RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 73 
13 January  2023 
(23-0360) Page: 1/13 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 November  2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 NOVEMBER 20221 
 Chairperson : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana )  
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcome d all delegations participating 
in the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body  (DSB)  both in -person and remotely. She also  
welcome d the participants of the Advanced Trade Policy Course in Spanish, who would  observe the 
proceedings of the present meeting from  the gallery . Finally , she also wished to welcom e the new 
Director of the Council and TNC Division, Mr Santiago Wills, who ha d recently joined the WTO 
Secretariat.  She said that she would like to take this opportunity to wish him all the best in his new 
role; (ii) the Chairperson  said that she wished to recall a few technical instructions regarding the 
virtual participation of delegations. In this regard, she said that if  a Member was unable to take the 
floor during the meeting because of a technical issue,  the delegation c ould inform the Secretariat 
and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation c ould take the floor. Hopefully any 
technical issue would be quickly resolved. In the alternative, the item would remain open 
temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the 
open item after the technical issue ha d been resolved. If a technical issue remain ed unresolved, the 
delegation ha d the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with the request that it be read 
out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during  the meeting so that the statement could 
be reflected in the minutes of the meeting ; and (iii) the Chairperson  made  a short statement 
regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28 April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 
dispute. She said that, as Members  recall ed, this matter was removed from the proposed Agenda to 
allow time for the Chair's consultations wi th each interested party regarding th is Agenda item. At 
the present meeting, she  wished to inform delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, she 
continue d to consult with each interested party on this matter and th ose consultations were ongoing . 
 
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: 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 f rom 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, an imals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  ADOPTION OF THE 2022 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DISPUTE 
SETTLEMENT BODY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; 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; DOMINI CA; 
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; LIE CHTENSTEIN; 
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 
PHILIP PINES; 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.23)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 33) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.208) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.171) 
 
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.55) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and th eir application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.47) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.42 – WT/DS4 78/22/A dd.42) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members recalled , 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda unt il the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, she invited  delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also  remind ed delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Represe ntatives 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/4 73 
 
- 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 33) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 33, 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 November 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -
dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumpi ng 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 repr esentative of Japan  said that, a t the outset, his delegation  wished to welcome Mr 
Santiago Wills as the new Director of the Council and TNC Division  and said that Japan  would  work 
closely with him on DSB matters in the future. Turning to the Agenda item  at hand, Japan thank ed 
the United States for its latest status report and its statement  made  at the present meeting . Japan 
once again call ed on the United States to fully implement the DSB recommend ations 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. 208) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 208, 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 Copy right Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 November 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the European Un ion, and with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statemen t. 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 regu lar 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 71) 
1.10.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 171, which contained the 
status r eport by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union 
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the 
European  Food Safety  Authority 's (EFSA) risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 
27 October 2022 , the European Commission had presented to the Standing Committee a draft 
decision renewing the authorisation of genetically modified soybean A5547 -127. The vote had 
resulted in "no opinion " and the draft measure w ould be referred to the Appeal Committee of 
8 December 2022.   WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement at the present meeting. The United States c ontinued 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 
described those problems in deta il and noted its concerns with the European Union's biotech approval 
procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations. The United 
States again requested that the European Union moved to issue final approvals for all prod ucts 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. 55) 
1.14.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document W T/DS464/17/Add. 55, 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 representa tive of the United States  said that the United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 17 November 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Regist er 
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 recommendatio ns concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute . 
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea 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 in this 
dispute.  
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to refer to  its previous statement made  
under this Agenda item at the 26 October 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. 47) 
1.19.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 47, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning cer tain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 November 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of t he DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.  The representative of China  said that  China thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement  made at the present meeting.  It was disappointing that more than four years after 
the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the 
adopted rulings an d recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States to hono ur its 
obligation s 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 . WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 5 - 
 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 42 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 42) 
1.23.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 42 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 42, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted this report pursuant to 
Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia ha d devoted its best efforts and fervent commitment to 
implement ing the recommendations and rulings o f the DSB in these disputes , while fully noting New 
Zealand and the United States'  concerns  raised in previous DSB meetings.  Regarding measure 18, 
Indonesia ha d completely removed all articles in the relevant laws with respect to self -sufficiency 
that were found to be inconsistent with WTO rules , through the enactment of Law No. 11/2020 on 
Job Creat ion. Indonesia ha d also implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB on 
measures 1  to 17 through a series of significant amendments of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Ministry of Trade regulations that removed disputed measures, inter alia : harve st period  restriction s, 
import realization requirements, six -month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic 
purchase requirement. On commodit y balance , Indonesia said that it was aimed to simplify and 
streamline the permit process. In its implementation , the commodity balance mechanism w ould be 
supported by an integrated national database system and conducted in a transparent manner to 
provide business certainty. Indonesia remain ed committed to engag ing with New Zealand and the 
United State s in addressing their concerns.  
1.25.  The representative 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 to 17, 
the United States would still appre ciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised 
Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect the 
regimes. With regard to the statement in Indonesia's latest status report that the commodity balanc e 
mechanism was "aimed to simplify and streamline the permit process" and would be "supported by 
an integrated national database system and conducted in a transparent manner to provide business 
certainty", the United States was interested to better underst and how that would be the case. The 
United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that  New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional information provided, including in 
relation 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 
that information and w ould revert with any additional question s on th ose and other matters. Like 
the United States, New Zealand would also appreciate understanding better the regulations that 
presently  underpin ned Indonesia 's import licensing regimes, as well as any regulations that were 
forthcoming. 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  ADOPTION OF THE 2022 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY 
(WT/DSB/W/707)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  said that , under this Agenda item , she would  be submitting for adoption the 
draft text of the 2022 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/707, in 
accordance with the Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO Activities and for Reporting under 
the WTO, contained in document WT/L/105.  With regard to the content of the draft Report, she 
inform ed Members  that, prior to the present  meeting, several delegations  had expressed concerns 
regarding paragraph 10.6 of the draft text of the Report. Therefore, she wished to propos e that 
paragraph  10.6 be removed from the final version of the Report.  
2.2.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.3.  The Chairperson  further wished to inform delegations that  with regard to the content of the 
draft Report , Section 9 on page 7 of the presen t draft w ould be removed from the final version of 
the Report since it was outside of the time -frame of the 2022 Annual Report and had already been 
reflected in the 2021 Annu al Report. With th at clarification, she said  that she would wish to make a 
few words of introduction. She said that t he draft Annual Report cover ed the work of the DSB since 
the previous Annual Report contained in document WT/DSB/83. In other words, it cov ered meetings 
of the DSB from 29  November  2021 through 26  October 2022. The Report contain ed a factual 
summary of DSB meetings during the period under review. As in the past, following the adoption of 
the Annual Report at the present  meeting, the Secretari at would update the Report , under its own 
responsibility , in order to include actions taken by the DSB at the present  meeting. Subsequently, 
the final version of the Annual Report w ould be submitted for consideration by the General Council 
at its meeting s cheduled for 19  and 20 December  2022. She then propose d that the DSB adopt the 
draft Annual Report contained in document WT/DSB/W/707 on the understanding that it w ould be 
further updated and revised, as previously agreed, by the Secretariat.  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Repo rt of the DSB contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/707 on the understanding that it would be further updated and revised, as 
previously agreed, by the Secretariat.2 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA 
LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND M ATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; 
TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; U NITED KINGDOM ; U RUGUAY ; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 23) 
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of Mexico, on behalf of 
a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the 127 co-sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.23, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 12 September 2022, to launch the selection processes for th e 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint 
proposal reflected a common concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was 
seriously affecting the overall dispute settlement system, against  the best interest of its Members. 
WTO Members had a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute 
settlement system, and the multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without 
further delay, with the launch ing of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as 
submitted to the DSB at the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven 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 resulting 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 proces s to replace Mr  Shree Baboo 
Chekitan Servansing, whose four -year term of office had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth 
process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a 
sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas Graha m whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; 
 
2 Subsequently, the Annual Report of t he DSB was circulated in document WT/DSB/84.  WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 7 - 
 
  and a seventh selection process to replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had 
expired on 30  November  2020); (ii)  to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 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 
were flexible in the determination of the deadlines for the select ion 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.  
3.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the longstanding US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States believed t hat fundamental reform 
was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system. A well -functioning dispute 
settlement system supported WTO Members in the resolution of their disputes in an efficient and 
transparent manner, and in doing so lim ited the needless complexity and interpretive overreach that 
had characterized dispute settlement in recent years. The United States felt strongly that the first 
step towards reform was to better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute 
settlement. Properly followed, an approach centred on the interests of Members could facilitate 
greater mutual understanding without resorting to the same positions that had slowed the reform 
discussion for many years. The United States was not prejudging what this reformed system would 
look like - and had asked other Members to likewise approach the conversations with an open mind. 
The United States believed that this approach – collectively working towards a system that would 
meet the needs of all Members – provided Members with the greatest chance of achieving durable, 
lasting reform. The United States was committed to working towards an improved system and looked 
forward to engaging further with those Members that were also seeking an improved and reformed 
dispute settlement system .  
3.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada st ood by the people of Ukraine and strongly 
condemn ed the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin.  Those 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 a n attack on 
international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, as well as on democracy, freedom , 
and human rights. Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for over two and a half 
years the Appellate Body ha d no longer had a quoru m 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. 
Canada  invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 
127 Members requesting the  launch of the selection process. The critical mass of WTO Members 
supporting th e proposal clearly reflect ed the importance that they all attach ed to a fully operational 
Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada would  continue to 
actively participate in solution -oriented discussions on the current situation. In short, Canada's  
priority remain ed finding a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the  United 
States. Meanwhile, Canada and 50 other WTO Member s had endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as an emergency measure. Th at measure s ought to safeguard their 
rights to binding dispute settlement, including the possibility of appeal in disputes among 
themselves. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider 
joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement rights to the maximum extent possible until 
Members  collectively f ound a lasting solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Can ada st ood 
ready to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
3.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of  the co-sponsors and wished to refer to its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item. It was an urgent priority for Brazil to r estore a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system . Brazil  hoped that the ongoing informal discussions taking place in Geneva c ould 
meaningfully contribute to that outcome, within the deadline  mandated by Ministers at the Twelfth 
Ministerial Conference ( MC12 ). Finally, Brazil recall ed that, while the impasse with the appointment 
of Appellate Body members remained  unresolved , WTO Members c ould ensure the resolution of their 
disputes by joining t he MPIA. Brazil encourage d Members to do so, and was ready to discuss the 
MPIA with any delegation that wishe d to learn more about the MPIA and its functioning.  
3.6.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he 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 issue. The credibility of any trading system hinge d on its rules being enforceable. 
Therefore, the  present situation – a WTO dispu te settlement system that continue d not to be fully -WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 8 - 
 
  functioning – had to  be of concern to all Members that ha d a stake in a strong, rules -based, 
multilateral trading system. The United Kingdom  encourage d Members to progress ongoing 
discussions on reform wi th urgency and pragmatism. Th at process had to  be about reaching 
consensus on the reforms necessary to achieve a fully and well -functioning system that c ould 
command the support of all Members. The United Kingdom w ould continue to prioritise th at work.  
As Members  discuss ed these issues concerning how they ensure d that rules were respected, the 
United Kingdom could not sit by and ignore the egregious violations of international law and the UN 
Charter committed by one WTO Member against another. The United Ki ngdom wished to refer 
Members to its previous comments about President Putin 's illegal annexation of four Ukrainian 
regions, an appalling instance of Russia 's blatant flouting of international law, and its attacks on 
civilians, which were causing untold suffering.  The United Kingdom unreservedly condemn ed those 
outrageous and illegal acts.  What happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of the WTO  and 
matter ed to all Members.  Russia's actions w ould have a prolonged negative impact on the global 
economy, had global consequences, including on world trade, and jeopardi zed prospects for peace. 
The U nited Kingdom  and the international community ha d made it clear to Pr esident Putin that his 
attack on the Ukrainian people had to  stop, and that he had to  withdraw from Ukraine and restore 
regional and global stability.  
3.7.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine remain ed a strong supporter of the proposal 
for Appellate  Body appointments . Ukraine  support ed systemic discussion s on this issue as well as 
the statements by all co -sponsors of the proposal , and was  ready to further engage in the ongoing 
discussion process. Ukraine  reiterate d that this work should be based on  finding  agreed and united 
solutions. The outcome c ould only be fruitful under the  circumstances of coordinated efforts  by 
Members and a common desire. Ukraine ha d always been a strong supporter of the multilateral 
trading system, and had  engaged with Members on various topics of interest and had contributed to 
discussions o n DS matters. While th e present meeting was underway, many Ukrainian colleagues in 
Kyiv, as well as their families, were not only hiding from attacks in bomb shelters, but were also  
affected by blackouts . They were  without electricity, heat , and water , with winter setting in. The 
present meeting marked  the ninth month of Russia' s full-scale war against Ukraine. Russia's brutal 
and unprovoked military invasion was  a blatant act of aggression against Ukraine, that had affected 
Ukraine 's entire territory  and caused heavy damage  to Ukraine 's infrastructure and economy. The 
Russian military ha d already damaged about half of Ukraine 's energy infrastructure and its inhumane 
strategy continue d to take the lives of thousands of Ukrainians, including children. The ongoing 
military invasion of Ukra ine by Russia jeopardi zed the very ability of Ukraine to participate in WTO 
meetings and , at the same time, Russia was calling  on Members to refrain from "politicizing " the 
WTO by raising  those issues. Ukraine continue d to be a strong supporter of the mult ilateral trading 
system . Ukraine  reiterate d its gratitude to  its partners for their comprehensive support and call ed 
on other WTO Members to make every effort to limit Russia's ability to wage war, to kill Ukrainians , 
and to undermine the rules -based multi lateral trading system.  
3.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union  condemned in the 
strongest possible terms the Russian Federation's unprovoked and unjustified military aggression in 
Ukraine. That aggression grossly violated international law and undermined international security 
and stability. War crimes committed again st Ukrainians and the continuous destruction of civilian 
infrastructure were gross violations of international law. The European Union similarly condemned – 
and unequivocally rejected – the illegal attempted annexation by Russia of some regions of Ukraine.  
Russia's unilateral decisions deliberately violated the UN Charter and blatantly disregarded the rules -
based international order. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to end immediately 
its acts of aggression, to withdraw its troops from Uk raine, and to fully respect Ukraine's territorial 
integrity, sovereignty, and independence within its internationally recognised borders. The European 
Union would stand firmly by Ukraine and its people for as long as it took. The European Union 
referred 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  had no longer 
guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent , and impartial resolu tion 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 t o the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. 
This task should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union had consistently noted, WTO 
Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the 
outstandin g 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 in finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the current WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 9 - 
 
  situation regarding appointments to the Appellate Body. There was a pressing need to advance work 
on this. The E uropean Union  was participating 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 accessible to all Members by 2024.  
3.9.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to first  touch upon the situation in Ukraine. 
He said that Japan strongly condemn ed Russia 's aggression against Ukraine and its missile attacks 
against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan was seriously concerned about 
Russia 's nuclear threat, which was absolutely  unacceptable. Russia should ne ver use nuclear 
weapons under any circumstances. Japan strongly urge d Russia once again to stop the aggression 
and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders 
immediately. Japan w ould also continue to wor k firmly on the two pillars of imposing strong sanctions 
against Russia and supporting Ukraine, in cooperation with the international community. Turning to 
Agenda item 3, Japan wished to refer to its statements at previous DSB meetings and support ed the 
proposal. Japan 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. Their 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. Therefore, Members 
should discuss reform, including how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan 
spare d no efforts to coll aborate with all WTO Members in discussions to that end. In relation to this, 
Japan welcome d the informal DS reform discussions currently led by Members and wishe d this to 
develop into a formal process in the coming year.   
3.10.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement delivered by Mexico on 
behalf of the 127 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join th at proposal. China  referred 
to its previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to restoring a 
compulsory, independent, binding two -tier dispute settlement system, which not only facilitate d 
prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members regardless of their size and power, but also 
provide d security and predic tability to the multilateral trading system and safeguard ed stakeholders ' 
legitimate expectations. The paralysis of the Appellate Body ha d posed serious challenges to the 
multilateral trading system. It was encouraging that at MC12, the entire  Membership had jointly 
committed to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members 
by 2024. To that end, China welcome d the intensive informal reform discussions and w ould continue 
to constructively engage in that process. While open to  new ideas that could improve the current 
system, China  underscore d the importance of maintaining the core features of the system, and 
having a more pragmatic and focused discussion , with a sense of urgency, in the months ahead . In 
parallel, China  would  continue working constructively with all Members to find solutions to break the 
selection impasses. To that end, China wished to echo Canada, Brazil  and other Members, and call ed 
for more Members to join the MPIA to preserve their rights to appeal under the DSU, until they 
collectively f ound a lasting solution to the Appellate Body impasse .  
3.11.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivoc ally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were egregious and unlawfu l – the act of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law, as was the targeting of civilians. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign  territory 
had implications for global peace, security, and economic stability , deeply undermining the work of 
the DSB  and the multilateral cooperation that underpin ned it. Furthermore, New Zealand  stood firmly 
against any steps by Russia that risk ed a further escalation in th at conflict. In relation to Agenda 
item 3, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the co-sponsored  proposal  alongside 126 other WTO 
Members and refer red to its previous statements. Restoring and strengthening the dispute 
settlement system remain ed a priority for New Zealand. New Zealand  welcome d the Ministerial 
Declaration achieved at MC12 committing Members to discussions to have in place a fully and well -
functioning system accessible to all Members by 2024. New Zealand  urged all Members to engage 
in discussions constructively and pragmatically in order to address this situation as a priority in line 
with the direction of their Ministers.  WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.12.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China thank ed Mexico for  the 
proposal, and wished  to join other Members to reiterate its concern about the Appellate Body 
impasse. Hong Kong, China would  continue to participate constructively in discussions and work with 
all WTO Members towards the goal of restoring a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members as soon as  possible  and, in any case, by 2024 as mandated in the 
MC12 Outcome Document.  
3.13.  The representative of Norway  said that a s the work of the DSB directly concern ed the 
upholding of t he rules -based international order, Norway  found it pertinent to address the situation 
in Ukraine. Norway continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on its 
neighbour Ukraine. Russia 's war of aggression against Ukraine constitute d a gross violation of 
international law, the rules -based system which also underpin ned this organisation. The recent new 
waves of attacks against Ukraine again clearly demonstrate d Russia 's complete disregard for the 
horrible suffering of millio ns of people. Damage to energy infrastructure br ought  great humanitarian 
harm and w ould certainly cause illness and death during the cold winter. Turning to Appellate Body 
appointments, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 
127 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body. Norway  very much 
welcome d the ongoing informal discussions among Members and was participat ing constructively in 
those discussions  to address the current impasse. Norwa y also w ished  to refer to its previous  
statements under this Agenda item.  
3.14.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Mexico for presenting the joint 
proposal on behalf of 127 co -sponsors. With reference to its previous statements, Indonesi a share d 
other Members ' view that restoring the functioning of the two-tiered dispute settlement system 
within the mandated time -frame was crucial to ensure the predictability and credibility of the 
multilateral trading system , particularly to  support economic recovery from the COVID -19 pandemic  
and lessen the shock from an inevitable crisis in the future . While underscoring the urgency to s olve 
the stalemate in the DSB on the appointment of new members of the Appellate Body , Indonesia, in 
good faith, ha d been actively contributing in the informal dialogue among WTO Members  in 
addressing the Appellate Body impasse. Indonesia st ood ready  to wo rk with other WTO Members to 
deal with  this ongoing issue in a constructive manner.  
3.15.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that he had to address certain political 
declarations made by some WTO Members at the present meeting, and with respect to  them the 
Russian Federation wished to stress the following. First, Members should keep to the Agenda of the 
present meeting, circulated on 24 November 2022 in document WT/DSB/W/710 and adopted at the 
present meeting. The political discussions suggested by  some WTO Members did not concern the 
surveillance of implementation of adopted recommendations under Article 21.6 of the DSU. They 
also did not address the Appellate Body appointments problem. Second, the DSB had its own tasks 
and mandate expressed in dif ferent 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 should refrain from trying to address issues there that were 
not in the competence of the organization. Russia considered that some of the root causes of crisis 
of the multilateral trading system that Members were facing were the actions that blocked Appellate 
Body appointments as well as attempts to politicize  the WTO that Members had heard at the present 
meeting. Russia encouraged WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and 
not creating new ones, unless any WTO Member had an intention to continue to destroy the 
multilateral trading syst em further. Turning to the issue of the Appellate Body appointments, the 
Russian Federation wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and thanked 
Mexico and the co -sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointmen t 
processes of the Appellate Body members. Russia reiterated its strong support for launching the 
appointment processes immediately. In that vein, considering the commitment expressed by WTO 
Members in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document as of 17 June  2022, Russia called upon all 
Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system as soon as possible. Such discussions had to be transparent and inclusive, and had to address 
the interests of all Memb ers.  
3.16.  The representative of Peru said that Peru was grateful for the statement  made by Mexico on 
behalf of the co -sponsors and wished  to reiterate , once again , that Peru attached the high priority 
to restoring the dispute settlement system to full operation, in order to  ensure  the stability, security 
and predictability of the multilateral trading system. Th at priority was shared by a large part of the 
Membership, as evidenced by the large number of co -sponsors of the proposal and also at the retreat  WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 11 - 
 
  on WTO reform , which had recently been held. Peru appreciate d and value d the efforts being made 
in different  configurations to reflect on ways to address the interests and concerns of all Members . 
However, Peru reiterate d that this was not an excuse for n ot restoring the full functioning of the 
dispute settlement system. In this regard, Peru called once again for the selection processes to be 
initiated as soon as possible to appoint the new members of the Appellate Body. While this delicate 
situation was being resolved, Peru recognize d and support ed the MPIA as an interim mechanism that 
sought  to prevent more cases from being appealed in to a vacuum. Finally, Peru reiterate d its 
willingness to participate constructively in all efforts to have a fully operati onal dispute settlement 
system in place by 2024, as mandated by the 12th Ministerial Conference , with a view to ensuring 
the credibility and relevance of this organization . As long as Members  did not have a fully functional 
system, the rights and econom ies of Members w ould continue to be  affected.  
3.17.  The representative of Malaysia  said that  Malaysia continue d to support the proposal to launch 
the selection process  of the Appellate Body members. Malaysia thank ed Mexico for presenting th is 
proposal on behalf of the  127 co-sponsors , which amounted to  77% of the Membership , and 
support ed the statement made by Mexico . Malaysia wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . Malaysia also reiterate d its strong view that the 
dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body,  was the most critical matter that require d 
the urgent attention of the whole Membership. Malaysia st ood ready to support the work to restore 
a well-functioning dispute settlement system and to proceed with the appointment of the Appellate 
Body members.  
3.18.  The representative of Switzerland  said that  Switzerland wished to join other delegations in 
condemning Rus sia's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. Such aggression 
blatantly violate d international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle 
of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland call ed upon Russi a to take military de -escalation 
measures, end hostilities, and immediately withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. Switzerland 
called on all actors to respect international law, in particular international  humanitarian law. 
Switzerland d id not recog nize, in any way , the incorporation of Ukrainian territories into the Russian 
Federation. Regarding the Agenda item in question, Switzerland  wished to refer to its statements 
made on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully operational dispute settlem ent system was 
in everyone's interest. Switzerland w ould continue to engage constructively in the ongoing 
discussions, and urge d all Members to commit to ensuring a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system by 2024, as set out in the MC12 outcome documen t. 
3.19.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associate d with the 
statement made  by Mexico on the proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thank ed Mexico 
for making  the statement on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa  reiterate d its previous 
statements regarding the urgency of th e matter. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals remain ed a concern. Members ha d a shared responsibility to safegua rd and preserve 
the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system , and the multilateral trading system. It was the 
duty of Members to proceed without further delay with the launching of the selection process for the 
Appellate Body members. South Africa therefore urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under 
the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose and to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system. Th at would ensure predictability within the multilateral trading system. A fully functio ning 
Appellate Body was the top priority for reform of the WTO and South Africa  welcome d the 
commitment by Members undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024. Th at commitment was reit erated during the recent 
informal discussions on WTO reform. South Africa w ould work with all Members to find a lasting 
solution that w ould ensure an effective dispute settlement system.  
3.20.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea strongly condemn ed Russia 's armed invasion 
against Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter and international law. 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 should be respected. As for the item at 
hand, Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d its support for the joint AB proposal. 
Korea  also refer red to its previous statements on this matter.  The WTO dispute settlement syst em 
had been a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. 
In this regard, Korea very much welcome d the relevant discussions that were presently underway 
on dispute settlement reform, and highly value d the MC 12 outcome document as paving the way for 
ensuring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. Korea st ood ready to WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 12 - 
 
  constructively engage in relevant discussions on a durable solution to enhance the functioning of the 
WTO dispute settle ment system with a view to accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  
3.21.  The representative of the United States  recalled that the United States and other Members 
had jointly issued – WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation 
agains t Ukraine with the Support of Belarus" , which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this u nimaginably difficult time and paid 
tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and Leaders . 
3.22.  The representative of Australia  said that  Australia wished to join others in continuing to 
condemn in the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified , and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. As 
it had previously stated , 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 
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 3, achieving a fully 
functional dispute settlement system remain ed Australia 's top reform priority. The longer Members  
remain ed unable to ensure final rulings for all disputes, the greater the danger of erosion of 
confidence in WTO rules, and the greater the costs to their businesses that rel ied on being able to 
enforce WTO rules. Australia  reaffirm ed the crucial role that the dispute settlement system play ed 
in affording security and predictability to the rules -based multilateral trading system, including 
ensuring that multilateral trade rules remain ed enforceable and that there were consequences for 
non-compliance with WTO obligations, regardless of the power or weight of the Member concerned. 
Australia  urged all Members to continue to engage constructively in reform discussions with an aim 
to achieve a fully and well -functioning di spute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.  
3.23.  The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand  wished to thank  Mexico for the statement 
made on behalf of the co -sponsors , which Thailand  continue d to support. It was regrettable that 
after five annual reports and numerous statements on this Agenda item, Members were  still not able 
to launch the selection process for the Appellate Body Members.  Thailand refer red to its previous 
statements on this Agenda item  and look ed forward to continuing working constructively with all 
Members to fulfil the mandate given by Ministers at MC12 in a prompt and pragmatic manner.  
3.24.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 7 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the sixtieth occas ion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
the WTO . The fact that a Member may have concerns about certain aspects of th e functioning of the 
Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of the DSB  and dispute 
settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the selection 
processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to act 
at the pres ent meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
3.25.  The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico refer red to its previous statements on this 
matter. The number of co -sponsors of th e proposal reflect ed the interest of the majority of the 
Membership in resolving this matter promptly. Mexico  stress ed a sense of urgency and concern 
regarding the resolution of this prolonged impasse. Th e situation affect ed the effectiveness and 
credibili ty of the dispute settlement system, which was not fully functional, thereby undermining the 
multilateral system. Mexico believe d that launching the process to fill Appellate Body vacancies and 
restoring the system should remain a priority. Mexico reiterat ed its commitment to continue working 
constructively on a real, multilateral solution and hope d that Members w ould comply with what was 
agreed at MC12 , so that the WTO  had a fully functioning dispute settlement system, accessible to 
all Members, by 2024.   
3.26.  The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. She said that, a s in the past, 
the DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be 
reflected in the minutes of the meeting. She said that, o nce again, she wished to take  the opportunity 
to recall Members' commitment at MC12 "to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". It was the WT/DSB/M/4 73 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Chairperson's  understa nding that informal discussions on this matter, at the expert level, were 
ongoing. She recall ed that on 10  November 2022, an informal meeting on WTO reform had taken  
place, which covered the DS reform as well.  She hoped that, going forward, Members w ould be able 
to find a solution to this matter. The Chairperson then  propose d that the DSB take note of the 
statements made under this Agenda item.  
3.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________