impressive achievements over the 20 years of their 
existence and encourage d all Members to support the organization.  
10.42.   The representative of Argentina  said that Argentina wished to thank Australia and Guatemala 
for placing  this item on the Agenda. Argentina  wished to acknowledge the role played by the ACWL 
in fostering access to justice for developing countries. The power of multilateralism and the power 
of rules was the only strength that developing countries ha d done and for that reason Argentina  
wished  to join others in highlighting how relevant this inst itution was. The ACWL  contribute d to the 
WTO activities being fair in practice. There were still many challenges to achieve sustainable 
development . Argentina  wished  to stress all that the ACWL  had done  to provide access to justice 
and make that real. Argentina was not a member of the ACWL , but it did acknowledge how important 
the ACWL  was for many developing countries as they buil t their capacity. Argentina also wished  to 
thank the donors and  believed  that the ACWL w ould have a long and productive life.  
10.43.   The representative of  the Russian Federation  wished to congratulate the ACWL team on this 
very big occasion. The Russian Federation acknowledge d the great importance of the ACWL for 
developing countries and the LDCs in dispute settlement proceedings and consequently its significant 
contribution ma de to the rules -based multilateral trading system . The Russian Federation wished  to 
express its hope for the best for the ACWL and its team in the coming years.  WT/DSB/M/45 6 
- 33 - 
  10.44.   The Chairman  noted that 37 delegations had made statements under this Agenda item . He 
said that he did not wish to provide a full summary of all the points  made , but only to underline  a 
few recurring features that ha d been raised  by delegations  at the present meeting. The fact that so 
many delegations had made statements  on this matter  bore witness to the tremendous support that 
the ACWL  enjoy ed from the WTO community. Most delegations who had taken  the floor had 
underscore d the relevance and quality of the legal advice provide d by the ACWL.  Moreover,  many 
delegations also underscored that the ACWL ha d enabled beneficiaries , in particular the LDCs, not 
just to benefit more from their rights , but also to better understand WTO rules and their meaning 
for domestic regulatory and legislative processes  of Members.  
10.45.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
11  STATEMENT BY CHINA REGARDING DUE PROCESS IN PANEL COMPOSITION S 
11.1.  The representative of China , speaking under "Other Business", said that  the composition of a 
panel was a crucial step in panel proceeding s, and appointment of high -quality, independent and 
neutral panelists h eld the key to smoothly reso lution of  dispute s. This was of paramount importance 
against the backdr op of defunct Appellate Body. China  appreciate d the support provided by the 
Secretariat in recommending the slates of candidates for the panel. At the same time, given China's  
recent experience, China wished  to take this opportunity to emphasize the import ance of due 
process, due diligence and due respect obligations that Members expect ed the Secretariat to  provide  
when carrying out its assistance in the panel stage, especially in the composition of the panel. For 
example, in China's  view, the Secretariat s hould make best efforts in identifying proper candidates 
in line with the criteria set  out in  the DSU and the parties, facilitating and respecting the parties ' 
agreement on all or some panelists, timely checking and keeping the parties informed about the 
availability of the potential panelists, and further consulting with the parties when the agreed 
candidate was not able to serve. China  believe d that the more professional and neutral the 
Secretariat's service  was, the more confident Members w ould be in the dispute settlement system 
and the multilateral trading system .  
11.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement . 
__________