RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/484  
4 December 2023  
(23-8166) Page: 1/31 
Dispute Settlement Body  
26 October 2023   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 26 OCTO BER 20231 
Chairman: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . He reminded delegations that the 
technical instructions for the remote participation remained the same as was the case at the previous 
meetings ; and (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda 
of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute . He said that, as Members would 
recall, 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, like the previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to consult 
with each interested party on this matter and that t hose consultations were ongoin g. 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a. 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED  
BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: 
Statu s 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 a nd marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ............  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............................  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
2  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT(HONG KONG, CHINA)  
(DS597)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  6 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
3  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL BARS 
(DS605)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
A. Statement by Costa Rica  ................................ ................................ ..............................  9 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.   WT/DSB/M/484  
- 2 - 
 
 
4  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURE ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS  
FROM  ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina  ................................ ....................  11 
5  EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF BIODIESEL 
FROM  INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  11 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia  ................................ ....................  11 
6  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  ................................ ................................ ... 12 
7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; 
CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CON GO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF  KOREA; LAO PEOPLE'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; MYANMAR; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; 
NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO;  TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE  BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.26)  ..............  25 
 
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 43) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.218) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.181) 
 
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.65) 
 
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.57) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.52 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.52) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted  by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 required that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting afte r six months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about t heir compliance efforts . He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has alre ady been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " WT/DSB/M/484  
- 3 - 
 
 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 43) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 43, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 October 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States had 
addressed th e 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 thanked the United States for the most rec ent 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to  this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 218) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 218, 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 13 October  2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in orde r to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and said that it wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 81) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37 /Add. 181, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendatio ns and rulings. The EU continue d to 
propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safety 
Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 13 October 2023, the Commission 
had adopted three decisi ons authori zing the placing on the market of GM maize and one decision 
renewing the authorisation for placing on the market of a GM maize2 for food and feed uses. The 
decisions were valid for 10 years. On 19 October  2023, the Commission had presented to t he Appeal 
Committee a draft decision renewing the authori zing for the placing on the market of a GM oilseed 
rape3 for food uses.  On 24 October 2023, the Commission had presented to the Standing Committee 
 
2 GM maize MON 87419, maize  GA21 x T25, maize 89034 x 1507 x MIR162 x NK603 x DAS -40278 -9 
and sub -combinations and maize MIR162 (renewal).  
3 GM oilseed rape GT73.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 4 - 
 
 
a draft decision authori zing the placing on the market of a GM maize and a decision renewing the 
authorisation for placing on the market of a GM oilseed rape4 for food and feed uses.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union ( "EU") for its status 
report and its statement made a t the present meeting . The United States  continue d to engage with 
the EU on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the EU 
could  address the undue delays in its approval procedures.  The United States ha d described thes e 
problems in detail and noted its concerns with the EU 's biotech approval procedures monthly in the 
DSB and during the semiannual US -EU biotech consultations, the most recent of which took place 
on 22 June 2 023. The United States again request ed that the EU move to issue final approvals for 
all products that ha d completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety 
Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee.  
Based on the parties'  conversation in June, the Un ited States  looked forward to the EU announcing 
additional authorizations before the end of 2023. 
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-dump ing and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 65) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 65, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 October 2023, 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 that action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumpin g 
and countervailing duty orders . The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thanked the Un ited States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea, once again , urged the United States to take 
prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such" measure s 
in this dispute . 
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that more than five years had passed since the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations arising from the 
Appellate Body Report in the dispute on " US – Washing Machines ", which  had stated that the 
"differential pricing method "(DPM) had been "as such" inconsistent with the WTO Agreements. 
Despite this, the United States continue d to apply the DPM "as such" in investigations of foreign 
companies and continue d to collect cash depo sits from foreign exporters based on this non -compliant 
methodology.  Canada was deeply concerned by this failure.  Canada invite d the United States to put 
an end to this practice as soon as possible.  
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 57) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 57, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
 
4 GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and sub -combinations and oilseed 
rapes Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3  (renewal).  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 5 - 
 
 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceed ings involving 
China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 October 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . As explained 
in that report, the United States would cons ult 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 and the statement  made at the present meeting . China was disappointed that more 
than five years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States still fail ed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. Therefore, China, once again , 
urged the United States to hono ur its obligation by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further delay . 
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal prod ucts: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 52 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 52) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 52 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 52, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recomm endations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had provided a status report in this 
dispute , in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained at previous meetings, Indonesia 
had addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to Measure 18 regarding self -
sufficiency by enacting the Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Gov ernment Regulation in lieu 
of Law No.  2/2022 on Job Creation. Indonesia further emphasize d its commitment to adjust its policy 
regarding measures 1 -17 with the enactment of Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Trade 
Regulations, such as, by removing har vest period restriction, import realization requirement, 
six-month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic purchase requirement. Indonesia also 
took that opportunity to respon d to the complainants ' concern that Commodity Balance was a 
mechanism which aim ed at facilitat ing trade by establishing an integrated national database system. 
Indonesia remain ed ready to continue its discussion with New Zealand and the United States to work 
on solutions to these disputes and relevant issues.  
1.25.  The representat ive of the United States  said that t he United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's  recommendations. With respect to measures 1 -17, the 
United States had asked several times and would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations 
now comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would 
affect the regimes. The United States noted that measures 9 and 17 were, respectively, the 
horticultural products and animal and animals products import licensing regimes as a whole. As the 
United States had expressed before, it continued to have concerns abou t Indonesia's administration 
of these regimes. To enable the United States to understand and evaluate Indonesia's claim of 
compliance with the DSB recommendations, the United States had requested that Indonesia provide 
the regulations that comprised Indone sia's current import licensing regimes, in addition to any draft 
regulations that might  affect the regimes. As of 23 October 2023, the United States had not received 
a response from Indonesia. The United States was also not in a position to agree with Indo nesia's 
claim of compliance regarding Measure 18 because it was still reviewing Indonesia's statement that 
Law No.  6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in lieu of Law No. 2/2022 on Job 
Creation removed Measure 18. The United States remain ed 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 ruli ngs. As outlined at previous DSB meetings, New Zealand remain ed concerned about a 
number of measures . New Zealand would still appreciate understanding better the regulations that 
currently  underpin ned Indonesia 's import licencing regimes  as a result of the  relevant legislative WT/DSB/M/484  
- 6 - 
 
 
adjustments, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New Zealand  
also remain ed interested in better understanding how the new commodity balance would in fact 
operate to simplify and facilitate trade in affected products. New Zealand look ed forward to further 
constructive engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA) (DS597)  
A. Statement by the United States  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He said that before he would invite the representative of the Un ited States to 
speak, he wished to refer to Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings regarding the need 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on the matter that had already been debated 
previously. He then invited the represent ative of the United States to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States wished to refer back to its 
previous statements regarding its position on essential security and its reason for placing this item 
on the DSB Agenda.  The United States would not repeat those points in detail.  As a consequence of 
Hong Kong, China 's decision to bring this matter to the DSB, the United States consider ed it 
appropriate to update the DSB on factual developments since the circulation of the pan el report that 
reinforce d US concern with those findings.  At the present meeting , the United States would again 
draw attention to the deteriorating circumstances regarding human rights and freedom of speech.  
The Hong Kong, China, government continue d to use the National Security Law and related 
legislation to quash any dissenting views expressed against either the governments of Hong Kong, 
China, or the People 's Republic of China.  For example, on 6 October 2023, an individual by the name 
of Kurt Leung had been sentenced to four months in prison for importing children 's books.  The books 
featured cartoon sheep living in a village that had to defend themselves against tyrannical wolves, 
allegedly alluding to the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, China.  Leung had been arrested in March  2023 
after he  had signed for a delivery of 15 books from the United Kingdom, and charged with importing 
"seditious materials " and "inciting violence ".5 On 17 October 2023, the National Security Department 
of the Hong Kong  police had arrested an individual for allegedly "repeatedly publishing posts with 
seditious intention " on social media platforms.6 In early August  2023, four civil servants had been 
charge d with sedition, including allegedly publishing seditious posts on line.7 In June  2023, a Hong 
Kong student studying in Japan had been charged with posting allegedly "seditious " statements on 
social media.8 The Hong Kong Security Bureau reportedly confirmed that in the three years since 
the National Security Law had been enacted, 251 people had been arrested for alleged acts or 
activities that endanger ed national security.9 
2.3.  The United States also note d that other Members share d those concerns regarding human 
rights abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China – political issues on which Hong 
Kong, China had invited the Panel to make a determination in bringing this dispute.  On 19 September 
2023, the United Kingdom had issued its Six-monthly report on Hong Kong: 1 January to 30 June 
2023.10 The report had concluded that the "continued application of the Beijing -imposed NSL [or 
 
5 Associated Press (AP), A Hong Kong man gets 4 months in prison for importing children’s books 
deemed to be seditious, https://apnews.com/article/hong -kong-sedition -sheep -wolves -childrens -books -
2b4cfa1f23b55491842bfd0137ae444e .  
6 https://www.news.gov.hk/eng/2023/10/20231017/20231017_195914_519.html .  
7 Agence France -Presse (AFP), Hong Kong civil servants  arrested for sedition over social media posts, 
https://www.courthousenews.com/hong -kong-civil-servants -arrested -for-sedition -over-social -media-posts . 
8 The Japan Times, Hong Kong student indicted over social media posts made from Japan, 
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/18/asia -pacific/crime -legal-asia-pacific/hong -kong-student -
indicted . 
9 Hong Kong Free Press, Explainer: Hong Kong’s national security crackdown – month 35, 
https://hongkongfp.com/2023/06/03/explainer -hong-kongs -national -security -crackdown -month -35; see 
Johannes Chan, U S-Asia Law Institute, Hong Kong’s National Security Law Turns Three, https://usali.org/usali -
perspectives -blog/hong -kongs -national -security -law-turns-three . 
10 https://www.gov.uk/government/pu blications/six -monthly -report -on-hong-kong-january -to-june-
2023/six -monthly -report -on-hong-kong-1-january -to-30-june-2023#conclusion . WT/DSB/M/484  
- 7 - 
 
 
National Security Law] and ongoing efforts to stifle legitimate and peacefu l opposition mean that we 
consider China remains in a state of ongoing non -compliance with the Joint Declaration. "11 On 27 
September 2 023, the United Kingdom had organized an event called "Media Freedoms in Hong Kong " 
at the United Nations on the sidelines  of UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meetings.  That event 
had been co-sponsored by at least 22 countries, including the United States, several EU countries, 
Canada, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, and Norway.12 Those personally attending the 
event included Sebastian Lai, the son of former media executive Jimmy Lai who was currently serving 
time in prison on charges related to the National Security Law.  In response, the People 's Republic of 
China reportedly issued13 a "strong opposition against [the] so -called side event " and "call[ed] upon 
all esteemed Permanent Missions to refrain from participating in this event in any way. "14 The Hong 
Kong, China, government had similarly condemned the event repeating the same points it ha d made 
to the DSB.15 The Hong Kong, China, government had further stated that it "strongly disapproves of 
and firmly rejects the repeated attempt by the UK together with other countries to make skewed 
remarks against the situation of human rights in Hong Kong. "16 On 9 October 2023, a group of UN 
Special Rapporteurs had expressed "serious concerns " about the mass trial of 47 people under the 
National Security Law and had stated that "China should review its National Security Law to ensure 
that the law is in compliance w ith China 's international human rights obligations with respect to the 
Hong Kong SAR. "17 
2.4.  The facts that the United States had  described above reinforce d that th ose concerns were not 
unique to the United States and that the circumstances in Hong Kong, China , did not merely involve 
"internal " or "political issues " as China and Hong Kong, China, ha d repeatedly stated.  Rather, as the 
US has previously explained, th ose types of facts demonstrate d the pattern of human rights abuses 
and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, that had motivated the US measure at issue in 
this dispute.  Those facts also demonstrate d the error in the WTO panel finding that such a pattern 
did not "meet the requisit e level of gravity to constitute an emergency in international relations 
under Article  XXI(b)(iii). "18 Again, the United States fundamentally disagree d with the panel 's 
approach, which suggest ed a state ought to defer consideration of its essential securit y interests 
until after a breakdown in relations with another Member.  A WTO Member could not be expected to 
wait until it was too late to act, or be required to sever all relations with another Member as a 
prerequisite for action it consider ed necessary to  safeguard its essential security interests.  The 
United States reiterate d that, in order to prevent further undermining of the WTO, Members need ed 
to clarify and adopt a shared understanding of the essential security exception, which was a critical 
element  in the international trading system and permit ted Members to take on trade commitments 
to each other.  
2.5.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that, despite the Chairman's earnest efforts  
encouraging Members to observe Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure s for DSB meetings19 to avoid 
the repetition of issues, Hong Kong, China regret ted that the Chairman's advice ha d fallen on deaf 
ears. The present meeting marked the sixth time that the DS597  dispute had been  placed  on the 
Agenda of a regular DSB meeting. The US statement ha d raised no new substantive point that had 
not been raised previously  in the DS597 submissions and hearings as well as at previous DSB 
meetings. Members would recall that the US arguments and claims in DS5 97, on the premises that 
 
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six -monthly -report -on-hong-kong-january -to-june-
2023/six -monthly -report -on-hong-kong-1-january -to-30-june-2023# conclusion . 
12 https://hrc54session.sched.com/event/1SQM1/side -event -media -freedom -in-hong-kong. 
13 Emma Farge, Reuters, China urges countries to boycott Hong Kong media freedom event – document, 
https://www.reu ters.com/world/china/china -urges -countries -boycott -hong-kong-media -freedom -event -
document -2023-09-26.  
14 https://twitter.com/SophieDRich/status/1706602194605056202/photo/1 . 
15 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202309/28/P2023092800027.htm . 
16 https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202309/28/P2023092800027 .htm. 
17 United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, China/Hong Kong SAR: UN 
experts concerned about ongoing trials and arrest warrants under National Security Legislation, 
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press -releases/2023/10/ch inahong -kong-sar-un-experts -concerned -about -ongoing -
trials-and-
arrest#:~:text=GENEVA%20(9%20October%202023)%20%E2%80%93,bounties%20against%20pro%2Ddem
ocracy%20figures .  
18 US – Origin Marking Requirement, WT/DS597/R, para.  7.353.  
19 Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings reads "[r]epresentatives should make every effort 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been fully debated in the 
past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' positions already on record."  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 8 - 
 
 
security exceptions under Article XXI of GATT 1994 were self-judging in entirety, did not gain any 
support from the 13 third parties to the DS597  dispute , and had eventually been flatly rejected by 
the DS597 panel. Members with any  sincerity to preserve the integrity of the WTO should allow the 
appointment of new members to the Appellate Body for it to resume operation, so that a Member 
that felt aggrieved at a ruling of the panel could  file an appeal to the Appellate Body. Instead,  the 
US had chose n to appeal to a now defunct Appellate Body, whil st harping on the item of DS597 in 
regular DSB meetings on a monthly basis, seeking to undermine the legality of the faithful 
implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law by the Hon g Kong SAR Government in 
accordance with law. It was clear to everyone in the room that this was a smear campaign against 
the law enforcement actions of another jurisdiction. This would not change the fact that the DS panel 
had ruled against the U nited States and ha d dismissed all the arguments  that the U nited States was 
claiming here and now. Hong Kong, China  was most reluctant to discuss yet again the law 
enforcement actions in Hong Kong in implementing the National Security Law, not least because 
they were its non-trade-related internal affairs that were outside the scope of DSB, but Hong Kong, 
China felt oblige d to do so given the defamatory description of its city's state of affairs by the U nited 
States at the present meeting .  
2.6.  The Hong Kong National Security Law enacted in 2020 clearly stipulate d that human rights 
should  be respected and protected in safeguard ing national security in the Hong Kong SAR and the 
rights and freedoms that Hong Kong residents enjoy ed under the Basic Law, and the provisions of 
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, 
Social a nd Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong, including the freedom of speech, of the press, 
of publication, of association and of assembly, should be protected in accordance with the law. 
However, such rights and freedoms were not absolute, just like in any  other society. The exercise of 
such rights might be subject to restrictions that were provided by law and were necessary for 
pursuing legitimate aims such as the protection of national security or public order. Journalists, 
publishers, like everyone else,  had an obligation to abide by all the laws. In fact, since the 
implementation of the national security law, the media landscape in Hong Kong ha d remained 
vibrant. As always, the media c ould exercise their freedom of the press in accordance with the law. 
Their freedom of commenting on and critici zing government policies remain ed uninhibited as long 
as that wa s not in violation of the law. The implementation of the National Security Law ha d enabled 
the livelihood and economic activities of the Hong Kong comm unity at large to resume as normal 
and the business environment to be restored. It ha d also enabled Hong Kong people to enjoy the 
rights and freedoms , which had been severely impaired during the period of serious violence in 
2019; it had swiftly and effect ively restored the stability and security in Hong Kong. It was the 
personal experience of people living in and businesses operating in Hong Kong that Hong Kong ha d 
successfully achieved the major transition from "chaos to order ". Under Article 85 of the Ba sic Law, 
the courts of the Hong Kong SAR should  exercise judicial power independently, free from any 
interference. The U nited States had brought up a case adjudicated by the Court of the Hong Kong 
SAR. That was apparently a blatant attempt at exerting pressures on Hong Kong China's judges. It 
should be noted that the defendant had fully exercised his right to defend himself and the right to 
appeal. Verdicts given by the courts had been  solely based on applicabl e laws, facts and evidence 
after open trials and hearings. Also, the detailed reasons for sentence were contained in the publicly 
available judgment. Any suggestion that the charges had been "spurious " or the conviction "unjust " 
was an utter disrespect to the due administration of justice. Hong Kong 's legal and judicial system 
had always been highly regarded by international communities. The Basic Law provide d 
constitutional guarantee for fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to equality befo re 
the law, and was buttressed by the rule of law and independent judicial power. Article  85 of the 
Basic Law clearly provide d that the courts of the Hong Kong SAR should exercise judicial power 
independently, free from any interference. Judges were immune  from legal action in the performance 
of their judicial functions. The appointment and removal of judges in Hong Kong were free from 
political or other irrelevant considerations. Judgments of the courts contain ed detailed reasoning for 
the relevant decisio n and were publicly available on the website of the Judiciary, which the public 
could access at any time. Equality before the law was a fundamental principle observed in Hong 
Kong. The allegation against the independence and impartiality of its judiciary was totally groundless 
and unsupported by objective evidence. The Hong Kong SAR law enforcement agencies ha d been 
taking law enforcement actions based on evidence and strictly in accordance with the law in respect 
of the acts of the persons or entities conc erned. The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong SAR 
was in charge of criminal prosecutions under Article 63 of the Basic Law, with all prosecution 
decisions made based on an objective analysis of all admissible evidence and applicable laws. Hence, 
any su ggestion that any cases were tied with political considerations was totally absurd and WT/DSB/M/484  
- 9 - 
 
 
inappropriate. The suggestion that persons or organi zations with certain backgrounds should be 
immune from legal sanctions for their illegal acts and activities was tant amount to granting such 
persons or organi zations privileges to break the law and was totally contrary to the spirit of the rule 
of law. Any attempt by any country, organi zation, or individual to interfere with the judicial 
proceedings in the Hong Kong SAR by means of political power, in order to procure a defendant 's 
evasion of the criminal justice process, was a blatant act undermining the rule of law of Hong Kong. 
Doing any act or making any statement with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the cour se of 
justice, or engaging in conduct with the same intent, was very likely to constitute the offence of 
criminal contempt of court or the offence of perverting the course of justice. Anyone who request ed 
a foreign country to impose "sanctions " against the  Hong Kong SAR or its country also commit ted 
the offence of collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national 
security, contrary to Article 29 of the National Security Law.  
2.7.  The representative of China  said that, f irst, China wished to register , once again,  its serious 
concerns  about  the sixth request  by the United States  to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly 
debated item into the DSB Agenda, which should have been avoided by the U nited States with every 
effort , as req uired by Rule 27 of the rules of procedure for DSB meetings. In the context of the WTO 
reform, Members would have expected the United States to lead by positive rather than negative 
example. China  wonder ed how such abusive behaviours  could reconcile with t he US call for more 
efficient operation of the WTO Councils and C ommittees  under the WTO reform umbrella.  As a third 
party to this dispute, China appreciate d the Panel 's impartial and objective rulings and 
recommendations. It was clear from the text, the c ontext, the object and purpose and the 
negotiating history that the security exception under the GATT 1994 was not entirely self -judging, 
as correctly found by this panel and six previous panels. Should the US have concerns on the panel 
ruling, it should w ork with Members  to restore the appeal mechanism , which wa s the proper place 
to correct the possible errors made by the panel rather than repeatedly putting the issue on the 
Agenda of DSB meeting s. China reject ed in the strongest terms the US false allegat ions and 
unilateral judgement and interference of other Members'  internal affairs. The WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism was a forum to resolve trade disputes rather than a place to discuss political 
issues. Any Member, regardless of its power and size, should refrain from taking unilateral and 
protectionist measures in the name of "national security", or using it as a vehicle to disregard the 
core principles of the WTO or to interfere with other Members'  internal affairs. Having said that, 
China urge d the United States to faithfully hono ur its multilateral obligations, and stop abusing 
national security  issues.  
2.8.  The representative of the United States  said that , in response to China's statement  that WTO 
dispute settlement was a forum to resolve trade di sputes rather than a place to discuss political  
issues, the United States agree d. It was, of course, not the United States that had brought th ose 
circumstances into the WTO.  It was Hong Kong, China 's choice to challenge a US national security 
action and to  encourage the WTO panel to review the US invocation of the essential security 
exception.  
2.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL BARS 
(DS605)  
A. Statement by Costa Rica  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Costa Rica, and he invited the representative of Costa Rica to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of Costa Rica said that Costa Rica had been surprised to receive the 
communication from  the Dominican Republic on 18  September 2023, in which it had communicated 
its decision to appeal the Panel Report in  the case on:  "Dominican Republic – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Corrugated Steel Bars" (DS605) . The Panel Report had found that the Dominican Republic had 
acted in a manner that was incompatible with its WTO obligations under the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and the GATT  1994 by imposing an anti -dumping duty of 15% on imports of steel rods 
originating in Costa Rica. The Panel Report had confirmed that  Costa Rica had demonstrated that 
key elements of the process violated those provisions. Furthermore, the Panel had recommended 
that the Dominican Republic bring its measures into conformity with WTO rules. Consequently, it WT/DSB/M/484  
- 10 - 
 
 
would have been appropriate to i mmediately withdraw the measure. Since that situation arose, and 
throughout the proceedings, Costa Rica had kept the channels of communication open with the 
Dominican Republic in order to settle this dispute . However, this had not been possible.  
Subsequent ly, and taking into consideration the current deadlock with the Appellate Body, on several 
occasions and with advance notice, Costa Rica had submitted to the Dominican Republic a draft 
proposal to reach a bilateral arrangement to resort to arbitration unde r Article 25 of the DSU, which 
would have enabled the parties to deal with this  appeal. That would have allowed the Dominican 
Republic to have access to an actual appeal procedure. In light of those efforts, Costa Rica had hoped  
for a positive response fro m the Dominican Republic because, in addition to being a neighbouring 
trade partner, the Dominican Republic was a friendly country with whom Costa Rica enjoy ed close 
collaboration in various forums where they had shared interests, such as intergovernmental  
cooperation, upholding the rule of law and international law. Regrettably, Costa Rica had not receive d 
any reply from the Dominican Republic regarding the  proposal nor to any other alternative proposals 
that had been made. Quite the opposite, for despite the clear findings and the recommendation of 
the Panel, the Dominican Republic had filed an appeal with the Appellate Body. Costa Rica deeply 
regret ted that decision and was concerned that a path ha d been chosen that le ft the Report devoid 
of its legal con sequences. Costa Rica  called on Members to reflect on this  matter  and urge d Members  
to work together to avoid appeals into the void , as this  undermined Members ' rights . Finally,  Costa 
Rica urg ed Members to use the existing alternatives , as set out in the DSU, such as Article 25, or to 
join the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), which would avoid the situation , 
which  Cost Rica currently experienced until such time as the DS mechanism was  fully operational.  
3.3.  The represent ative of the Dominican Republic  said that the Dominican Republic had filed a 
notice of appeal with the complainant 's detailed reasons pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU 
and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review. In its notice, the Dominican Republic 
had presented detailed arguments about the serious errors of law or legal interpretation made  by 
the Panel in its report, which should be rectified. The Dominican Republic hoped that the imminent 
restoration of the Appellate Body would enable the review and rectification of th ose errors and the 
prompt  settlement of this dispute. The Dominican Republic was  a co-sponsor of the proposal on 
appointment of AB member s. The Dominican Republic  reiterate d its right to appeal to a permanent 
body, as set out  in the  DSU, which was fundamental for the multilateral trading system. The 
Dominican Republic reiterate d its hope that the Appellate Body crisis would be resolved as soon as 
possible so that pending disputes could be settled.  
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union took note that the 
Panel Report ha d been appealed , but that this appeal could not be currently heard by the Appellate 
Body, given that it could not function. An appeal was a right under the DSU, but , under the current 
circumstances, its exercise amount ed to effectively blocking this dispute . This was why the European 
Union encourage d all parties to seek a solution that would preserve the rights of both the 
complainant an d the respondent under the DSU . In this regard, t he MPIA  represented such solution.  
3.5.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to take this opportunity to address 
systemic considerations pertaining to the Dominican Republic 's appeal of this panel report.  Canada 
noted that, since 11 December 2019, the Appellate Body ha d effectively been non -functioning.  
Article 3.10 of the D SU provide d that, when a dispute arose , Members would  engage in dispute 
settlement procedures in good faith and in an eff ort to resolve the dispute. The inability of the 
Appellate Body to carry out its appellate review responsibilities undermined the established process 
under the DSU for dispute settlement.  But the obligation in Article 3.10 to make good faith efforts 
to res olve the dispute still stood . No Member should seek to take unfair advantage of the current 
impasse.  In the context of specific disputes, options exist ed to allow for completion of procedures , 
as envisioned in the DSU. In particular, parties to the dispute  might  agree to use procedures such 
as those set out in Annex 1 of the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA)  to 
supplement the appeal process.  Canada believe d it was essential that all parties to the dispute 
fulfilled their good faith c ommitment under Article 3.10 of the DSU by making every effort to find an 
acceptable solution. In the long run, no Member would benefit from a situation where disputes 
remain ed unresolved. A Member acting in good faith should find no comfort in an unfair - and 
short-term - advantage that ha d arisen because of the absence of a functioning Appellate Body.  In 
closing, Canada invite d the Dominican Republic to consider joining the MP IA in order to safeguard 
binding dispute settlement with access to appellate review in disputes with other MPIA participants.  
3.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 11 - 
 
 
4  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURE ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM 
ARGENTINA  
A. Request f or the establishment of a panel by Argentina (WT/DS617/3)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
19 September  2023 and had agreed to revert to it, should a requesting Member wish to do so. He 
then drew attention to the communication from Argentina contained in document WT/DS617/3 and 
invited the representative of Argentina to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of Argentina  said that as Argentina had explained at the previous DSB 
meeting, in November 2022 the United States had imposed an anti -dumping order on oil country 
tubular goods (OCTG)  tubes from Argentina . This measure was consider ed by Argentina to be 
inconsistent with the provisions of the WTO Agreements . Consultations  on this matter  had been held 
in July 2023. Although Argentina  continue d to hope to be able to discuss this matter with the United 
States to reach an agreement,  unfortunately, t his had not yet been possible . Therefore, in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the DSU, Arg entina reiterate d its request for the 
establishment of a panel to examine this matter, with standard terms of reference, as set out in  
Article 7 of the DSU.  
4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was disappointed that 
Argentina  had chosen to move forward with a request for panel establishment. As the United States 
had explained to Argentina, the measures identified in the request were fully consistent with US 
obligations under the WTO Agreement.  The anti -dumping duties had been imposed on oil country 
tubular goods from Argentina following a thorough anti -dumping duty investigation by the US 
Department of Commerce, and an equally thorough injury investigation by the US International 
Trade Commission, fully consistent with WTO rule s. Accordingly, the United States regret ted that 
Argentina ha d chosen for a second time to request  establishment of a panel with regard to this 
matter.  The United States was prepared to engage in th ose proceedings and to explain to the panel 
that th ose claims were not well -founded.  The United States remain ed willing to engage with 
Argentina to seek a positive resolution of this dispute.  
4.4.  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 . 
4.5.  The representatives of Brazil ; Canada ; China ; the European Union ; Japan ; Korea ; Türkiye ; 
Ukraine  and the Russian Federation  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel 's 
proceedings . 
5  EUROPEAN U NION – COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF BIODIESEL FROM 
INDONESIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS618/2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Indonesia contained in document 
WT/DS618/2 and he invited the re presentative of Indonesia to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that o n 11 August 2023 , Indonesia had requested 
consultations with the European Union regarding the imposition of countervailing duties on imports 
of biodiesel from Indonesia. Indonesia consider ed that those measures were inconsistent with the 
obligations of the European Union under the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994. In addition, the 
EU's countervailing duties ha d further nullified or impaired benefits accruing to I ndonesia directly or 
indirectly under the covered Agreements. Consultations between Indonesia and the EU had taken 
place on 4 October 2023 , but ha d regrettably failed to produce a meaningful and mutually acceptable 
solution to th is dispute. Accordingly, on  13 October 2023, Indonesia had filed its request for the 
establishment of a panel to examine th is matter. At the present meeting, Indonesia request ed that 
the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set out in Indonesia 's panel request.  
5.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union took note of Indonesia 's 
decision to request a WTO panel on countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia. WT/DSB/M/484  
- 12 - 
 
 
The European Union wished to recall that it had held constructiv e consultations with Indonesia on 
4 October  2023. The European Union had expressed hope that the consultations had provided the 
necessary information and clarifications.  Indonesia was of course entitled to bring this matter to 
dispute settlement in the WTO, but the European Union firmly believe d that the measures at stake 
were fully justified.  For th ose reasons, the European Union was confident that it would prevail in this 
dispute, and that its actions would be found  to be in accordance  with the WTO law. At the present 
meeting, the European Union was not ready to accept the establishment of a panel. Finally, the EU 
wished to reiterate the invitation to Indonesia to join the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arran gement (MPIA). This would preserve the availability of appeal review in this and other disputes 
on the basis of Article 25 of the DSU, as long as the Appellate Body was not functioning.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matt er, should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
6  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  
6.1.  The Chairman  said that under this Agenda item  he wished to refer to informal discussions on 
DS reform, which were currently ongoing amongst delegations at the technical level. A s in the past, 
this item had been placed on the Agenda of the present meeting in order to allow the representative 
of Guatemala, Mr.  Marco Molina, who convene d these informal discussions on DS  reform, to report 
on this matter for transparency. The Chairman  also took the opportunity to draw Members'  attention 
to the communication that had been circulated at the request of Indonesia entitled: "Dispute 
Settlement Reform: A Thought on the Process", which was contained in document JOB/DSB/6. This 
communication h ad also been made available electronically to delegations for the present meeting. 
Before giving the floor to  Mr. Marco Molina , the Chairman wished to recall that the DS reform had 
been one of the topics discussed during the Senior Officials Meeting, which had taken place on 23 
and 24 October 2023. In that regard, he recall ed that, overwhelmingly, Senior Officials had strongly 
supported the ongoing informal process on DS reform being car ried out in Geneva by technical 
experts. Senior Officials had recognized the value of the process and the progress made so far in 
order to achieve a tangible and meaningful outcome at  MC13.  At the same time, Senior Officials 
were cognisant of the different  views expressed on the issue of the timing of the formalization of 
this process under the auspices of the DSB Chair. The Chairman also recalled that in expressing their 
political support for DS reform work, Senior Officials had indicated the following ele ments on the 
way forward: first, the need to focus on addressing the DS challenges with a sense of urgency; 
second, the need to take into account the dispute settlement interests of all Members; and third, 
the need to uphold the WTO 's Member -driven nature as well as to ensure full participation, 
inclusiveness and transparency, including by facilitating the effective participation of developing and 
LDC Members taking into account capacity constraints. He then invite d the representative of 
Guatemala to make a report on discussions concerning DS  reform . 
6.2.  The representative of Guatemala , Mr. Marco Molina, made the following statement:   
"Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Colleagues , let me start by thanking you, Mr. 
Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to r eport on the work we are undertaking on dispute 
settlement reform. Since my last report to the DSB, on 28 July 2023, I have briefed: (a) The 
Heads of Delegation on 10 October 2023; and (b) The Senior Officials, this week, on 23 
October 2023.  I am not going to repeat the content of these two reports. Instead, I will 
briefly supplement the information therein as follows:  Firstly, as the Chair indicated, Senior 
Officials strongly supported the ongoing informal process on Dispute Settlement reform that 
is being carried out in Geneva by technical experts. They recognized the value of the process 
and the progress made so far to achieve a tangible and meaningful outcome at MC13 . 
Secondly, Senior Officials were cognizant of the different views expressed on the issue of 
the timing of the formalization of the reform process. There was general support for the idea 
of formalization, although views diverged as to when this could occur . Finally, Senior Officials 
encouraged all Members to actively participate in the on going process on Dispute Settlement 
reform with the view to achieving tangible outcomes at MC13 in line with the political 
guidance provided by them. The political guidance refers to, first, the need to focus on 
addressing the Dispute Settlement challenges  with a sense of urgency; second, the need to 
take into account the dispute settlement interests of all Members; and third, the need to 
uphold the WTO 's Member -driven nature as well as to ensure full participation, inclusiveness 
and transparency, including  by facilitating the effective participation of developing and LDC WT/DSB/M/484  
- 13 - 
 
 
Members taking into account capacity constraints. On my part, I continue enabling and 
facilitating conversations in line with the political guidance provided by Senior Officials and 
all Mem bers are fully committed to it. In terms of progress, we are about to finalize the first 
review of the consolidated draft text, before introducing the comments received by experts 
into a revised version.  We also expect to incorporate another chapter into t he text for 
Members ' consideration and we will continue our interest -based conversations on the issues 
pending agreement. The consolidated draft text is already available in the three official 
languages of the WTO and there is simultaneous interpretation d uring the plenary sessions 
in which we discuss the legal text. On a daily basis, I continue to reach out to delegations 
and meet with experts, either individually, in small groups or in regional groups, in order to 
seek their opinions, promote convergence,  and ensure that the consolidated draft text, as it 
continues to evolve, is representative of the views of all WTO Members. All interests and 
concerns are given equal consideration. We are trying to strike the right balance between 
the sense of urgency and  the need for delegations, especially those with capacity constraints, 
to fully participate in this process. Finally, let me reiterate my thanks and appreciation to all 
my dispute settlement colleagues. If we have gotten so far is because of all of you. Th is is 
a truly Member -driven, collective undertaking in which we all are working together with the 
same objective in mind.  Thank you Chair. "  
6.3.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his report made 
at the present mee ting and for his ongoing work in facilitating the informal dispute settlement reform 
discussions. Australia welcome d the significant progress that ha d been made under his guidance, 
particularly the recent shift to text -based negotiations. Australia was pleased that, at the Senior 
Officials Meeting  (SOM) , Members had seen strong political support for the ongoing informal process, 
and recognition of the progress made so far towards achieving a tangible and meaningful outcome 
at MC13. Australia wished to thank Indonesia for its communication  and acknowledge d the 
constructive spirit in which it had been  made. Australia agree d with Indonesia and others that it was 
important for the discussions on dispute settlement reform to address the interests of all Members. 
That was exactly what the current discussions – which were based  not on positions, but on interests 
– were designed to achieve.  Further, Australia agree d that the discussions had to  be multilateral and 
be conducted in an open, transparent and inclusive manner that facilitate d the full, effective, and 
equal participation o f all Members. Australia had also heard this from many senior officials at the 
SOM. Australia consider ed that the current informal process ha d all of these key features.  The 
process was open to all Members, who all had the opportunity to submit their ideas  and proposals. 
Information was shared in a transparent way with all participating Members, and all Members were 
periodically updated through Mr . Molina 's reports to the D SB. Australia acknowledge d the challenges 
that were faced by many developing and least developed Members, in particular smaller delegations, 
and support ed efforts to find concrete solutions to th ose issues. Australia welcome d the efforts made 
by Mr. Molina to find such solutions, including seeking to minimise scheduling conflicts with other 
negotiations, providing the draft text in the WTO 's three working languages and arranging for 
simultaneous interpretation for text -based discussions. Australia did not underestimate the 
challenges that remain ed, particularly in relatio n to the pace and frequency of discussions, but th at 
was demanded by the urgency of Members'  task and the MC12 mandate from Ministers. Finally, 
Australia agree d that the process should be formali zed at some time and in some way, but now was 
not that time. There was still more work to be done, and the innovative, informal nature of the 
discussions ha d been essential to the progress Members had made.  Australia therefore urge d all 
Members to continue working constructively and flexibly in the informal process.  This represent ed 
the best chance to maintain the momentum needed to deliver on Members'  shared MC12 
commitment. If Members were to meet that mandate, it would be important for Members to show 
restraint in bringing new proposals that would expand the scope  of negotiations and focus on those 
proposals that were necessary to fulfil the mandate and address the interests expressed during the 
first stage of that process . 
6.4.  The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States welcome d the engagement 
of all Members on dispute settlement reform.  The United States intend ed to lead in all areas where 
it could contribute, including on dispute settlement reform, but achieving fundamental reform could 
only happen through a collective, Member -driven process. Here, Members were fortunate to have a 
capable facilitator who ha d volunteered his time and energy to coordinate an inclusive 
Member -driven process.  The United States strongly support ed his efforts . The United States 
recognize d the importan ce of an inclusive and transparent process – and indeed share d that interest.  
A process in which all WTO Members were working collectively towards a reformed system provide d WT/DSB/M/484  
- 14 - 
 
 
the greatest chance of achieving durable, lasting reform.  The United States believ ed the current 
informal discussions were taking place in an inclusive and transparent manner.  Each Member was 
invited to every meeting, with steps taken to keep all Members apprised of developments, even if 
they could not attend each meeting. The meeting schedule and process ha d been particularly intense 
in recent months.  Delegations ha d demonstrated their commitment to the discussions and largely 
engaged in a constructive and collaborative manner.  The result of this considerable effort was some 
progress on certain procedural reform issues. Members also had to recognize that considerable work 
remain ed and that achieving fundamental dispute settlement reform would not be easy.  Rather, it 
would be incumbent on all Members to engage on the issues with creativity if they were to make 
further tangible progress. The United States recognize d that several Members were seeking to move 
the informal discussions to a WTO body.  Certainly, the United States agree d that discussions would 
need to move to a WTO body at the appropriate time; this  must occur for any decision to be taken 
by Members. The United States was open to discussions on when that appropriate time might be. 
However, the United States priority remain ed to continue the work without delays, and it welcome d 
the ongoing efforts of the volunteer facilitator.  
6.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to thank Mr. Molina for his report and his 
relentless efforts in moving forward the discussions on DS reform, hopefully with a view to bringing 
this process  to a successful outcome by MC13. Much progress ha d been made so far. Members had 
concluded discussions on many issues since the last time the informal conven er reported to the DSB  
and had  collectively drafted a number of texts that were curren tly under review, signaling a high 
level of engagement. Meetings ha d been frequent and inclusive, and provide d a good workflow for 
the consideration of a number of issues, some more relevant than others. It had to be acknowledged, 
nevertheless, that the pr ocess was still completely informal and therefore non -committal, which was 
why Members had  heard so many calls for its formalization by MC13 during the recently concluded 
Senior Officials Meeting.  Notwithstanding the positive nature of their recent efforts , the fact was that 
the multilateral trading system was void of its enforcement mechanism. Developing Members, like 
Brazil, were left without recourse to the most important institutional pillar of the WTO, which was 
the two-tier binding dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute settlement mechanism ensure d the 
fulfillment of rights and obligations of all Members  and guarantee d the creditworthiness of their 
commitments. Therefore, d eliberately preventing the system from being fully functional represent ed 
a reverse S&DT for developed Members , because it happen ed precisely at a moment when Members  
were resorting to unilateral trade measures , which raised the question as to whether such measures 
were consistent with Members'  WTO obligations. Domestic subsidies in the order of trillions of dollars 
were being poured into national industries in the advanced economies allegedly for the sake of 
"green transitions " or climate change mitigation. Carbon -related protectionism was bein g imposed 
upon other Members , many of them much more energy efficient or clean. Punitive deforestation 
trade-related measures were being implemented. All of this would require blanket exemptions from 
WTO Agreements, or the complete reengineering of the Agreements . If left unchecked, this state of 
affairs would undermine the system, because none of these unilateral initiatives could be challenged 
to full effect under the currently weakened WTO dispute settlement mechanism . This was why having 
a fully and wel l-functioning two -tier binding DS system accessible to all Members  by 2024 was of 
utmost importance. Brazil  called on all Members to deepen their engagement and accelerate the 
pace of the DS restoration workflow, with a view to concluding discussions on th e remaining and 
most important issues by MC13.  
6.6.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan appreciate d the comprehensive report  by Mr. Marco 
Molina o n the informal DS process. Japan also thank ed him for his contribution and patience.  The 
process should be assessed in terms of how Members could move forward on the substance. In that 
regard, Japan commend ed that Member s had moved to the drafting exercise on many issues 
discussed under this process and thereby  support ed the informal process. Japan  noted the 
communication by  Indonesia submitted to the DSB. Japan believe d that the ongoing process was 
multilateral and was open, transparent and inclusive to all WTO Members. The process of having 
informal  discussions among st Members and reporting to the DSB was well designed and struck  a 
balance between efficiency/flexibility as well as  transparency/accountability. The process would be 
formalized at an appropriate time before MC13, but now was not the right time. Members would 
continue the informal process for the moment so that they could discuss the remaining issues under 
a frank and constructive environment. To achieve the commitment agreed at MC12, Japan would 
continue  to work actively and constructively with all WTO Members.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 15 - 
 
 
6.7.  The representative of Cameroon , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that t he African 
Group wished to reiterat e its previous statement made under this Agenda item  and thank ed Mr. 
Marco Molina of Guatemala for providing the update o n the DS reform discussion s. The African Group 
also thank ed Indonesia for its communication circulated in document JOB/DSB/6. The African Group 
believe d that the description of the informal process was valuable if Members were to achieve a 
useful outcome. H owever , the African Group was of the view that the ongoing informal process could 
be improved to ensure effective participation of develop ing countr ies and LDCs with small er 
delegations. The African Group was encouraged that the Member -driven nature of this process was 
safeguarded as transparent in every aspect of this process. The African Group believed tha t trust 
building, stimulat ing participation and inclusiveness  were the key to any consensus building. The 
African Group would therefore encourage that various meeting s in small group s and plenary format 
be open for remote  participation  by Members  to facili tate transparency and inclusiveness within the 
WTO and to enable wider participation of small develo ping countr ies and LDC Members.  
6.8.  Furthermore, the African Group wished to be associated  with the recommendation s contained 
in Indonesia's  communication  that in order to facilitate  full and effective participation of develop ing 
countr ies and LDC Members throughout the process of the DS reform discussion , the 
discussion s/meeting s, including small group meeting s, should be based on a structural plan to avoid  
conflict ed agenda s and schedule of meeting s mainly  with other negotiation s. The African Group  
called for adequate coordination among Chairs of the Committee s with the DS reform facilitator to 
prevent future cl ashes of meeting s. With regard to the ongoing  work, the African Group was mindful 
that Members needed to take a decision as soon as possible , however, it believe d that it was better 
to have no outcome than to have a bad outcome. It was crucial  to emphasi ze the importance to 
specify and create a roadmap to formali zing and multi laterali zing the DS reform discussion in order 
to legitimi ze the process as well  so as to fulfil the mandate  in Paragraph  4 of the Outcome Document  
of MC12.  Finally, the African Group welcome d the collaborative and constructive approach adopted 
by the facilitator toward s balancing the differen ce so as to mindful ly reform the DS mechanism . The 
African Group  reassure d its continued constructive engagement in the process going forward.  
6.9.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to , once again , thank Mr. Marco Molina 
for his dedication and his work to advance the discussions on reform of the dispute settlement 
system. Mr Molina ha d spared no effort in ensuring tha t this process was inclusive and transparent. 
This included laying on simultaneous interpretation during consideration of the proposed draft text 
and having it translated into French and Spanish.  All Members had the opportunity to set out their 
interests a nd to table their proposals for solutions. All Members had full access to documents 
concerning the process. All Members had been invited to the discussions and had had an opportunity 
to make active contributions by asking questions or commenting. The contr ibutions of all those 
Members who chose to engage in this process ha d been duly taken into account in their work.  
Members had come a long way together, but there were still important issues where a solution ha d 
not yet been found.  As such, while the proces s would need to become more formal in the future, 
Members were  not yet at that stage.  The most reasonable and pragmatic approach to achieving their 
objectives by MC13  was to continue with the current process.  This was the only way to avoid 
upsetting the momentum that Members  had managed to establish, and which ha d enabled Members  
to make meaningful progress.  Canada remained  open to any ideas put forward in order to further 
fine-tune the informal process pending the ti me when they were ready to submit a full text to the 
DSB. 
6.10.  The representative of China  said that t he restoration of a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement mechanism accessible to all Members  by 2024 was China's top priority, and MC13 was a 
critical  opportunity to achieve that. To that end, China welcomed  the smooth transition to the text -
based discussions. China thank ed all Members for the high -quality first draft on the majority of 
topics, and appreciate d Mr. Marco Molina 's tireless coordination an d his unique contribution to this 
endeavour . It was encouraging that the  recent  Senior Officials Meeting  had reaffirmed Members'  
collective commitment, supported the ongoing pro cess, appraised the progress made so far, and 
more importantly , provided politi cal guidance for Members' further work. That being said, there was 
still a number of fundamental challenges, in particular the  issue of the  appellate review . China called 
on all Members  to continue their constructive engagement on those contentious issues with a view 
to finding a lasting solution that could address the interests of all Members . In addition, China 
understood the concerns raised by some Members , including those  referred to  in Indonesia 's 
communication as well as the call for the formalization of the process. However, China was of the 
view that a bit more patience should be given to the informal process , which provide d Members with WT/DSB/M/484  
- 16 - 
 
 
a valuable forum for frank and solution -oriented discussion s. China was glad to witness the 
improvements to the procedural arrangement during the past few months, including avoidance of 
clashes with other WTO meetings  and simultaneous interpretation. China  hoped that the informal 
process could main tain the fundamental features of transparency, inclusiveness and openness so 
that a solid basis could be built to move to the formal stage and ultimately deliver a meaningful and 
tangible  outcome at MC13. China would continue its focused, constructive and pragmatic 
engagement in this process.  
6.11.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his 
statement made in his personal capacity as the volunteer facilitator of an informal delegate -led 
discussion process on DS reform. Bangladesh was  cognizant of the amount of time and energy 
invested by the group of delegates engaged in the process and their commitment, dev otion, and 
specific focus on some areas of interest in these discussions. Bangladesh valued the informal 
exchange of ideas amongst delegates. Like many delegations, Bangladesh believe d that the current 
informal process reported at the present meeting shoul d be viewed as an effort of some informed 
delegates to formulate some ideas, options and common understandings to assist future discussions. 
However, to be relevant and meaningful, such discussions had to be conducted through a 
multilaterally guided proces s under  a WTO body or a Chairperson  of that body.  Submissions from 
Members should be the basis for discussion and t hese discussions should respect the institutional 
norms and practices in the WTO. Bangladesh strongly believe d that the process and the subst ance 
were equally important in this regard . Bangladesh had raised some concerns and challenges during 
several previous DSB meetings regarding the unofficial informal discussions on the DS reform 
process.  Many developing countries and LDC Members  could not fully take part in those discussions  
because the format and pace of the discussions had not been designed to accommodate their ability 
to contribute. The discussion structure  should not be confined to some resource -rich delegations 
only. The discussions ' structure did not support the virtual participation of capital -based legal experts 
of some delegations  from developing countries who had been  willing to contribute.  Of course, the 
DS reform discussion was very important to  all. As LDCs their voices had to be heard. The 
LDC group 's submission in JOB/GC/223/Rev.1 adequately highlight ed the urgency  of the situation.  
Also, Paragraph 3 of the MC12 Outcome Document  assure d that any reform work, of course including 
the DS reform, "… shall be Member -driven, open, transparent, inclusive, and had to  address the 
interests of all Members, including development issues ". Inclusivity was only possible, as a primary 
condition, under a multilateral process through a WTO body. The established practices and 
procedures o f this Organization could not be overlooked.  Bangladesh welcome d the communications 
circulated at the request of the African Group and Indonesia . Bangladesh  believed that the work  had 
to be conducted through a multilaterally guided process with inclusivity , transparency and full, 
effective and equal participation of all Members. Members had a similar understanding that the 
dispute settlement system, as recognized in Article 3.2 of the DSU, was a central element in 
providing security and predictability to th e multilateral trading system. In conclusion, Bangladesh 
strongly suggest ed the following:  DS reform was a mandate from the Ministerial Conference, and a 
relevant WTO body should be primarily responsible to take the lead ; Therefore, the DSB had to 
initiate discussions on DS reform as soon as possible ; Members should be given adequate 
opportunity to contribute to the discussions.  The ideas and options already discussed and generated 
by some delegates in the informal discussions reported at the presen t meeting could  be 
accommodated in future discussions in the DSB ; On DS reform, a progress report could be prepared 
under the DSB for MC13. Such progress report should potentially contain the problems of the current 
DS system identified by Members and poss ible workstream to facilitate those issues and concerns 
by 2024 or beyond , if necessary. The Chair of the DSB  could  assume the role of the facilitator on  
DS reform discussions . Bangladesh look ed forward to working constructively with other Members on 
this important matter.  
6.12.  The representative of Egypt  said that  Egypt appreciate d the thoughtful proposals on the 
process of disputes and reform  in the WTO. Egypt believe d that the well -functioning dispute 
settlement system was vital for the smooth operation of the multilateral trading system and 
support ed the need for improvements to the system to make it more effective, inclusive and 
transparent. Egypt fully endorse d the principles outlined in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the MC13 Outcome 
Document emphasi zing that the reform process should be Member -driven, open, transparent, 
inclusive and should address the interests of all Members, including the concerns of developing and 
least developed countries. The urgency of addressing challenges related to the disp ute settlement 
and ensuring its accessibility to all Members  by 2024 could not be understated. Egypt share d the 
observations that many developing countries and LDCs often face d scheduling conflicts that hinder ed WT/DSB/M/484  
- 17 - 
 
 
the full and effective participation in info rmal discussions on DS reform. This limitation in 
participation could lead to a lack of understanding and knowledge about the process of the discussion 
thus preventing th ose Members  from contributing meaningfully to the process. Egypt support ed the 
followi ng ideas to enhance the involvement of developing countries and LDC Members  in the dispute 
settlement reform . In this regard, Egypt support ed the ideas contained in Indonesia's  communication 
circulated  in JOB/DSB/6. First, Egypt appreciate d the dedicated e fforts and professionalism of Mr . 
Marco Molina  and thank ed him for his valuable report made at the present meeting, in facilitating 
the informal discussions and his efforts to  lead the discussions in a fair and balanced manner. 
Nonetheless, Egypt support ed the call to take the proper steps to formali ze the discussions under 
the DSB or the General Council and the idea of making participation open virtually in order for  
capital -based officials to be able to participate in the discussions. This would support the interests 
in Geneva in terms of participating in the discussions effectively and would reflect the situation and 
the demands, interests and concerns of countries. Second, utili zing functional differentiation based 
on the level of participation , as proposed by the facilitator , to streamline the discussion process 
should not undermine inclusivity that respect ed the equal rights of all Members to contribute to the 
process. Third, de veloping a structured plan for meetings to prevent conflicts with other negotiations 
and to optimise the use of time and resources. Fourth, allowing any WTO Member to introduce new 
proposals, comments or positions at any point in the discussions, ensuring that the process remain ed 
Member -driven and adaptable. Fifth, m aking all information , submissions or proposals from 
Members  accessible through a dedicated webpage on the WTO website, ensuring that all Members  
had equal access to relevant documents . Egypt reiterate d its commitment to work constructively 
through multilateral engagement towards achieving the necessary and effective  reforms of the WTO 
dispute settlement system, in accordance with the mandate of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the MC12 
Outcome Document , while effectively reflecting the interests of developing countries and LDC 's in 
the final outcome.  
6.13.  The representative of Korea  said that  Korea wished to welcome the report presented by Mr . 
Marco  Molina and express ed its sincere appreciation for his effort s and additional responsibility  in 
organi zing the informal meeting s in his own personal capacity . Korea n oted that this process was 
open, transparent and inclusive to all Members, and thank ed all Members for their participation and 
proactive engageme nt. While Korea  recogni zed that the pace of the discussion s was fairly s wift, it 
believe d that this was imperative to deliver on the mandate of Paragraph 4 of the MC 12 Outcome 
Document . Korea also recogni zed that Mr. Molina  had been providing comprehensive  reports to the 
DSB, which accurately reflect ed the substantial discussions . He had been conducting  bilateral 
meetings for those who were unable to  participate in person  in informal meetings.  Korea look ed 
forward to continue d engagement of all parties in reviewing the draft text and would also contribute 
constructively to the proc ess.  
6.14.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that a s a keen participant in the DS reform 
informal process, Hong Kong, China was heartened by the  progresses made so far, with other 
delegates ' concerted efforts, under the able leadership and facilitation of Mr . Marco Molina. Hong 
Kong, China was also pleased to note the strong support expressed by a vast number of Senior 
Officials, including that of  Hong Kong, China, at the Senior Officials Meeting (SOM), to fulfil  the MC12 
mandate of having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members 
by 2024. At the SOM, Hong Kong, China had complimented on the transparent and in clusive nature 
of the informal process discussions. Hong Kong, China had also reiterated its goal that the reform 
should include a mechanism that would afford reasonable opportunity for aggrieved parties to review 
or appeal their cases in a judicial manner  for enforcement of their rights and obligations under the 
WTO covered agreements. Hong Kong, China  looked forward to seeing delivery of the MC12 mandate 
at MC13, but it would not underestimate the massive amount of work ahead  and the required 
determinatio n across the  Membership.  
6.15.  The representative of United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom wished to thank Mr. Marco 
Molina for his report and commend ed his excellent work as voluntary facilitator. Under his leadership, 
Members had seen real progress in the informal discussions. The United Kingdom applaud ed his 
efforts to make the work towards meaningful reform as inclusive as possible. The United Kingdom  
was mindful of the need to support accessibility and transparency, and was committed to continuing 
its support. The United Kingdom noted the call from some Members to formali ze the reform 
discussions in order to improve accessibility and transparency. Doi ng so too soon, however, risk ed 
a continuance of the status quo, which ha d reduced accessibility to meaningful enforcement. 
Formali zing the process too soon risk ed stalling the process of dispute settlement reform, potentially WT/DSB/M/484  
- 18 - 
 
 
for years. In rightly seeking  greater transparency and accessibility to improve the current and formal 
discussions, Members should  not make the mistake of defaulting to a dispute settlement system 
that was neither accessible nor transparent and did not serve the majority of Members. Members 
should continue to support and accommodate all delegations during the informal  discussions . As 
they made progress, the United Kingdom agree d it would be important to formali ze the process. 
Members  were, however, not yet there.  
6.16.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland also thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his 
enormous commitment and especially the excellent manner in which he ha d conducted the process. 
Discussions aimed at reforming the dispute settlement system ha d never been so effective,  and 
Switzerland applaud ed all who participate d therein.  Informal discussions were pragmatic, inclusive 
and facilitate d compromise s by limiting themselves to their interests instead of positions. Key 
questions were still under discussion and require d participation by all Members if they were to 
achieve an outcome that contribute d to the success of MC13. Switzerland also salute d the fact that 
the Senior Officials  Meeting held recently  in Geneva  had allowed Members to  discover  the 
overwhelming support  towards  this process. To conclude, Switzerland  reiterate d that it was essential 
that the dispute settlement mechanism was reformed  and continue d to uphold a rules -based 
multilateral trading system , which  protect ed all Members. 
6.17.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for the 
update at the present meeting and for his ongoing tireless work to assist Members in facilitating that 
process. New Zealand continue d to welcome the inclusive and transparent way in which discussions 
were organi zed and work ha d progressed. This was a clear interest of senior officials as was the 
need to formali ze the process  under the appropriate WTO body at the right moment . The 
consolidated draft text now under consideration was testament to the pace and the quality of the 
work to date. New Zealand thank ed all delegations involved in the drafting process for the 
collaborative spirit in which this had been  undertaken. New Zealand urged all Members to continue 
engaging constructively and pragmatically in order to advance this well ahead of MC13. Consistent 
with the shared priority placed  in restoring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members . 
6.18.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to thank  Mr. Marco Molina for the 
report and his tireless efforts in facilitating the discussion, as well as the participants of the informal 
discussion for their work and substantive contribution in the past two years. Indonesia had valued 
the current discussion and participated in numerous occasions, and on that note, Indonesia wished 
to take this  oppor tunity to draw Members' attention to  the communication s by the African Group 
and Indonesia to highlight some elements  of the process. First, Indonesia share d the view of many 
Members that the two -tier dispute settlement system was vital in providing security and 
predictability for the multilateral trading system. Indonesia  reaffirm ed the objective of Paragraph s 
3 and 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document  in having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024. Such discussion s should be Member -driven, open, 
transparent, inclusive, and should address the interests of all Members. Second, Indonesia observe d 
and experience d the difficulties encountered by developing countries and LDC s to be able to 
participate meaningfully and effectively in the informal discussion s due to capacity and resource 
constraint s. Such challenge s had to  be seriously taken into consideration and should b e addressed 
to enable small delegations with no dedicated delegate, like Indonesia, to continuously follow and 
contribute to the discussion s. Third, to address this issue, Indonesia wished  to reiterate some of the  
recommendations contained in document JOB/ DSB/6 that :(i) the informal process could  be carried 
forward by the DSB or the General Council in an open and inclusive manner, including  the 
opportunity for capital delegations to follow the conversation s in hybrid format ; (ii) Member 's equal 
rights  must be ensured  to contribute their views and for the views to be reflected in the text ; (iii) 
Member  should be free  to introduce new proposals, c omments and positions , at any time , in the 
course of the discussion s; and  (iv) all information, submissions or proposals  by Members should be 
reflected in the meeting documents and should be  accessible by all Members. In closing, a durable, 
long-lasting re form could only be achieved when all Members could provide contribution s and share 
their interests in an equal manner. To achieve this noble objective, Indonesia stood ready to work 
with all Members  in fulfilling the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document  by 2024.  
6.19.  The representative of Philippines  said that the Philippines wished to thank Mr. Marco  Molina  
for updating the DSB  on this matter. The Philippines was heartened by the supportive and 
constructive participation of Members  during the first ever Senior Officials Meeting held on 23 and WT/DSB/M/484  
- 19 - 
 
 
24 October 2023 in Geneva and the political mandate given to the Geneva -based diplomats and 
negotiators for a successful MC13. On dispute settlement reform, the Philippines noted Members ' 
conce rns on formali zation, transparency, inclusivity and openness of the ongoing informal 
discussions and the participation of capital -based experts. The Philippines urged the DSB and the 
initiators of the discussions to address th ose concerns as the General Co uncil would meet on 1 
November 2023 . The Philippines recogni zed the urgency of reforming the dispute settlement system 
to restore its full functionality and to maintain the integrity of the multilateral trading system. It 
should  also enhance the WTO disput e settlement system, as the system was an essential tool for 
resolving trade disputes and ensuring rules -based multilateral trading system. To encourage dispute 
prevention and resolution, the Philippines support ed a strengthened alternative dispute settlem ent 
resolution, or ADR system, to promote a culture of dialogue and consultation s among WTO Members  
to resolve disputes at early stages. The Philippines  encourage d the use of ADR mechanisms before 
resorting to formal dispute settlement , even during  the compliance stage. In capacity building for 
LDCs, t here ha d to be first a robust and institutional provision of technical assistance and capacity 
enhancement programmes to help them better understand and participate in the dispute settlement 
process , and secon d was to strengthen dispute settlement education and training to ensure that 
Members were  well equipped to engage  in the system. To conclude, the Philippines urge d the WTO 
Members hip to embrace the proposed reforms as  a means to revitalise and strengthen the dispute 
settlement system, while breaking the Appellate Body impasse by promoting transparency, 
enhancing accountability and ensuring that all Members  could participate effectively. They could  help 
safeguard the rule s-based trading system  and promote fair and equitable global trade for all 
Members . It was in the collective interest of all WTO Members  to address th ose challenges and 
reinvigorate the dispute settlement mechanism. As the Director -General at the plenary meeting held 
on 23 October  2023 stated: "the world is looking to the WTO and other multilateral institutions to 
show that we can contribute to solutions and bring a bit of certainty  in a sea of uncertainty, that is 
why at MC13 we need to show the world some  solid deliverables on all fronts, above all on WTO 
reform, particularly on reforming the dispute settlement system. " 
6.20.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union appreciate d the 
opportunity to address, in the D SB, the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform.  For the 
European Union a well and fully functioning dispute settlement system in the WTO was a key priority. 
The European Union agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve this objective. 
The EU support ed a reform that would preserv e the core features of the dispute settlement system. 
The European Union thanked Mr. Marco Molina for the explanations provided at the pres ent meeting . 
The European Union fully support ed the ambitious schedule for the discussions, as set out by Mr . 
Molina.  If Members were  to have a fully functioning dispute settlement system "by 2024 ", those 
discussions had to  pave the way for agreement on di spute settlement reform at MC13. The European 
Union was pleased with the clear support coming out of the recent Senior Officials Meeting for this 
process and for the ambition to deliver a dispute settlement reform by MC13. The European Union 
welcome d the progress that ha d already been achieved and reflected in the draft text. The European 
Union hoped that Members  could continue constructive discussions with a view to finali zing the text 
by December  2023. Finally, the European Union  wished to underscore that  those discussions, 
pursuant to the MC12 Outcome Document, were open to all Members. The European Union 
appreciate d the efforts to ensure that the process was transparent and inclusive. The European 
Union value d the broad participation in the meetings. The European Union welcome d the reporting 
to the DSB, as it was the case at the present meeting , which enhance d the transparency and 
accountability of the process. The European Union  also welcome d the very useful improvements , 
such as interpretation and translation , which had been recently introduced and any further changes 
to make the process more accessible. The European Union was grateful to Mr . Marco Molina for his 
restless efforts to continuously improve the process.  
6.21.  The representative of Nigeria  said that Nigeria thank ed the facilitator Mr . Marco Molina for his 
report on the informal dispute settlement reform discussions. Nigeria  also thank ed Indonesia for  its 
useful proposal that highlight ed Indonesia's  view on the proces s. Nigeria support ed the idea that in 
order to do things differently, it had been  useful to achieve significant progress through an informal 
process. In addition, Nigeria welcomed the useful improvements by the facilitator to ensure 
inclusivity in the proc ess. However, Nigeria was of the view that the ongoing informal process could 
benefit from some more improvements , as had been  mentioned by others, to ensure effective 
participation of developing countries and LDCs , with small delegations. One additional i mprovement 
was to open the plenary meetings to hybrid participation of Geneva -based experts to promote 
effective participation of small delegations that could not be physically present  at every meeting due WT/DSB/M/484  
- 20 - 
 
 
to conflicting schedules. Furthermore, Nigeria  believed that in order to facilitate full and effective 
participation of developing countries and LDC Members  throughout the process of the WTO dispute 
settlement reform discussions, the meetings, including small group meet ings, s hould be based on a 
structural plan to avoid conflicting agenda s and schedule of meetings, mainly with other negotiations 
taking place at the WTO. The pace of the meetings ha d to take into account the participation of small 
delegations.  Nigeria wished to emphasi ze the importance of specifying a clear roadmap to 
formali zing the DSU reform discussion s in order to legitimi ze the process as w ell as fulfil the mandate 
in Paragraph 4 of the Outcome Document . Finally, Nigeria support ed the collaborative and 
constructive approach adopted by the facilitator towards achieving a balanced outcome which 
include d a functional dispute settlement system t hat was accessible to all Members.  
6.22.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his report and 
wished to , once again , express its appreciation for his continued and tireless efforts in organi zing 
and structuring the informal meetings on dispute settlement reform. Norway welcome d the inclusive 
and transparent manner with which meetings ha d been conducted, including the high degree of  
flexibility provided  to delegations. Norway welcome d the support from Senior Officials and the ir 
guidance for  the way forward. Norway had noted with great pleasure that Members from all regions 
had engaged constructively and made important contributions t o the discussions. Norway , at the 
same time, acknowledge d and could relate to concerns that the frequency of meetings could be 
burdensome especially to smaller delegations. It was, therefore , of great value that Mr . Molina and 
others ha d arranged for regul ar updates on progress in the discussions. Members must be flexible 
and pragmatic. Norway  looked forward to , at some point , being able to formali ze the process, but 
now it was not the right time. It was Norway's top priority to ensure  a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members . Norway wished to join others in encouraging 
all Members to actively participate in the ongoing process on DS reform with the view to deliver ing 
on the commitments made at MC12 and to achieve tang ible outcomes at MC13.  
6.23.  The representative of Peru said that Peru was pleased and grateful for the political support  
provided  by Senior Officials towards  informal discussions on DS  reform ably led by Mr. Marco Molina. 
Peru appreciate d that th ose discussions focused on Members ' interests in order to address their 
concerns . Peru believe d that th is approach had allowed Members  to make significant progress . Peru 
considered that Members  should  formali ze this informal process , but at the same time, Peru  agree d 
with a number of previous speakers that Member s must be cautious and strategic regarding the 
timing of this in order to preserve  progress made thus far. In Peru's view , the discussions underway 
were being held in an open, transparent and inclusive manner  and significant efforts ha d been made 
to further improve Members'  participation , including simultaneous interpretation and the translation 
of draft texts. While Members worked with a sense of urgency to achieve a tangible result by MC13, 
Peru also acknowledge d that there were significant key matters on the table that required deeper 
discussions and creative solutions might be necessary to reach a n agreement.  Peru considered  that 
a two-tier dispute settlement system that was fully operational and accessible to all Members wa s 
essential to provide legal security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. Peru was 
committed to re -establishing such a system, if possible,  by MC13.  The status quo was unacceptable 
not only for Members but also for the system as a whole . If Members  did not urgently restore the 
system , the rules that ha d been negotiated would become mere guidelines. Therefore, Peru would 
continue to participat e in th ose discussions following the guidelines provided by Senior Officials.  
6.24.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to thank 
Mr. Marco Molina for his hard work and patience in facilitating the informal negotia ting process on 
DS reform. The Russian Federation was ready to further engage constructively within this process 
in an effort to move towards consensus. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation still believed that the 
confidential nature of the process and non -attribution of the proposals discussed, in fact, could not 
work to the advantage of the Membership. Informal discussions could divert Members from their 
goal to a consensus -based decision. Certain Members claimed that formal discussions would paralyze 
the pr ocess. However, in fact, such allegations and thinking undermined one of the core WTO 
functions, i.e., the negotiating function. Therefore, the Russian Federation consistently supported 
the idea to launch discussions on DS reform in a formal mode, as agree d by WTO Members at MC12. 
This was the only process that could bring them to the meaningful result supported by every 
Member. The Russian Federation considered that the problem with the Appellate Body impasse was 
the core issue around which the discussions  on DS reform should be conducted. This was the most 
serious problem with regard to which 130 WTO Members expressed their interest under the separate 
item of the Agenda, as Members continued to raise this issue in every regular DSB meeting. Without WT/DSB/M/484  
- 21 - 
 
 
solving  the problem regarding the Appellate Body blockage, the consideration of other elements of 
the DS reform seemed to be meaningless . 
6.25.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa  wished to be associate d with the 
statement made by the Africa n Group. South Africa also wished to thank the facilitator, Mr . Marco 
Molina, for his report on DS  reform discussion s. South Africa also thank ed and welcome d Indonesia 's 
communication contained in document JOB/DSB/6 , which set out  how the DS reform discussi ons 
should be carried out to ensure inclusivity and full and effective participation of developing countries, 
including LDCs, throughout the DS reform discussions. WTO reform had to ensure  a fully and well -
functioning two-tier dispute settlement mechanism  accessible to all Members  by 2024 . A fully 
functioning , two-tier dispute settlement mechanism was a top priority for reform of the WTO , and it 
was crucial for the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. While noting the p rogress 
in the info rmal discussions , in which South Africa  had actively and constructively participated , it was 
considered view of South Africa that the process need ed to be formali zed and multilateral ized under 
the D SB. This point had been raised during the DS reform sessions in the recent Senior Officials 
Meeting with the issue being when would be  the appropriate time to formali ze the process . South 
Africa considered  that this need ed to be done sooner rather than later. The development of a  clear 
roadmap was also key  and would ensure transparency, enable planning and full and effective 
participation  of all Members . South Africa noted and appreciate d the recent efforts to ensure that 
the informal process was inclusive,  and that interpretation  and translation services  were provided.  
There was still room for improvement to enhance inclusive and effective participation, and it was 
only an inclusive and transparent approach that would enable Members to achieve  their shared 
objective of a fully fun ctioning dispute settlement mechanism by  2024. South Africa would continue 
to engage constructively and pragmatically in the process.  
6.26.  The representative of Colombia  said that Colombia thanked Mr. Marco Molina for his report. 
Colombia recognized and deeply valued the efforts by the facilitator and encouraged him to continue 
with the same level of passion and dedication. This momentum had been broadly acknowledged by 
senior officials at the Senior Officials Meeting. Despite remaining differences with some Members, 
particularly on the importance of the restoration of the Appellate Body , Colombia was pleased to 
acknowledge the significant progress made in these negotiatio ns thus far. Colombia was a developing 
country with limited capacity and nonetheless its voice was heard,  and its opinions were taken into 
account in these discussions. Colombia faced challenges in trying to participate in every meeting 
due to its resource  constraints. H owever , Colombia's contributions had made it to the draft 
documents. Once again, Colombia wished to thank Mr. Molina  for his availability to brief on  the 
discussions whenever it had been unable to participate and for giving Colombia addition al 
opportunities to speak  in the meetings.  Colombia also welcomed the addition of  simultaneous 
interpretation as well as the fact that draft texts were now made available in the WTO official 
languages , which had proven to be absolutely necessary. In Colomb ia's view, the process had been 
led in a manner that was transparent, open, inclusive, and it had enjoyed the active and significant 
participation of all Members. Colombia believed that in the near future, although perhaps not the 
immediate future, Members  should formalize th is process, especially before submitting the text to 
the DSB.  Colombia applauded the commitment and hard work by all Members . Colombia was 
convinced that the outcome had the potential to be a concrete outcome for MC13. The progress 
made  thus far was positive  and it further consolidated  Members'  commitment to seek effective 
solutions . 
6.27.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia highly appreciate d the progress report 
made by Mr. Marco  Molina  at the present meeting and acknowledge d his efforts and dedication  to 
this informal process.  At the outset, Cambodia wished  to be associated with the statement made by  
Bangladesh. Cambodia also  welcome d the proposal by Indonesia (JOB/DSB/6) and the stateme nt 
made by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. Like other Members, Cambodia also  share d the 
similar concern  about the intense schedule of this informal process , including the structure and pace 
of meeting s. DS reform was one of the top priorities for most Members , including Cambodia to 
ensure a full and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all by 2024. Therefore, to 
ensure an inclusive participation of all Members , in particular  addressing the challenges of the LDCs 
and small delega tion missions , and more importantly to avoid overlapping with any WTO official 
meetings, the informal DS reform process should be institutionalized in to the multilateral process as 
soon as possible by the DSB or the G eneral Council . In the meantime, the id eas and options already 
discussed by some delegations in the informal discussions should be further discussed in the 
formalized process. Cambodia stood ready to have a constructive engagement on this matter.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 22 - 
 
 
6.28.  The representative of Ecuador  said that Ecuador  wished to join the previous speakers who 
had acknowledged the work of Mr. Marco Molina, who was facilitating this  very important process. 
Members  must comply with the Ministerial mandate from MC12  and t hat was why Ecuador wished  
to thank the facilitator for his report  on progress made  thus far. Ecuador also thanked him for the 
efforts made thus far  that translated documents and simultaneous interpretation  were now available 
in this process.  This contribute d to transparency and in clusiveness, and it also promote d participation 
of Members  in meeting s. The multilateral  process mean t that concerns of all Members could be taken 
into account.  Ecuador considered  that th ese concerns  would  be reflected in the final outcome . 
Members  had a historic chance to improve and make the dispute settlement system to be a lasting 
and sustainable system . For that reason , Ecuador would  participate constructively and actively in 
the discussions  in order to  reach substantive and comprehensive outcomes during MC13.  
6.29.  The representative of India said that India took the floor at the present meeting to mark its 
strong support for Indonesia 's communication as well as the communication previously circulated at 
the request of the A frican Group . In the context of the DS  reform , India's strong priority remain ed 
the restoration of the Appellate Body. India noted the work that the technical experts ha d been doing 
for the past 18 months in Geneva. However, this informal process  was challenging for developing  
countries, including LDCs and capacity constrained countries. India's experience ha d been that th ose 
discussions use d methods of work which privilege d resource -rich delegations. Since the start of th is 
current phase of informal discussions, developing cou ntries ha d made a number of requests that 
would make this process more transparent and equitable, such as written submissions, sharing of 
inputs, hybrid meetings, and virtual participation by capital. India noted that none of th ose requests 
had been agreed  to. India further note d that th ose requests were not to reduce the pace of work, 
but rather to have methods of work , which would enable capacity constrained countries to participate 
on an equal footing in th at very fast -paced process. India remain ed puzzled as to why when countries 
had been flexible about participation in an informal process , the informal process could not be flexible 
enough to follow equitable methods of work. In th at context, India wished  to point out that the 
overwhelming support for the informal process expressed at the Senior Officials Meeting  had been  
accompanied by an equally overwhelming number o f countries pointing out to their concerns about 
the process and emphasi zing the need to formali ze the process , and formali ze, not at some unknown 
future time, but in a time and manner that would allow all countries to consider fully the implications 
of the proposed changes. For many countries, this time was as soon as possible, if not immediately. 
India respectfully submit ted that trying to restrict the scope of the informal discussions to proposals 
that some countries ha d been able to raise to address the ir own specific interests undermine d 
chances for a real consensus. India's continued participation in th at process reflect ed the importance 
that it attach ed to this issue and its commitment to remain engaged in the process in spite of its 
concerns. Noting that technical experts in Geneva ha d already worked on this issue for almost two 
years , India believe d that the time was ripe to speedily transition to a discussion , which would be 
located  in the DSB , under the guidance of the DS B Chair. Further more,  pending this formali zation, 
the informal process must immediately address the concerns about methods of work that developing 
countries including LDCs ha d been repeatedly raising.  
6.30.  The representative of Argentina  said that Argentina wished to refer to its statement made on 
DS reform at the S enior Officials Meeting  held recently in Geneva.  Argentina supported the efforts 
made by the facilitator in this ongoing informal process . Argentina  participated  constructively i n the 
informal  meeting s in order to  achieve  an outcome in line  with the MC12 mandate.  
6.31.  The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico t hanked Mr. Marco Molina for his report on the 
informal process , which he facilitat ed and Mexico  acknowledge d the invaluable and impressive work 
done by him. Mexico had heard the clear message from Senior Officials on this issue and noted the 
fact that Senior Officials  acknowledge d this informal process. Mexico support ed the process and 
shared the views expressed  by other Members  on this matter. This process  met the characteristics 
mentioned  by Senior Officials : this was a multilateral process because it  was open to all Members ; 
it was transparent because all information was shared regularly among Members ; and it  was 
inclusive  as Members had the possibility of meeting  Mr. Molina  in different formats , which was 
beneficial to Members. The draft text was available in all three WTO official languages and 
discussions on the text ha d simultaneous interpretation. The process would have to be formali zed 
before MC13, but Members had to be very cautious and strategic  as to when this should be done.  
Undoubtedly , a lot of progress  had been made , but there were key issues which require d further 
discussion s. Therefore, a lot of work remain ed to be done  and that  was why Members would have 
to work hard from now on if they were  to fulfil the MC12 mandate , namely , to have a dispute WT/DSB/M/484  
- 23 - 
 
 
settlement system fully operational and accessible to all Members by 2024 . Mexico reiterate d its 
commitment to continue  to work constructively in this process.  
6.32.  The representative of Chile said that Chile welcomed the report on the informal discussions 
concerning DS reform and was particularly grateful to Mr. Marco Molina  for all the work and effort 
invested  by him.  It was in Chile's interest to have a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism, 
and it was Chile's  understanding that the vast majority of Members believed that this should be a 
priority in the short term,  especially in light of  the mandate provided  at MC12.  For th at reason, Chile 
believed that Members' efforts should be focused on these objectives. Chile  wished to highlight the 
efforts made by the facilitator to spearhead this collective process, which had made significant 
progress and had allowed Members to reach th e current stage of drafting and reviewing text s. Chile 
considered that the process had been open, transparent and inclusive . Chile appreciated the 
facilitator's efforts to hold meetings in various formats as well as to have translation s and 
interpreting se rvices. Chile wished to underscore the participation of Members even when the sense 
of urgency meant that an intense schedule of meetings  had to be set up.  Chile believed that this 
spirit of compromise had enabled Members to make significant progress as wa s acknowledged by 
Senior Officials who recently met in Geneva.  Chile considered that the informal configuration of the 
process had enabled Members to make good progress and that the process should be formalized at 
the right moment.  
6.33.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished t o recall the statement made by  
Senior Official s that Members  support ed the ongoing work and were committed to participat ing in 
the DS reform discussion s. Thailand thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his tireless effort s towards this  
process, and also thank ed delegations  who had helped to draft the text of the zero draft for the 
current discussion s. If Members looked at the work they had done, they had to accept that there 
was a long way to go to get things done by MC13. Most of the topics relate d to a change of the 
behaviour and understanding or practi ces, which had been developed by Members  for years. Th is 
require d time to digest, in particular for capital -based delegations . Thailand  welcome d the 
communication circulated at the request of Indonesia. Thailand s upport ed the idea of having the 
draft texts available on the WTO webpage as well as  virtual access for remote participation . This  
should help all Members, in particular with capa city constrai nts to access and follow the swift 
conversation s in a more transparent manner.  
6.34.  The representative of Venezuela  said that Venezuela wished to thank Mr. Marco Molina for his 
report. Venezuela  acknowledge d his leadership in the work that experts were conducting in Geneva. 
Venezuela also wished to express its appreciation for the changes  made recently regarding 
simultaneous interpretation and translation  of documents.  However, Venezuela believe d that this 
process should be formali zed in order to comply with the MC12 mandate  by 2024. The formal process 
should take place in the DSB  in an inclusive and transparent  manner . Venezuela  viewed positively 
Indonesia 's proposal  as well as the proposal by the African  Group. Venezuela supported the idea to  
allow capital officials to participate through Interprefy  in the informal meetings  and the need to avoid 
that such meetings took place at the same time as other important meetings. Venezuela considered  
that restoring  the Appellate Body wa s the top priority when reforming  the dispute settlement system.  
6.35.  The representative of the  Dominican Republic  said that the Dominican Republic wished to 
thank the facilitator, Mr. Marco Molina , for his report and for the report made by Senior Officials  who 
had recently met in Geneva.  The Dominican Republic  thank ed Mr. Molina  for his great commitment 
and availability in this process. The Dominican Republic at the Senior Officials Meeting  had stated 
that it support ed the ongoing work and reiterate d that support. The Dominican Republic believe d 
that with simultaneous interpretation s the process had improved because Members could  participate 
more fully. The Dominican Republic hoped  that if Members  continued this wor k they would  achieve 
the expected results and would be able to fulfil the MC12 mandate.  
6.36.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore t hanked Indonesia for its communication 
and Mr. Marco Molina  for his report. Singapore was pleased to note the strong support from Senior 
Officials for the informal discussions. The onus was on Members  to redouble efforts to complete the 
last mile and seize the opportunity presented by MC13 to secure  durable and lasting dispute 
settlement reform. Singapore appreciate d Mr. Molina  for facilitating the informal discussions in a 
transparent and inclusive  manner with meetings open to all Members , for his provision of regular 
updates and most recently, arranging for translations of the draft text and simultaneous 
interpretation during the text-based negotiations. The urgency of the matter and the short run way WT/DSB/M/484  
- 24 - 
 
 
before  MC13 call ed for maintaining a brisk pace of work in a setting that facilitate d frank exchanges. 
Singapore,  therefore , urged Members to be pragmatic and flexible to maximise progress in the 
remaining time. Singapore  looked forward to formali zation of the process  in due course  and to the 
continued constructive engagement of every Member in this important  process.  
6.37.  The representativ e of St. Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the Organisation 
of Eastern Caribbean States  (OECS), thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his report and for all of his tireless 
work in taking Members towards a meaningful outcome in this process. The OECS also wished  to 
recogni ze the recent improvements made to the methods of work, including with respect to the 
availability of simultaneous interpretation and the translation of the draft text into the of ficial WTO 
languages . The OECS also wished  to reiterate the value that they saw in the work conduct ed in the 
informal process  and believed that this was consistent with their desire to have a very meaningful 
outcome in the work of dispute settlement reform . Senior Officials had also reiterated  the value that 
was seen in that work and at that level . Nonetheless, the OECS  also wished to thank Indonesia for 
its proposal. St. Vincent and the Grenadines noted and agree d that there was still scope to improve 
some  of the process issues in  discussions. The fact that the OECS  representative  was not available 
to be in person at the present meeting , but was available to participate remotely  were the kinds of 
improvements that it was hoped  could be introduced into the i nformal process. It should not be seen 
as a process that reside d outside of the WTO, it was informal, it was not formal, but that did not 
mean that some of the features that characteri zed how WTO formal bodies operate d should be 
excluded from that process. Member s were talking about inclusivity  as they had heard the LDC group 
speak  and heard a number of developing Members speak about the challenges that they  faced  in 
terms of being able to follow the very fast pace of t he discussions. However, they heard no one 
saying that they did not want to be at the table . Instead a lot of countries said that they actually 
wanted to be a part of the process and were calling for some meaningful improvements to be made 
to be able to ac commodate their involvement and participation. The OECS  did not think that those 
requests were unreasonable and ask ed all Members to certainly give due consideration to the 
interests and concerns of all delegations, including developing countries and LDCs,  so that they could  
more meaningfully participate, given the systemic importance of dispute settlement reform for all 
WTO Members. The OECS  wished to again  thank the Chairman , Mr. Marco Molina and all Members 
for the engagement on that issue.  
6.38.  The Chairman  thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his tremendous efforts towards this important 
matter. He encourage d all Members to actively participate in the ongoing process on DS reform with 
the view to achieving tangible outcomes at MC13 in line with political guidance pr ovided by Senior 
Officials  who had met in Geneva on 23  and 24 October 2023.  
6.39.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 25 - 
 
 
7  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LAO PEOPLE 'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ; L ESOTHO ; L IECHTENSTEIN ; M ADAGASCAR ; M ALAWI ; 
MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; 
NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGER IA; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; 
PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; 
SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; 
UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 26) 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations . He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 26 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to spea k. 
7.2.  The representative of Guatemala,  speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 6, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 6 September  2023 to launch the s election processes for the 
vacancies of Appellate Body  members . On behalf of those 1 30 Members, Guatemala wished to state 
the following . This Agenda item and the extensive  number of  Members submitting the joint proposal 
reflected a common interest in the f unctioning of the Appellate Body  and, more generally, in the 
functioning of the dispute settlement system . The joint proposal sought to : (i) start seven selection 
processes ; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee ; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for th e 
submission of candidacies ; and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates . The co -sponsors 
invited and urged all Members to support this proposal in the interest o f the dispute settlement and 
multilateral trading systems . 
7.3.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , wished to thank 
Guatemala for its statement regarding the proposal on Appellate Body appointments, of which they 
were co-sponsors. The African Group reiterate d its support for a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system that was accessible to all Members  by 2024 in accordance with the m andate from Ministers 
at MC12. The fact that the Appellate Body could not  hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The 
African Group urge d the DSB to fulfil its obligation under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as 
they ar ose, so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. This would maintain the 
security, credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading system. The critical mass of Members 
asking for the launch of the selection process es indicate d the importance Members  attached to 
having a fully functioning dispute settlement system for the multilateral trading system. Finally, 
Nigeria  stood ready to engage constructively in the ongoing discussions on dispute  settlement  reform 
in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement  system that was accessible to all Members 
by 2024, as agreed at MC12.  
7.4.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that  Bangladesh wished to thank Guatemala for 
presenting the proposal o n Appellate Body appointment s contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/R ev.26. With regard to the restoration of the Appellate Body, Bangladesh, as a co -
sponsor of the proposal was requesting the DSB to take a decision to launch the selection processes 
immediately to fill the vacancies in t he Appellate Body.  In order to ensure  the security and 
predictability of this multilateral trading system, Members had to launch the process for Appellate 
Body appointments as a top priority and without further delay. Bangladesh request ed Members to 
engage  immediately  in discussions on Appellate Body appointments . This was an urgency, also 
expressed by Ministers at MC12. Bangladesh was ready to continue constructive discussions in that 
regard.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 26 - 
 
 
7.5.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States and other Members ha d 
jointly issued WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against 
Ukraine with the Support of Belarus, " which condemn ed Russia 's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security.  
The United States reiterate d its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time.  The 
United States paid  tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces  and Leaders. 
Turning to the present Agenda item, Members were aware of the longstanding US concerns with 
WTO dispute settlement.  Those concerns remain ed unaddressed, and the United States did not 
support the proposed decision.  The United States believe d that fundamental reform was needed to 
ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system.  The goal for the United States was not 
to return to the old system.  Rather, the United States was  seeking a system that was fair and 
revitalize d the agency of Mem bers to settle their disputes.  A system that preserve d the policy space 
in WTO rules for Members to address their critical interests – most notably on matters of essential 
security.  And a system that support ed, rather than undermine d, the WTO 's role as a f orum for 
discussion and negotiation to help Members address new challenges. As WTO Members continue d 
working to better understand each other 's interests in WTO dispute settlement, the next task of 
reform was to ensure that any future system would meet the interests of all Members to the greatest 
extent possible.  The United States ha d been working with Members to advance this goal, and look ed 
forward to continued engagement.  The United States was committed to working towards a 
fundamentally reformed and improved system.  As Members continue d to engage, the United States  
welcome d the experimentation of Members in finding alternative means to resolve their disputes, 
such as the increased adoption of panel reports, including through agreements to adopt that h ad 
been reached prior to circulation of a panel 's report; arrangements between specific Members to 
permit review of a report; and intensified discussions to find solutions to disputes, including in the 
case of the United States.  Those varied approaches rei nforce d Members ' primary interest in a system 
that support ed parties in the resolution of their disputes.  The United States share d that objective 
and look ed forward to engaging further with those Members that also saw value in an improved and 
reformed disp ute settlement system that was accessible to all.  
7.6.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors to call for the selection of new Appellate Body members without 
further delay and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda item.  
7.7.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of 130 co -sponsors. China referred to its previous statements made on this urgent mat ter, 
and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. Like others, China reiterate d its firm 
commitment to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, which ha d not only 
facilitated prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Member s, but had also provided security 
and predictability to the multilateral trading system. To ensure that such objectives continue d to be 
fulfilled, China  believe d that the most urgent task was to immediately launch the selection process es 
and fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. This was a treaty obligation of all WTO Members . No 
prerequisite should be attached to it. China would continue its constructive engagement in the 
ongoing discussi on on DS reform, and call ed upon all Members  to engage in this exercise in good 
faith and with pragmatic, outcome -oriented spirits. Before getting there, China  encourage d more 
Members  to join the MPIA as a contingent measure to safeguard their right to app eal until the 
Appellate Body was restored. China stood ready to discuss with any interested Members and would 
be ready to provide further information  as necessary.  
7.8.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland reiterate d its condemnation of Russ ia's 
military aggression against Ukraine with the utmost firmness. This was a flagrant violation of 
international law, particularly the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of territorial 
integrity of states. Switzerland urge d Russia to deesca late, to cease all hostilities and to remove all 
troops from the Ukrainian territory. Switzerland appeal ed to all actors to respect international law, 
particularly international humanitarian law. Turning to th is Agenda item , Switzerland thank ed 
Guatemala for including this matter  on the Agenda  of the present meeting  and wished to refer to 
the statements made on this matter at previous DSB  meetings . Switzerland shall continue to engage 
constructively in the dispute settlement reform process, whic h had been discussed under  the 
previous Agenda item, and urged all Members to continue their commitment. Switzerland also 
encourage d all Members to join the MPIA. The MPIA was a pragmatic and effective way of preserving 
Members  rights while the Appellate  Body impasse continue d. Switzerland's priority remain ed of WT/DSB/M/484  
- 27 - 
 
 
course, to find a multilateral solution so that the dispute settlement system would be fully 
operational.  
7.9.  The representative of Indonesia  said that, a t the outset, Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for its 
statement made on behalf of all co -sponsors. Indonesia  encourage d the remaining  34 WTO Members  
to join this important proposal. Indonesia wished to refer to its previous statements made on this 
matter and, with that being said, emphasize d its concern  about  the Appellate Body paralysis that 
had seriously severed the rights and obligations of WTO Members. This situation was close to having 
all WTO Members  in an open prison, unable to appeal their grievances, due to blockage by one party.  
While taking into account the ongoing informal discussion, Indonesia was of the view that the most 
urgent task to do now was to restore an independent, impartial, and two -tier dispute settlement 
system with the functioning Appellate Body.  
7.10.  The representative of Australia  said that,  first, Australia wished to note that it condemn ed in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Australia 
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions  were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organi zations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to this Agenda item,  and noting the remarks made by Australia under the previous item, 
Australia  would simply reiterate that fixing the dispute settlement system remain ed Australia 's 
highest reform priority. With MC13 around the corner, all Members  had to recommit to their share d 
mandate to deliver a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members 
by 2024.  As they worked towards that goal, Australia encourage d Members to join the MPIA, which 
serve d to highlight the value Members place d on a binding,  enforceable dispute settlement system. 
Australia was open to discussing the MPIA with any interested delegation.  
7.11.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished to express its 
support for this proposal, and join ed other Members speaking under this item as well as under items 
3 and 6, to reiterate its grave concerns about  the Appellate Body impasse , which gravely undermine d 
the rules -based multilateral trading system with WTO at its core.  
7.12.  The representative of Ukraine said that s ince December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. Ukraine  
believe d that restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system and appointing members of th e 
Appellate Body was a key priority. In order to achieve this objective, a meaningful reform was 
needed. Ukraine stood  ready to proceed with an active involvement on initiatives concerning the 
improvement of the dispute settlement mechanism and its two -stage dispute review. Ukraine  treated 
seriously the commitment, made at MC12, of having a fully and well -functioning system by 2024 
and w as committed to continuing to work towards meeting that goal. Taking this opportunity, 
Ukraine wished to make a statement regarding the ongoing Russian armed aggression. Russia 
continue d its military actions in Ukraine and commit ted terrorist acts against civilians and its critical 
infrastructure. The residential areas, port infrastructure, grain warehouses, industrial enterp rises 
were under constant air and missile strikes. With such barbaric actions , Russia intentionally 
destroy ed Ukraine's supply chains and logistics, significantly reducing Ukraine 's exports and trade. 
The catastrophic consequences of the R ussian invasion increase d every day, and every time they 
were becoming more global, going beyond Ukraine, affecting much more than the economy and 
trade. Ukraine was thankful to its partners for th eir strong, consolidated and unwavering support 
and call ed upon WTO Members to deprive the aggressor state - Russia - of its tools to commit the 
crime of aggression against Ukraine and to undermine the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
7.13.  The represent ative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associate d with the 
statement made by Guatemala and the proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thank ed 
Guatemala for its statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa  reiterate d its previous 
statements regarding the urgency of this matter. When Members had agreed to bind themselves to 
the Uruguay Round Agreements it was with the understanding that rights would be protected by 
predictable, binding, rules -based  system  underpinned by a  two-tier dispute settlement mechanism. 
The assurance that their trade relations would be subject to rules rather than soft power was a 
fundamental element of the bargain struck in Montevideo and the continued dysfunctionality of the 
Appellate Body undermi ned the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperilled  the 
multilateral trading system. A fully functioning Appellate Body wa s a top priority for reform of the 
WTO, and it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading  system . South Africa  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 28 - 
 
 
welcome d the commitment by Members undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members  by 2024. This commitment ha d been reiterated 
numerous times in recent discussions in the WT O reform discussions . South Africa would  work 
actively and constructively with all Members  to find a lasting solution to the current impasse that 
would  ensure an effective and inclusive multilateral dispute settlement system.  
7.14.  The representative of Canada  said that , first , Canada wished to say that it continue d to 
strongly condemn Russia 's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. Th ose hostile acts were 
a flagrant violation of international law and the rules -based international system, upon which 
organizations such the WTO were based. Canada  express ed its solidarity with the Ukrainian people. 
Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to  be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to  
be free to determine their own future. Canada call ed on Russia to immediately cease all hostile and 
provocative actions against Ukraine, and to withdraw its military forces from the country. Turning 
to this Agenda item on the appointment of Appellate Body  members , Canada  thank ed Guatemala 
for its statement made on behalf of the co-sponsors. The critical mass of WTO Members supporting 
this proposal clearly demonstrate d the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate 
Body as an integral par t of the dispute settlement system. Canada  reiterate d Members ' objective of 
having a fully operational and well -functioning dispute settlement system, accessible to all, by 2024. 
Canada would  continue to participate actively in discussions aimed at finding  solutions to the current 
situation , as discussed under the previous Agenda item. In short, Canada's  priority remain ed to find 
a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the United States. In the meantime, the 
Multi-Party Interim Appeal  Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA), provide d access to binding dispute 
settlement that include d the possibility of appeal in disputes between its participants. There were 
now 53 WTO Members endorsing the MPIA. Canada  had witnessed the positive impacts of this  
arrangement in the context of several disputes and invite d all WTO Members to consider participating 
in the MPIA. Canada was available to discuss the ins and outs of the MPIA with interested Members.  
7.15.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom wished to refer  to its 
previous statements made on this matter and encourage d all Members to join in support of this 
proposal. The United Kingdom was committed to achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system  accessible to all as the best means of ensuring a fair, transparent and equitable 
method of resolving disagreements. The United Kingdom was encouraged by the progress made 
over the previous weeks and stress ed the need for all Members to remain steadfast in finding a 
solution. The United Kingdom continue d to condemn President Putin 's war against Ukraine in the 
strongest terms. The United Kingdom again recall ed that Russia 's actions were a repudiation of the 
principles of the UN Charter and of the purpose an d principles of this Organization. The United 
Kingdom stood  with Ukraine and would  continue to do everything it could to support Ukraine 's heroic 
resistance to this assault  on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
7.16.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan strongly  condemn ed Russia's aggression against 
Ukraine and its attacks against the civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly 
urged Russia , once again , to stop the aggression and withdraw i ts forces from the territory of Ukraine 
within its internationally recognized borders immediately. Japan would also continue to work firmly 
on the two pillars of imposing severe sanctions against Russia and providing robust support to 
Ukraine, in cooperati on with the international community. Turning to this Agenda item, Japan wished 
to refer to its statements made at previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan 
absolutely share d the sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system and ha d set as 
the utmost priority to achieve that reform. For that purpose, Japan welcome d the intensive 
discussions in the informal DS reform  process. With a view to having a fully and well -functioning DS 
system by 2024, as agreed at MC12 . Japan would work actively and constructively with all WTO 
Members.  
7.17.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand continue d to condemn, 
unequivocall y, Russia 's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Th ose actions were egregious 
and unlawful. The use of force to change borders was strictly prohibited under international law, as 
was the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine sovereign 
territory ha d deep implications for global peace, security and economic stability, and New Zealand 
continue d to stand firmly alongside its Ukrainian partners and against any steps by Russia that risk ed 
a further escalation in th is conflict. In relation to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterate d its support 
for the proposal co -sponsored by 130 WTO Members  and wished to refer to its previous statement s. 
Reform of the dispute settlement system to ensure a fully and well -functioning system accessible to WT/DSB/M/484  
- 29 - 
 
 
all Members remain ed a key priority for New Zealand and it also wished to take this  opportunity to 
invite those Members who ha d not joined the MPIA to con sider doing so. The MPIA provide d an 
avenue to safeguard access to an appeal level of review while Members worked collectively towards 
reform in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system . 
7.18.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway f ully support ed the joint proposal presented 
by Guatemala , supported by 130 Members , to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate 
Body. A fully functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was critical to maintain 
the rules -based multilateral trading system and for the credibility of the WTO as a rules -based 
Organization . This was a top priority for Norway  and it referred to it previous statements made under 
this Agenda item. Norway also wished to use this opportunity to remind Members of the Multi -Party 
Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) , which was open for WTO Members to join for as 
long as  the Appellate Body remain ed unable to function fully.  As the work of the Dispute Settlement 
Body directly concern ed the u pholding of the rules -based international order, Norway also found it 
appropriate and pertinent to address the situation in Ukraine.  Norway continue d to strongly condemn 
Russia 's egregious military attack on Ukraine.  Russia 's war of aggression against Ukra ine constitute d 
a gross violation of international law, the rules -based system which also underpin ned this 
Organization  and the work of the DSB. Norway ask ed the Russian Federation to stop the war, and  
stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine as long  as it took. 
7.19.  The representative of Cambodia  said that, a t the outset, Cambodia wished to be associated  
with the statement  made  by Guatemala on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors. Cambodia wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this important Agenda  item, and called for more Members to 
consider co -sponsor ing this proposal. Cambodia stood ready to continue the constructive 
engagement on th e Appellate Body restoration discussion s. 
7.20.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that , as a result of the blockage of the 
Appellate Body appointments process es, the number of disputes , the outcome of which remain ed 
uncertain , was rising and unfortunately would continue to rise. In this vein, the Russian Federation 
wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Guatemala and the 
co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the 
Appellate Body members. The Russian Federation  reiterate d its strong support for launching the 
appointment processes immediately as a vehicle  for the restoration of the well and fully functioning, 
two-tiered dispute settlement system. Regarding certain political statemen ts made by certain 
Members , at the present meeting,  unfortunately the Russian Federation  was forced to stress the 
following : the DSB had its own tasks and mandate , as set out  in different DSU provisions . The topics 
of this particular meeting were contained  in the Agenda circulated on 24  October 2023 in document 
WT/DSB/W/724 , which was  adopted at the present meeting . The political issues raised by some 
WTO Members neither concern ed any of the issues listed in the Agenda, nor were within the 
competence of the DSB. Most importantly, the WTO was not a political organization and Members  
should refrain from trying to address the issues in the WTO that were not in the competence of the 
Organization. In contrast, Russia consider ed the pr oblem with the blockage of the Appellate Body 
appointments as the core issue to be addressed in the DSB . Article 17.2 of the DSU was exactly 
where the DSB ha d not only the mandate, but the obligation. The solution to this problem was the 
one that would str engthen the multilateral trading system. Hence, Russia encourage d WTO Members 
to focus on resolving the problems they already ha d and not to create new ones.  
7.21.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea reaffirm ed its consistent position on Russia 's 
aggress ion that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine should be 
respected. Korea suppor ted the  various diplomatic and economic efforts of the international 
community to contribute to the end of the aggression and the restoration of pe ace. As for the Agenda 
item at hand, Korea thank ed Guatemala and  the co-sponsors for their continuous support in favour 
of launching the Appellate Body selection process es. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint 
proposal and wished to refer  to its previous statements on this matter . The WTO dispute settlement 
system enhanced the security and predictability of the rules -based multilateral trading system in 
response to the needs of WTO Mem bers. With that in mind, Korea welcome d Members ' continuous 
interests in ongoing discussions for dispute settlement reform and very much appreciate d all the 
efforts to materialize the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document in achieving a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.  WT/DSB/M/484  
- 30 - 
 
 
7.22.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union reiterate d its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation 's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately  
violate d the UN Charter and disregard ed the rules -based international order. It undermine d 
international security and stability, and should have no  place in the 21st century. The European 
Union 's support for Ukraine 's independence, sovereignty, territoria l integrity and right of self -defence 
was unwavering. the European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression 
and withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia had to  cease actions endangering the civilians and 
respect international h umanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people. Regarding 
this Agenda item, the European Union wished to refer to its statement  made  at the previous DSB 
meeting.  The European Union wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and 
thank ed all Members that co -sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment processes. Since 
11 December  2019, the WTO no longer guarant eed access to a binding, two -tier, independent and 
impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial. 
That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the present proposal. The 
European Uni on believe d that restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system and appointing 
members of the Appellate Body was a key priority. This task was a shared responsibility of WTO 
Members. In order to achieve this objective, the E uropean Union agree d that a meaningful reform 
was needed. The European Union support ed a reform that would preserve the core features of the 
dispute settlement system  and treated very seriously the commitment made at MC12 to have a fully 
and well -functioning system by 2024 . The European Union was committed to continuing to work 
towards meeting that goal. In the meantime, the European Union was  concerned about  the impact 
that the absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system had on the international trading 
order. In th at context, the MPIA ha d been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system among its participants and to support rules -based trade. The 
MPIA was open to any WTO Member, and the European Union invite d any WTO Member to join  this 
arrangement  as long as a solution to this impasse ha d not been found.  
7.23.  The representative of Peru said that Peru  thank ed and support ed the presentation made by 
Guatemala on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors  and called on those Members who had not yet joined 
the proposal to consider doing so . Peru wished to refer to  its previous statements made on this 
matter  and simply wished to reiterate th e particular importance that the DSB had for countries like 
Peru as it levelled the playing field so that both large and small countries could enforce the trade 
rules, as agreed  by Members. Peru wished to have a fully functioning DS  system  as quickly as 
possible. While discussions continue d to intensify , and in order to preserve the predictability of the 
system , Peru also urge d Members to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard Member's r ight 
to a two-tiered adjudication system.  
7.24.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statemen t, 
which Singapore strongly support ed and wished to reiterat e its previous statements made under this 
Agenda item. However, with respect to the experimentation of Members  and the finding of 
alternative means to resolve disputes , as mentioned by the United States,  Singapore could not help 
but observe that th ose appear ed to be suboptimal alternatives because Members ' rights to appeal 
under the dispute settlement understandin g had been impaired due to the blockage of this Agenda 
item. 
7.25.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala, on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that for 70th occasion Members had not been able to launch the selection processes for 
the vacancies in the Appellate Body . Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their duties as 
Members of the WTO . Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated  that: "vacancies shall be fi lled as they 
arise". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the 
Appellate Body  from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their obligation 
under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise . Guatemala noted with deep concern that by failing to 
launch the selection processes at the present meeting, the Appellate Body  would continue to be 
unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members . 
7.26.  The Chairman  thanked all deleg ations for their statements . He said that a s in the past, the 
DSB would take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected 
in the minutes of the present meeting . Once again, he took the opportunity to recall Members ' 
commitment at MC12 to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning WT/DSB/M/484  
- 31 - 
 
 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 . He hoped that collectively Members 
would be able to find a solution to this matter . 
7.27.  The DSB took not e of the statements . 
__________