RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 66 
18 August  2022 
(22-6284) Page: 1/16 
Dispute Settlement Body  
30 June  2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 30 JUNE 20221 
Chairperson : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present  meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . She said that she wished to recall 
a few technical instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegations . If a Member was unable 
to take the flo or during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform herself 
or the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. 
In the alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the mee ting would proceed to the next 
Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. 
If a technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the req uest that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting;  
(ii) the Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 
28 April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, 
that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations 
with each interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the pr esent meeting, she wished to inform 
delegations that , like the previous Chair of the DSB,  she continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and those consultations were ongoing ; and (iii) the Chairperson  inform ed 
delegations that, under "O ther Business", and further to paragraph 5 of the 21 December 2020 
Understanding between the Philippines and Thailand on the DS371 Facilitator -assisted discussions 
contained in document WT/DS371/44 as well as the subsequent reports provided to the DSB in 
March, July , and December  2021, Ambassador George Mina of Australia, the Facilitator in the DS371 
dispute, would report on progress in the discussions between the parties.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda , as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..........................  4 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 2 - 
  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 EUROPEAN UNION – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB  ................................ ..........  6 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
3 PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
4 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH ; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; 
CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL 
SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; 
ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECH TENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; 
MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; 
MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; 
NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPI NES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; 
SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; 
SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.21)  ...........  7 
5 REPORT BY THE FACILITATOR ON PROGRESS IN THE FACILITATOR -ASSISTED 
DISCUSSIONS IN THE DS371 DISPUTE  ................................ ................................ ..........  14 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEM ENTATION 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 28) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.203) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.166) 
 
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.50) 
 
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.42) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.37 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.37) 
 
 WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 3 - 
  1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. As Members recalled, 
Article  21.6 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 after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, the Chair invited delegations to pr ovide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts. She 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 ea ch meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' 
positions already on record."  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 28) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 28, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 June 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DS U. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet t o be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for its latest status 
report an d statement 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. 203) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 203, 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 17 June 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The represe ntative of the European Union  said that the European Union thanked the United 
States for its status report and its statement at the present meeting.  The European Union  referred 
to its previous statements  and wished to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and 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 .166) 
1.10.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 166, 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 . WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 4 - 
  1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union 
continue d to propose for vote authorisati ons for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. To update the WTO 
Membership with regard to the progress of the applications throughout the authorisation process, 
the Euro pean Union  noted that the  Commission had authorised on 29 June 2022 a genetically 
modified maize2 for food and animal feed uses. This genetically modified maize ha d gone through a 
comprehensive and stringent authorisation procedure, including a favourable  scientific assessment 
by the European Food Safety Authority.   
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting, and acknowledged the two authorizations made in 
May 2022. The United States continued to engage with the European Union on these issues, and 
had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the European Union could address 
the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States had describ ed these problems in 
detail and continued to be concerned with the European Union's biotech approval procedures. The 
United States had noted its concerns monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech 
consultations. The United States again requested that the European Union move to issue final 
approvals for all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food 
Safety Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals 
Committee . 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 50) 
1.14.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 50, 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 res idential 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 17 June 2022, 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 t he antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential washers 
from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States had completed 
implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping a nd countervailing 
duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute .  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue  
in this dispute.   
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada wishe d to refer to its  statement made under 
this Agenda item at the 27 April 2022  DSB meeting.  
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. 42) 
1.19.   The Chairperson  drew attention to doc ument WT/DS471/17/Add. 42, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
 
2 GM maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 and its sub -combinations . WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 5 - 
  in the case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on  17 June 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained in 
that report, the United States w ould consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB.  
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the Unite d States for its most recent  
status report. It was disappointing that the United States still fail ed to implement the adopted rulings 
and recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States to honour its obligation s by 
bringing its measures into  conformity without delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 37 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 37) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 37 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 37, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerni ng importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted its status  report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia continue d to devote its best effort to implement the 
recom mendations and rulings  of the DSB in these disputes.  Indonesia ha d also taken note of the 
interest raised by New Zealand and the United States in previous DSB meetings on th ese matters.  
On measure 18, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws  that were found  to be  
inconsistent with WTO rules following  the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With 
regard to the decision issued by Indonesia's Constitutional Court on 25 November 2021, the Court 
ruled that the Job Creation Law was conditionally unconstitutional . However , the Court also further 
specified that the scope of its decision was limited to the procedural aspects o f the legislative process 
instead of the substance of the law. In this regard, the Job Creation Law remain ed in effect during 
the two -year grace period provided for the necessary amendment of the law. With respect to 
measure s 1–17, Indonesia wished  to reassure that significant adjustments, in complying with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, ha d been carrie d out through the amendments of the 
relevant M inistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade  regulations. Those adjustments also include d 
the removal of disputed measures, inter alia : harvest period restriction ; import realization 
requirements ; six–months ha rvest requirement ; and reference price.  While thanking New Zealand 
and the United States for their interest in the commodity balance mechanism, Indonesia wished  to 
inform both Members that the objective of th at mechanism was to ensure the ease and certaint y of 
doing business. The c ommodity balance  mechanism  would also be effective as a policy evaluation 
tool for the government to ensure the availability of products, including horticultural products, animal 
and animal products. The operation of the mechanism  would be supported by an integrated national 
database system and further streamlined licensing process. Finally,  Indonesia wished to again 
emphasize its commitment t o engaging with New Zealand and the United States as well as to  
implementing the recommend ations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  
1.25.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional information provided at the 
present meeting , related to the objective of Indonesia 's Commodity Balance mechanism as well as 
the impact of the Constitutional Court 's ruling on the Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020). New 
Zealand was  assessing this information and w ould revert with any additional questions on these and 
other matters. New Zealand look ed forward to constru ctive engagement with Indonesia on the 
outstanding issues.  WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 6 - 
  1.26.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. The United States thanked Indonesia 
for re sponding to the US question about the ruling of Indonesia's Constitutional Court concerning 
the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020). That additional information would aid in the United 
States' review of the Court's decision and its understanding of t he law's effect. With respect to 
measures 1 -17, the United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently 
comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect 
the regimes. With re gard to the statement in Indonesia's latest status report that the commodity 
balance system was "to ensure the ease and certainty of doing business", the United States was 
interested to better understand as to how that would be the case. The United States would appreciate 
if Indonesia could provide more information on how commodity balancing would make doing 
business in Indonesia easier. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully 
resolve this dispute . 
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the stateme nts and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  EUROPEAN UNION – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In this respect, Article  21.3 of 
the DSU provide d that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  Members would recall that  at its meeting on 31  May 2022,  the DSB had 
adopted the Panel Report in the dispute on: "European Union – Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel 
Products" (DS595). As Members were  aware, the 30 -day time -period provided for in Article 21.3 of 
the DSU pertainin g to this dispute was due to expire on 30 June 2022.  She then invite d the 
representative of the European Union to make a statement.  
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that at its meeting on 31 May 2022, the DSB 
had adopted the Panel Report in th is dispute. In line with its obligation under Article 21 .3 of the 
DSU, the European Union,  as the responding party , and the Member concerned wishe d to inform the 
DSB of the EU's  intentions in respect of implementation. Under the DSU, the implementation 
obligation relate d to the recommendations and rulings  made by the DSB by adopting the Panel 
Report. Based on Article 19.1 of the DSU, the Panel, in its Report which the DSB had adopted, had 
recommended that the European Union bring its measure into conformity with the Agreement on 
Safeguards and the GATT 1994 , where the Panel had concluded that the E uropean Union 's safeguard 
measure was inconsistent with those covered agreements. Th ose Panel findings of inconsistenc y 
related to two legal points under  Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and one legal point under 
Article  4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards. The E uropean Union  intend ed to implement the 
above recommendation by bringing the EU safeguard measure on certain steel products into 
conformity wi th the WTO Agreement s on those points. Given the implementation task at hand, it 
was impracticable for the E uropean Union to comply immediately. Therefore , the E uropean Union 
would need a "reasonable period of time " within which to do so. The E uropean Union was keen to 
discuss and agree with Türkiye the duration  of this period of time at the earliest available 
opportunity.  
2.3.  The representative of Türkiye  said that his country wished to  thank the Panel for its Report, as 
well as the Secretariat for its support. Türkiye reiterate d the importance of the Panel 's findings that 
the safeguard measures applied by the European Union on steel products f ell short of essential 
substantive requirements laid down in the GATT 1994 and in the Agreement on Safeguards. I n 
particular, the Panel 's findings that the European Union 's threat of serious injury determination and 
establishment of a logical connection between the unforeseen developments and the increased 
imports were fundamentally deficient, indicate d a serious fa ilure by the European Union when 
imposing the provisional and definitive safeguard measures. Türkiye expect ed that the European 
Union w ould promptly and fully implement the Panel 's findings. Given that those findings 
fundamentally affect ed the legality of the EU safeguard measures, Türkiye  expect ed that an 
immediate review by the European Union should lead to the withdrawal of the safeguard measures WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 7 - 
  at issue. Türkiye took note of the request of the E uropean Union for a mutual determination of the 
"reasonabl e period of time " in respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. Türkiye  looked forward to working  on this matter with the European Union as soon as possible.  
2.4.   The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the information provided by the European Union 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations  
3  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/ W/700)  
3.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/ 700 which contained a new 
nomination proposed by Tunisia  for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. She proposed that the DSB 
approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/ 700. 
3.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
4  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA F ASO; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; 
CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA 
RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUR OPEAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, 
CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; 
MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; 
MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH 
MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; 
QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELL ES; 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. 21) 
4.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/60 9/Rev. 21 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 February  2022, to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 3 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal r eflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellat e Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meet ing. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr . Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr . Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr . Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had 
expired on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr . Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, 
whose four -year term of office expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr . Ujal 
Singh Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace 
Mr. Thomas Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a se venth selection 
process to replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 
30 November  2020); (ii)  to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for 
the 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 proponents WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 8 - 
  were flexible in the determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should 
consider the urgency of the  situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this 
proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States, a t the outset, drew 
attention  to the statement issued by the United States and other Members, in document WT/GC/244, 
titled: "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the 
Support of Belarus", which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of in ternational law, the UN 
Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security. The United States reiterated 
its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time and paid tribute to the heroism of the 
Ukrainian people, their arm ed forces and leaders. Members were aware of the long -standing US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States supported WTO dispute settlement 
reform and was working to achieve durable, lasting reform. The first step towards reform was to 
better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. A true reform discussion 
should aim to ensure that WTO dispute settlement reflected the r eal interests of Members, and not 
prejudge what a reformed system would look like. The United States was prepared for continued 
and deepened engagement with Members on this important issue .  
4.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors and wished to refer to its previous statements under this Agenda 
item. Brazil consider ed it of utmost importance to have a  well and fully functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible because this was essential for rules -based multilateral trading 
system.  This was why Brazil  continue d to support the proposal on AB appointments.  At MC12, 
Members  had committed to "conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". Members had to  act on this 
commitment. Brazil was ready to engage constructively in the process of finding a lasting solution 
to the current situation and  would spare no effort to achieve this  outcome.  
4.5.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustified and 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine ordered by President  Putin. Th ose attacks were having a 
considerable humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of innocent people. 
This was not only about an attack on Ukraine. It was about an attack on international law, including 
the Charter of the United Nations, as well as on democracy, freedom and human rights. W ith regard 
to dispute settlement, th ose attacks were preventing Ukraine from participating in disputes as it 
should have been able to do. Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body membe rs, for over two 
and a half years the Appellate Body ha d no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new 
appeals. Canada support ed the statement made by Mexico at the present meeting  on behalf of the 
sponsors and share d the concerns expressed by oth er Members regarding the Appellate Body's 
inability to function. The support expressed for th at proposal clearly reflect ed the importance that 
all Members  attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute 
settlement system. Canada w ould continue to actively participate in solution -oriented discussions 
on the current situation. In short, Canada's  priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting 
solution for all Members, including the  United States. Meanwhile, Canada and 24  other WTO 
Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as an 
emergency measure. This measure s ought  to safeguard their rights to binding dispute settlement, 
including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. Members  had witnessed the 
adoption of Reports concerning disputes in which the parties had adopted appeal arbitration 
agreements respecting the principles established in the model contained in Annex  1 of the MPIA. 
Furthermore, Canada  also note d that the first appeal arbitration procedure respecting the principles 
established in the MPIA was underway. In short, Members  had before them concrete examples that 
demonstrate d the benefits of the MPIA. The appeal arbitration agreements that respect ed the 
principles laid down in the MPIA provide d Members with the possibility to appeal a panel's ruling and 
to obtain a final ruling that b ound the parties. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada  
invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement rights 
to the maximum extent possible until Members  collectively f ound a permanent solution to the 
impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA wit h any interested Member.  
4.6.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to condemn 
the Russian Federation 's unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine. It was a gross violation 
of international law and the UN Charter, and a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d 
committed to uphold. Pertinent to the work of this body, it demonstrate d a flagrant disregard for the WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 9 - 
  rules-based  system which also underpin ned the WTO. Concerning this Agenda item, the United 
Kingdom continue d to support the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, 
and refer red to its previous statements on this matter.  Resolving the challenges facing the dispute 
settlement system remain ed an urgent priority . The United  Kingdom  welcome d the clear 
commitment from Members at MC12  to address those challenges with a view to having a fully and 
well-functioning system, and  welcomed the start of sustained and substantive discussions. A fully  
functioning system, which was compulsory, binding and impartial was to the benefit of all  Members . 
It was the best means of ensuring  that the rules they had negotiated were respected , of securing  a 
fair resolution to disagreements,  and of reducing  recourse  to unilateral measures. The United 
Kingdom look ed forward to further work with Members and to playing its part to achieve a successful 
outcome.  
4.7.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were a grave breach of international rules  – the use of force to change borders was strictly 
prohibited under international law. Russia 's invasion ha d implications for global peace, security, and 
economic stability and deeply undermin ed the work of th e DSB and the multilateral cooperation 
underpinning it. In relation to Agenda item 4, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and referred to its previous statements. New Zealand welcome d the 
Ministerial Declaration achieved at MC12, which recognise d the importance and urgency of 
addressing the current challenges and commit ted Members to discussions with a view to having a 
fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. New Zealand  
continue d to urge all Members to constructively engage on the issues with a view to addressing this 
situation as a priority.  
4.8.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea expresse d deep concern on Ukraine 's inability to 
fully participate in the WTO dispute settlement system, and join ed others in strongly condemning 
Russia 's armed invasion against Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter and 
international la w. The use of force that cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any 
circumstances. Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence had to  be 
respected. As for item 4, Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reite rated its support for the 
joint proposal. Korea  also refer red to its previous statements on this issue. The WTO dispute 
settlement system ha d been a central element in providing security and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system. In this regard, Korea very much welcome d the initial discussions  that 
were now underway on dispute settlement reform, and highly value d the MC12 outcome do cument 
as paving the way for ensuring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. 
Korea st ood ready to constructively engage in relevant discussions on a durable solution to enhance 
the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system w ith a view to accommodating the needs of 
WTO members.  
4.9.  The representative of Saint Vincent & the Grenadines , speak ing on behalf of the WTO Members 
of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) , commended  the Chair for the excellent 
manner in which she had conducted affairs , as usual, and  as ha d become customary. The OECS  
recognise d the efforts of the co -sponsors of document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.21, on Appellate Body 
appointments, and thank ed Mexico for introducing this item. The OECS  also refer red to its previous 
statement on this matter, which had been made  at the 27 April 2022  DSB meeting. While the OECS  
were not co -sponsors themselves, but they had consistently called for the urgent reconstitution of 
the full -functioning of the WTO's two -tiered dispute settlement system. In the majority of their 
jurisdictions, the right of appeal was generally established by statute or constitutional provision. In 
this regard , it was a sacrosanct  feature  of many of their legal systems. Unfortunately, as WTO 
Members, this was not a right which they currently enjoy ed, notwithstanding its centrality to the 
integrity of the multilateral trading system. At the recently co ncluded Ministerial Conference, as 
several colleagues ha d already mentioned, Ministers had acknowledged the challenges and concerns 
with respect to the dispute settlement system, including those related to the Appellate Body , 
recognise d the importance and urgency of addressing those challenges and concerns , and committed 
to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024. The OECS t ook this opportunity to renew its commitme nt to this 
Ministerial Declaration, and to urge Members to conduct th ose discussions on the restoration of the 
full functioning of the DS  system  in as short a time as possible.  
4.10.   The representative of Norway  said that t he work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding 
of the rules -based international order  and Norway therefore considered it pertinent to  address the WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 10 - 
  situation in Ukraine. Norway continue d to condemn Russia 's egregious attack on its neighbour , 
Ukraine. Norway was  appalled by Russia' s continued aggression, causing extensive human suffering, 
civilian casualties, enormous damages, and a possible global food crisis, particularly impacting 
developing countries. Norway reiterate d its unwavering support for Ukraine 's sovereignty a nd 
territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. As regards Appellate Body 
appointments, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 
123 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the Ap pellate Body. Norway  referred to its 
previous  statements in this regard. Norway w ould continue to engage in urgently needed discussions 
to address the current impasse. Although Norway  welcome d those discussions, Norway was  of the 
view that they d id not pre vent Members  from launching the process for appointments to the 
Appellate Body.  
4.11.   The representative of Japan  said that, a t the outset, Japan wished to echo the colleagues 
condemning Russia. Russia 's aggression against Ukraine clearly infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty 
and territorial integrity, constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting  use of force, 
and was a grave breach of the UN Charter. Any unilateral change of the status quo by force was 
totally unacceptable. This was an extremely serious situation that sh ook the foundation of 
international order not only in Europe,  but also in Asia. Japan condemn ed those actions in the 
strongest term s. Further, the mass killing of innocent civilians was a grave breach of internatio nal 
humanitarian law and constitute d a war crime that was absolutely unacceptable. Russia had to  be 
held strictly accountable for such atrocious acts. Japan remain ed stand ing in solidarity with Ukraine 
and the people of Ukraine and continue d to cooperate w ith the Members of  the international 
community , including G7 members , to normalize the situation. In relation to Agenda item 4, Japan 
referred to its statements at previous DSB meetings and support ed the proposal . Japan absolutely 
share d a sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system. Every WTO Member, as the 
owner of the system, had to take seriously  the current situation of the Appellate Body. Japan's  
utmost priority was to achieve a reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the 
structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement system. In this respect, Japan highly 
appreciate d that Ministers had agreed, as stated in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document, 
to "acknowledge the challenges and conc erns with respect to the dispute settlement system including 
those related to the Appellate Body, recognize the importance and urgency of addressing those 
challenges and concerns, and commit to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024." Japan spare d no 
efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members in the discussions to that end.  
4.12.   The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on 
behalf of the 123 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join the AB proposal. China  referred 
to its previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an 
independent, impartial and two -tier dispute settlement system. The paralysis of the Appellate Body 
had posed serious challenges to the multilateral trading system. At MC12, the Ministers of all 
Members  had stated  that they  "acknowled ge the challenges and concerns with respect to the dispute 
settlement system including those related to the Appellate Body, recognize the importance and 
urgency of addressing those challenges and concerns, and commit to conduct discussions with the 
view to  having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 
2024". China  welcome d recent related discussions among Members and ha d been actively engaging 
in those discussions . China was  of the view that it was in the interes t of the entire Membership if 
the discussions could be targeted, solution -oriented, and conclusive to breaking the selection 
impasse and restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system at the earliest date. China s tood 
ready to play its part in th at process.  
4.13.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to join other delegations in 
condemning Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. Such aggression 
blatantly violate d international law, most notably the pr ohibition on the use of force and the principle 
of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland cal led on Russia to honour its international 
obligations, reconsider its actions, withdraw its troops and help de -escalate the situation. 
Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international law, in particular  international  humanitarian  
law. Regarding the Agenda item in question, Switzerland  referred to its statements made on this 
matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional dispute settlement sys tem was in everyone's 
best interest, and Switzerland note d with satisfaction the paragraph on dispute settlement in the 
MC12 Outcome Document. This paragraph state d that Members should commit to conducting 
discussions with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all Members by  2024. Switzerland st ood ready to take steps to achieve th at objective and call ed WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 11 - 
  on all other Members to do the same. Switzerland  asked that Members maintain th at positive 
momentum and fol low up on th at commitment without delay so that Members  could quickly begin 
the essential work needed to meet th at shared objective.  
4.14.   The representative of Malaysia  said that  Malaysia w ished  to thank Mexico for presenting the 
proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors and support ed the statement delivered. Malaysia  also refer red 
to its statement delivered at the previous DSB meeting. Malaysia reiterate d its strong support for a 
fair and non -discriminatory rules -based multilateral trading system. It was Members ' responsibility 
to preserve the system and maintain the credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading 
system. Malaysia  also welcome d constructive discussions to find tangible solutions to the impasse 
with a view to re storing  the full y functioning dispute settlement system. In this regard, Malaysia was  
of the view that the two -tier dispute settlement system had to  be ensured to remain as the  central 
pillar of this institution.  
4.15.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thanked Mexico and the co -sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful comm itment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. 
Russia reiterated its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. Russia 
welcomed the commitment of the WTO Membership set out in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome 
Document as of 17 June 2022 to conduct discussions with a view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. Russia called upon 
all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully func tioning dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible. The representative further added that Russia had to address 
certain political declarations made by some WTO Members at the present meeting. First, Members 
should keep to the Agenda of the meeting, circ ulated on 28 June 2022 in document WT/DSB/W/701 
and adopted at the present meeting. The political discussions suggested by some WTO Members did 
not concern the surveillance of implementation of the adopted recommendations under Article 21.6 
of the DSU. The y were outside of the Panel's recommendations and rulings in dispute DS595. They 
also did not address the Appellate Body appointment problem. Second, the DSB had its own tasks 
and mandate expressed in different provisions of the DSU. None of the political issues raised by 
some WTO Members was within the competence of the DSB. Third, and ultimately, the WTO was not 
a political organization and Members shall refrain from trying to address issues here that were not 
in the competence of the organization. Russia  considered that one of the root causes of the crisis in 
the multilateral trading system that Members were facing was the actions that blocked the Appellate 
Body appointments as well as the attempts to politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the 
prese nt meeting. Russia encouraged WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already 
had and not creating new ones, unless any WTO Member had an intention to continue to further  
destroy the multilateral trading system . 
4.16.   The representative of Australia  said that  Australia join ed others in continuing to condemn in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Australia  
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actio ns were a violation of international 
law and the fundamental international norms on which organisations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia  continue d to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw 
its troops. Turning to Agenda item 4, Australia welcome d Members ' commitment at MC12 to pursue 
reform of the organization. Importantly, th at outcome provide d Members'  with a clear mandate to 
achieve a fully functioning dispute settlemen t system accessible to all Members by 2024, which was 
integral to the rules -based multilateral trading system. Australia  looked forward to continuing to 
work constructively with all Members to harness the momentum from MC12 to deliver on th at 
commitment.  
4.17.   The representative of Peru said that  Peru wished to echo the statement made by Mexico, on 
behalf of the 123 co -sponsors of the joint proposal , which was  designed to quickly launch the 
selection process es for members of the Appellate Body. Peru firmly believ ed that the proper 
functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system was essential in order to provide predictability 
and security to the multilateral trading system. More than 20 cases ha d been appealed into the v oid 
and that number w ould continue to grow if Members did  not take quick and concrete measures. The 
commitment undertaken within the framework of MC12  acknowledge d the importance of the urgency 
of addressing the concerns and challenges aimed at having a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system by 2024 , and showed t hat, where there was a will , there was a way to achieve consensus. 
Peru hoped that this commitment w ould renew Members'  impetus to find a solution quickly. Also, 
despite the fact that 2024 ha d been set as the deadline, Members must not lose sight of the urgency WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 12 - 
  of the matter and the need to work quickly to achieve th ose results. Peru was willing to engag e 
constructively in all discussions aimed at finding a solution as quickly as possible.  
4.18.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand thank ed Mexico for the statement made by 
Mexico on behalf of the co -sponsors. Thailand  wished to refer to its previou s statements  made under  
this Agenda item and reiterate d the importance of an independent and impartial two -tiered dispute 
settlement system, which was an integral part of the core elements of the WTO. Thailand welcome d 
the commitment shared by all Members at MC12  towards having a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. To that end, Thailand stood ready and look ed 
forward to working positively and constructively with Members in a solution -oriented reform 
discussion.  
4.19.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements regarding the 
importance and urgency of this Agenda item to Singapore. At MC12, Members had committed to 
conduct ing discussions with a view to having a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. 
Singapore welcome d this and was committed to participating constructively and with an open mind 
in those discussions.  
4.20.   The representative of the European Union  said that in relation to the crisis in Ukraine, the 
European Union stood firmly with Ukraine. The European Union would continue to provide support 
for Ukraine's overall economic, military, social, and financial resilience, including humanitarian aid. 
The European Union resolutely condemned Russia's indiscriminate attacks against civilians and 
civilian infrastructure. The European Unio n urged Russia to immediately and unconditionally 
withdraw all its troops and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine, within the 
internationally -recognized borders of Ukraine. International humanitarian law, including of the 
treatment of p risoners of war, had to be respected. Ukrainians who had been forcibly removed to 
Russia had to be immediately allowed to return safely. Russia, Belarus, and all those responsible for 
war crimes and the other most serious crimes would be held to account fo r their actions, in 
accordance with international law. In relation to the specific subject matter of this Agenda item, the 
European Union refer red to its previous statements on this issue and thank ed all Members that ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO 
no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade 
disputes. A fully functioning WTO  dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based 
multilateral trading system. This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an 
agreed basis to restore such a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the 
Appellate Body. Th at task should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union  had consistently 
noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible and to fill 
the outstanding vacancies as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union agree d that 
a meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The E uropean Union  would  
continue to engage constructively towards  finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the current 
situation regarding appointments to the Appellate Body. T here was a pressing need to advance work 
on this. The European Union wa s pleased to participat e in the ongoing discussion process in Geneva. 
In line with the "outcome document " concerning MC12 , the objective of any discussions should be 
to have a fully and  well-functioning dispute settlement system in place by 2024 at the latest.  
4.21.   The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa  wished to be associate d with the 
statement made  by Mexico on the proposal for the appointments of Appellate Body members , and 
thanked Mexico for presenting  that statement on behalf of the co -sponsors. In addition, South Africa  
reiterate d its previous statements regarding the urgency of this matter. The  fact that the Appellate 
Body c ould not hear new appeal s remain ed a concern for South Africa . Members ha d a share d 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system and the 
multilateral trading system as a whole. It  was the duty of Members to proceed without further delay, 
with the launching of the selection process es of the Appellate Body members. South Africa  therefore 
urged the DSB to urgently fulfil this obligation under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as th ey 
arose, so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system. This would  ensure predictability 
within the multilateral trading system. In addition , South Africa  wished to highlight that a full y 
functioning Appellate Body was a top priority for reform  of the WTO, and th e continued impasse was 
causing commercial harm to Members and systemic harm to multilateral trade. The Ministerial 
Decision, reached at MC12, to have a fully function ing dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024, ackno wledge d the challenges created by having the lack of a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system. Members had to  fulfil th at commitment. South Africa therefore renew ed WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 13 - 
  its commitment, reached by Ministers at MC12,  and w ould continue collaborating and actively 
engaging with all Members. Finally, South Africa  urged all Members to engage constructively with 
each other  to address the specific concerns raised against the functioning of the Appellate Body, 
with a view to finding a  solution. South Africa,  therefore , urged all Members, who were yet to co -
sponsor this proposal, to do so as soon as possible.  
4.22.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished to briefly reiterate 
its grave concern s about  the Appel late Body impasse and the importance of restoring a fully 
functioning  dispute settlement mechanism within the WTO. Hong Kong, China w ould engage 
constructively in the relevant discussions currently  underway, and as set out in the MC12 Outcome 
Document.   
4.23.   The representative of Philippines  said that t he Philippines welcome d continued engagement 
on this issue and thank ed Mexico for its statement and the proposal under this Agenda item. The 
Philippines had  always been a supporter of the two -tier WTO dispute settlement system  and was 
open to reforms and change for the better. The Philippines fully support ed efforts to gather inputs 
from all Members regarding  their concerns on the WTO dispute settlement syste m, including the 
Appellate Body  – in particular to make it more effective and responsive. The Philippines  viewed this 
exercise as a positive step towards broader WTO reforms, bearing in mind the deadline of 2024. 
With th is process, the Philippines  foresaw the WTO dispute settlement system to be one which was 
stable, resolution -oriented, sustainable, comprehensive, holistic and d urable, with enforceable 
results and predictable compliance processes within the WTO system. The Philippines  stood ready 
to carry forward th e conversation s with o ther Members in the DSB as well as in informal settings.  
4.24.   The representative of Guatemala  said that  Guatemala was commi tted to the reform process 
of the dispute settlement system  and would  engage constructively in  that process. Guatemala  
believe d that a robust and function al dispute settlement syste m was essential for the predictability  
and legal certainty  of the multilate ral trading system. For Guatemala, reform shall seek to improve 
the current dispute settlement system without changing it s design and essential features. Guatemala 
was particularly interest ed in maintaining a dispute settlement system , whose rulings were based 
on rules and due process. Guatemala was also interested in maintaining a system that was accessible 
and binding for all WTO Members  and a t the same time guarantee d consistency and predictability in 
its rulings.  
4.25.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 3 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-fifth occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the  Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
this Organization. The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and d isrupt the work of this 
body and dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of 
the selection processes, which was causing real nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly s tated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by fa iling to act 
at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
4.26.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements made 
on this mat ter. Mexico  wished to reiterate its concern regarding the prolonged impasse and the 
absence of a fully operational dispute settlement system. The current situation affect ed the entire 
Membership, as all ongoing disputes were being affected, putting at risk prompt compliance with, 
and adoption of, DSB reports. Mexico  welcome d the Outcome Document adopted at the Ministerial 
Conference, in which Members recognize d, in paragraph 4, the importance and urgency of having a 
fully a nd well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all. Mexico remain ed ready to 
work constructively  towards finding a real, multilateral solution  to this matter.  Mexico  hoped that 
Members w ould work together to resolve this situation as a matter of the utmost urgency.  
4.27.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements  and said that, a s in the past, the 
DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected 
in the minutes of the meeting.  As mentioned by many  delegations , the Chairperson also wished  to 
recall paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document contained in WT/L/1135, which had been  
adopted by Ministers on 17 June 2022 and read as follows: " We acknowledge the challenges and WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 14 - 
  concerns with res pect to the dispute settlement system including those related to the Appellate 
Body, recognize the importance and urgency of addressing those challenges and concerns, and 
commit to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning di spute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024".  She said that t his was, of course, a very positive 
outcome for the dispute settlement system and she hoped that, going forward, Members w ould be 
able to find a solution to this matter.  
4.28.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
5  REPORT BY THE FACILITATOR ON PROGRESS IN THE FACILITATOR -ASSISTED 
DISCUSSIONS IN THE DS371 DISPUTE  
5.1.  The Chairperson , speaking under Other Business",  said that, as announced at  the outset of the 
meeting, she wished to invite Ambassador George Mina of Australia, the Facilitator in the DS371 
dispute, to make a report on progress in the Facilitator -assisted discussions in that dispute.  
5.2.  The Facilitator in the DS371 dispute , Ambassad or George Mina of Australia said that he had 
some good news to report  to the DSB at the present meeting.  First, he recalled  that he had  reported 
to the DSB on  31 March 2021 (WT/DS371/45) and had given  oral reports at the DSB meetings held 
on 26 July and 20  December 2021. He welcome d this opportunity for a further factual update on the 
DS371 facilitation process.  DSB Members w ould recall that DS371 , "Thailand – Customs and Fiscal 
Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines" , initiated in 2008 and ha d been the subject of several 
stages of dispute settlement  proceedings under the DSU. More recently, from December 2020, as a 
result of an Understanding between the Philippines and Thailand (WT/DS371/44), this dispute ha d 
been the subject of Facilitator -Assisted discussions, in whic h he had  acted as Facilitator.  He was  
pleased to report that following on from his earlier reports to the DSB, he had  continued to meet on 
a regular basis with the Philippines and Thailand (the DS371 parties) in his capacity as Fa cilitator. 
It was not his intention to report on the detail of those consultations, which remain ed confidential , 
but he could confirm that th ose further consultations proved extremely valuable in identifying a 
practical path forward that should, eventually  lead the parties to arrive at a mutually agreed solution 
to their dispute , in accordance with Article 3.6 of the DSU.  
5.3.  He said that w hat he could  report at the present meeting  was that the productive discussions 
between the DS371 parties ha d culminated in  their signature on 7 June 2022 of a bilateral 
"Understanding on Agreed Procedures Towards a Comprehensive Settlement of the Dispute in 
Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines". Pursuant to this 
Understanding, the DS371 Pa rties ha d agreed to establish a bilateral consultative mechanism (BCM) 
which w ould serve as a channel for their respective relevant authorities to cooperate and dialogue 
on a regular basis, with the objective of building further confidence and supporting t heir efforts to 
reach a comprehensive settlement of the dispute, consistent with their rights and obligations under 
the WTO Agreement, as well as the recommendations and rulings of the  DSB. The active and 
constructive engagement by the parties both in Gene va and through their respective capitals to 
arrive at the Agreed Procedures Understanding signed earlier in June  highlight ed their commitment 
to the WTO and to the WTO dispute settlement system. As said in the joint statement issued by the 
parties , which w as attached to a WTO press release  issued in the middle of June,  it was hoped that 
the progress achieved to date w ould assist the parties in reaching a mutually agreed solution to their 
customs valuations dispute , in accordance with Article 3.6 of the DSU  and without prejudice to their 
respective rights and obligations under the Understanding . In their joint statement the parties ha d 
stressed that the signing  of the  Understanding underlined their shared commitment to close 
cooperation, particularly through the frank and open dialogue process that w ould be facilitated  and 
engendered by th e BCM, and was consistent with the strong spirit of solidarity  seen in the ASEAN 
community and the friendship which unite d them and their commitment to t he WTO and its 
rules-based dispute settlement system.  
5.4.  In his capacity as Facilitator,  he had been  delighted to assist the parties  in reaching over the 
last eighteen months what ha d been a very positive outcome to their negotiations , to lead to this 
Underst anding. He congratulated Ambassador of Thailand  and Ambassador of the Philippines  and 
said that he  had had no doubt, knowing the strength of the two individuals involved, and knowing 
their commitment to this system and to the value that Geneva c ould bring in resolving disputes of 
this nature , that they would do it . He also wished to pay  tribute to  Mr. John Adank and Ms Bozena 
Mueller -Holyst  of the WTO Secretariat, as well as their Secretariat colleagues, for their energy, 
persistence and patience. It would simply not have been possible without them . The process had WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 15 - 
  entailed 40 meetings over 20 months , and had been fulfilled with energy, passion , good humour  and 
creativity. He also wished to  share his appreciation  for the technical assistance that Dr Leonardo 
Macedo  of Brazil  had been  able to offer the parties to assist them in achieving a better understanding 
of their respective positions.  He reiterated that the active and constructive engagement by the 
DS371 parties both in Geneva and through the ir respective capitals to arrive at the Agreed 
Procedures Understanding signed in the beginning of June 2022 served to further highlight their 
commitment to the WTO dispute settlement system.  
5.5.  In concluding this report , he also wanted to take this opportun ity to make some observations 
about this DS371 Facilitation process in the broader context of the dispute settlement  architecture . 
He said that he had noted,  while listening to the debate under Agenda item 4 , that it was  clear that 
there was a huge  appetit e across the Membership  to restore a greater sense of normality  to the 
WTO dispute settlement system, including its appeal architecture. Australia share d that desire. In 
his capacity as Facilitator , he wished to say that, while it was very clear that there  were creative 
alternative means of dispute settlement available to the Membership, and this was one such means , 
this was something of an unprecedented example here. Those forms of alternative dispute 
settlement were available , but they require d a lot of energy, political commitment, and time. This 
was because they required  an engineering of a process that would  perhaps not be necessary when 
Members  return ed to the functioning of the dispute settlement system in its normal guise. In his 
view, this outcome was  extraordinary  and unprecedented in many respects, but the lesson should 
not be taken from this that such process  was easily replicable. In his view, it simply highlighted that 
an exception  – to the rule of the regular and normal routine functioning of a properly constituted 
dispute settlement system that automatically deal t with disputes in a routine way  – ought to be see n 
as an exception. Once again, he congratulate d the parties  in the DS371 dispute  and said that his 
report would be circulated to all Members .  
5.6.  The Chairperson  thanked  Ambassador Mina for his progress report on this matter and for his 
tremendous efforts and very able assistance in this process to Thailand and the Philippines. This was 
indeed a very positive outcome, which showed that it was possible to find alternative ways of 
progressing the resolution of disputes, notwithstanding the absence of a functioning Appellate Body. 
Members had, however, taken note of his wise words and the lessons learned, including the caution 
about it not neces sarily being easily replicable.  The progress achieved by the parties obviously would 
appear to be due to their extremely engaged and active commitment and cooperation to find a 
practical way forward.  She then invited other representatives to speak, if they  so wished.  
5.7 The representative of  Thailand  said that she wished  to express her sincere gratitude for the 
report provided  by Ambassador George Mina of Australia in his capacity as Facilitator under the 
DS371 Facilitator -assisted discussion process. Tha iland regard ed the signing of the Understanding 
on Agreed Procedures as an important milestone for both parties towards the settlement of their 
long-standing differences related to the DS371 dispute. In this connection, Thailand wished  to 
extend its heartf elt thanks to Ambassador George Mina for his effort and dedication in assisting, 
pushing and leading the parties to finally arrive at this important juncture.  This facilitator -assisted 
discussion process was by no mean s to conclude the dispute , but constituted a parallel process under 
which the parties with Ambassador George Mina's charismatic  and unrelentless guidance, were able 
to exchange views and discuss possible ways out  regarding this  dispute, that were consistent  with 
the WTO Agreement, the DSB rulings and recommendations as well as their domestic laws and 
regulations. Thailand also wished to extend its  sincere appreciation to the former Chair of the DSB, 
Ambassador Dacio Castillo of Honduras,  for initiating th e Facilitator -assisted discussion process , and 
to their counterpart s in the Philippine mission in Geneva , led by Ambassador Manuel Teehankee, 
and in the capital, for their hard work and constructive engagement under this process. She and her  
colleagues at the  Thai Mission also w ished  to express their deep gratitude and appreciation to 
colleagues in both Thailand and the Philippines'  Capital . The Understanding was the result of all of 
their shared effort s and dedication  to find an amicable solution . In addition , Thailand thanked  the 
WTO Secretariat, and in particular  Mr. John Adank, Ms Bozena Mueller -Holyst, and Ms Michelle Healy , 
for their precious suggestions and assistance in facilitating the proceedings of the discussion s. 
Thailand also thanked  Dr Leonardo Macedo, the technical expert from Brazil, for offering his expertise 
and technical assistance which ha d proven helpful in illuminating the parties' discussions  with respect 
to the customs valuation issues.  Thailand said that r ecognizing that  this facilitator -assisted process  
was only a first  stepping  stone and that there remained more work and discussions to be undertaken 
between the parties  in the near future, including commencing the first consultation under the BCM, 
within a couple of months , Thailand wished to reaffirm  its commitment to continue the progress that 
had been made under the Facilitator -assisted process and to work cooperatively with the Philippines WT/DSB/M/4 66 
- 16 - 
  in a positive spirit and in recognition of the long -standing relationship between  the two countries. 
Finally, Thailand  said that the importance of dispute settlement to the functioning of the WTO could 
not escape one observation . Recognizing that this facilitator -assisted process was only the first 
stepping stone and there remain ed works and discussions to be undertaken between the Parties in 
the near future, Thailand reaffirm ed its commitment to continue the progress that ha d been made 
and to work cooperatively with the Philippines in a positive spirit and in recognition of the long -
standing relationship between the two countries. Thailand truly hope d that a frank and open dialogue 
under the signed Understanding would eventually lead the Parties to a final resolution of this dispute 
in an amicable manner.  Finally , Thailand  also agreed  with Ambassador George Mina’s remark on the 
importance of the dispute settlement system in a broader context. Given the nature of the dispute 
related to the WTO Agreement, Members could not  resort to anywhere else to resolve their dispute s 
apart from the WTO dispute settlement system where existed  all knowledge of the matter. It is , 
therefore , in the interest of all Members to ensure the fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system, including the Appellate Body’s review, as one of the main pillars of the WTO work.  
5.8 The representative of  the Philippines  said that the Philippines also  wished  to express  its gratitude  
to Ambassador Mina for his assistance to the parties in this dispute, and was doing so  on behalf of 
his delegation  and on behalf  his Ambassador who was in Manila to attend a momentous  occasion  – 
the inauguration and oath -taking of the Philippines' 17th President, President Ferdinand Marcos 
Junior. The Philippines  thanked  Ambassador Mina for his time, expertise, dedication, ef forts and 
patience in making sure that the parties agree d to finally sign a memorandum of agreement on 
agreed  procedures to reach  a settlement agreement in the  DS371  dispute.  He also thanked the 
technical expert Dr Leonardo  Macedo  of Brazil, for lending hi s expertise and the WTO Secretariat , in 
particular  John Adank, for  advice and expertise  given  to the parties. Finally, h e further thank ed his 
colleagues in Manila and Bangkok for their expertise and time.  This was not the end, but hopefully  
a new beginning of trade relations with Thailand,  as the Philippines  crafted  a more appropriate and 
more balanced customs and tax relations hip with Thailand, in relation to cigarette imports.  
5.9 The Chairperson  said that, once again , she wished to  congratulat e the Facilitator and the 
respective parties in the DS371 dispute for the progress they ha d achieved with the signing of their 
Understanding .  
5.10 The DSB took note  of the statements and of the report by the Facilitator on progress in the 
Facilitator -assisted discussions in the DS371 dispute.  
__________