RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 76 
23 March  2023 
(23-2042) Page: 1/15 
Dispute Settlement Body  
27 February 2023  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 27 FEBRUARY 20231 
 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. The Chair  recalled a few technical 
instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegates. She said that i f a Member was unable 
to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform the 
Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would pro ceed 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 request that it b e 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 present 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 that those consultations were ongoing ; (iii)  The Chairperson  informed 
delegations that it was her understandi ng that Korea and the United States ha d reached an 
agreement to postpone the consideration of the panel report in the dispute:  "United States – 
Safeguard Measure on Imports of Large Residential Washers " (DS546 ). Accordingly , she said that 
item 3 had been  removed from the proposed Agenda  of the present meeting ; and (iv) the 
representative of Türkiye  said that , under "Other Business",  Türkiye wished to make a statement 
regarding the dispute DS564  on: "United States – Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium 
Products" . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, 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/47 6 
 
- 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  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
3  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; B URKINA 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; M ALDIVES; 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; S AINT 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; URU GUAY; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.23)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
4  STATEMENT BY TÜRKIYE REGARDIN G THE DISPUTE ON:  
"UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS" 
(DS564)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  13 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY TH E 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 36) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.211) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.174) 
 
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.58) 
 
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.50) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.45 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.45) 
 
 
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 would recall, 
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 until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairperson wis hed to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also remind ed WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the re petition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 36) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 36, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States provided a status report in 
this dispute on 16 February 2023, in accordanc e with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory  measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting. Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully impleme nt 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. 211) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 211, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had p rovided a status report 
in this dispute on 16 February 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in 
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 statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and said that it wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
produ cts: Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 74) 
1.10.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 174, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the cas e 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 EU continue d to 
propose for vote authori zations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safety 
Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 22 February 2023, the European 
Commission had authori zed one genetically modified oilseed rape2 and renewed the authorisation 
for one genetically modified soybean, used for food and animal feed. All of these GMOs ha d gone 
 
2 GM oilseed rape MON 94100 . WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 4 - 
 
  through a comprehensive and stringent authorisation procedure, including a favourable scientific 
assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). On 21 February 2023, the European 
Commission had presented to the Standing Committee a draft decision renewing the authori zation 
of genetically modified cotton 281 -24-236 x 3006 -210-23. The vote resulted in "no opinion " and the 
draft measure w ould be referred to the Appeal Committee.   
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union (EU) for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting. The Un ited States continued to engage with the EU 
on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the EU could 
address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States had described these 
problems in detail and note d its concerns with the EU 's biotech approval procedures monthly in the 
DSB and during the semiannual US -EU biotech consultations, including through their most recent 
consultations in October. The United States again requested that the EU move to issue final approvals 
for all products that had completed science -based risk assessm ents at the European Food Safety 
Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee. 
The United States noted the EU 's continued issuance of approvals on a rolling basis and appreciated 
that approach .  
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. 58) 
1.14.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 58, 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 residentia l washers from 
Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status  
report in this dispute on 16 February 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)). With that action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders. The United Stat es 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 stateme nt 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 " measure s in this 
dispute.  
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wishe d to recall its statement made under this 
Agenda item at the 2 7 January 2023 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 ant i-dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 50) 
1.19.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/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 certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.  The representative of th e United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 16 February 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to add ress the 
recommendations of the DSB .  WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.21.  The representative of China  said that China  thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . China noted  that this was the 50th 
status report submitted  thus far. China also noted that four year s and a half ha d passed since the 
expiry of the reasonable period of time  in this dispute . China  was deeply disappointed that the United 
States still fail ed to implement any adopted rulings or recommendations in th is dispute and each 
and every status report only re iterated  what ha d been stated  in the previous reports.  China , 
therefore , once again , urged the United States to honor its obligations by bringing its measures into 
conformity without further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB  took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 45 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 45) 
1.23.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 45 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 45, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of h orticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia  had submi tted this report pursuant  to 
Article 21.6 of the  DSU. Indonesia had taken  note of both complainants ' interests at the previous 
meeting. At the present meeting , Indonesia continue d to reiterate that significant corrective actions, 
in relation to this dispute, ha d been carried out. Indonesia  also remain ed fully committed to 
implementing rulings and recommendations of the DSB in this dispute. In th at regard, measure 18 
concerning self -sufficiency regulated in relevant laws ha d been entirely revoked. With regard to 
measures 1 -17, Indonesia ha d also made sign ificant amendments to the relevant Minister 
Regulations through removal of the measures at issue, including harvest period restriction, import 
realization requirements, six –month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic purchase 
requirement. Indo nesia also wishe d to highlight that Commodity Balance mechanism serve d as a 
tool to support the government 's effort in providing comprehensive, detailed, and accurate data, 
with the aim to transparently streamline permit approval procedure. Th at mechanism was integrated 
with the national database system to provide business certainty without generating limiting effect 
to trade. Indonesia looked forward to engaging with New Zealand and the United States on the 
essential issues raised in these disputes.  
1.25.  The re presentative of the United States  said that the United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia’s compliance with the DSB’s recommendations. As the United States had expressed 
before, it would still appreciate further clarity on: Which regulations now comprised Indonesia’s 
import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect the regimes; and 
How Indonesia expected the new commodity balance mechanism to, in its words, simplify and 
streamline the permit process and provide for  greater business certainty. The United States would 
also appreciate further clarity on whether Indonesia was planning on making any adjustments to the 
operation of its import licensing process to ensure that the significant delays in issuing permits for 
the first half of 2023 are not repeated. The United States remained willing to confer and 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 New Zealand  remain ed concerned 
about a number of measures. 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 developments related to the Constitutional Court 's ruling on the Law on Job Creation 
(No. 11/2020). New Zealand continued to asses s that information and  would revert with any 
additional questions on th ose and other matters. Like the United States, New Zealand would also 
appreciate understanding better the regulations that currently  underpin ned Indonesia 's import 
licensing regimes, as well as any regulatio ns 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 . WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR T HE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/713)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/713 which contained one new 
nomination proposed by Pakistan 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/713.  
2.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
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 MATSU ; 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 it em was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Guatemala , 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 Guatemala  to speak . 
3.2.  The representa tive of Guatemala , speaking on behalf of the 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 process es for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 127 Members, Guatemala wished to 
state the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a 
common concern with the current situation in the Appellat e Body that was seriously affecting the 
overall dispute settlement system, against the best interest of all WTO Members. WTO Members had 
a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and 
the multilateral trad ing system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes  to replace: 
Mr Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; Mr  Hyun Chong 
Kim, who had resigned with effect from 1  August  2017; Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second 
term had expired on 11 December 2017; Mr  Shree Baboo Chekit an Servansing, whose four -year 
term had expired on 30 September  2018; Mr  Ujal Singh Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 
10 December 2019; Mr  Thomas R. Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; 
and Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year te rm 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 invited and urged all Members to support 
this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems. The 
proponents were flexible in the determination of the deadlines for the sele ction processes, but the 
urgency of the situation should be taken into account by Members.  
3.3.  At the outset, t he representative of the United States  recalled that the United States and other 
Members had jointly issued document WT/GC/244, "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 international law,  the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 7 - 
 
  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 armed forces and Le aders.  Turning 
to the present Agenda item, 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 that fun damental 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 limited th e needless complexity and interpretive overreach that had characterized 
dispute settlement in recent years. The first step towards reform was to better understand the 
interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. The United States had been engaging w ith 
Members to advance that goal and it looked forward to continued engagement. The United States 
appreciated the deeply substantive and informative discussions over the past several months. Those 
informal discussions, which were guided by an interest -based approach, reflected a significant 
departure from the stale conversations of past years. The United States was pleased that delegations 
trusted in the merits of interest -based problem solving and took those opportunities to speak with 
one another, rather than at another. Those dialogues enabled delegations to gain a better 
understanding of each other’s perspectives on the value of dispute settlement and how that value 
might be maximized across the WTO Membership. The United States acknowledged that conside rable 
work remained and that achieving dispute settlement reform – that is, fundamental reform to meet 
the needs of all WTO Members to the greatest extent possible – would not be easy. But the United 
States continued to believe that working collectively to wards that goal provided the greatest chance 
of achieving durable, lasting reform. The United States was committed to working towards an 
improved system. The United States looked forward to engaging further with those Members that 
also saw value in an impr oved and reformed dispute settlement system that was accessible to all .  
3.4.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine was very grateful to all Members that had 
co-sponsored the joint AB proposal. Ukraine wished to refer to its previous statements made on the 
issue of Appellate Body appointments. Ukraine continued to be a strong supporter of the process 
and was ready to further engage in the ongoing discussion s. Ukraine supported the joint AB proposal 
and emphasized the need for Members to work together  in order to find a  solution to the current 
situation regarding  the AB appointments. A fully -functioning WTO dispute settlement system was 
essential  for a rules -based, multilateral trading system. At this point, Ukraine  would also like to 
make a short statement with regard to the current circumstances in Ukraine. On Friday 24 February  
2023, it had been  exactly one year since the beginning of the Russian full -scale war against Ukraine. 
That war had affected Ukraine 's enti re territory, infrastructure and economy . Russia continue d to 
commit a blatant act of aggression against Ukraine every single day through systematic missile 
attacks targeting, in particular, civilians, civil objects and infrastructure. What was even more 
devastating than this full -scale war launched by Russia , was that it  could  cause long -term 
implications not only for Ukraine 's economy but for global trade and development as well. War ha d 
already resulted with heavy damages of suppliers of food, energy and certain industrial input and 
could  cause serious risks to food and energy security as well as exacerbating supply chain difficulties. 
Ukraine was  very grateful to all Members tha t stood  together  with Ukraine. As Ukraine  had always 
stated , Russia had started the war not only with Ukraine, it had also challenged the whole world. It 
had violate d basic norms and principles of international law as well as the purpose and principle of 
this Organ ization and delivered another severe challenge to the global economy. Ukraine  urged 
Members  to strongly support Ukraine as long as it was necessary , in other words,  until the Russian 
troops  were to withdr aw from the territory of Ukraine  and until the momen t of justice  was achieved  
for all crimes committed by Russia.  
3.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of co -sponsors and wished to refer to its previous statements made under this Agenda item. 
Like for the majority of  Members , restoring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
was also a top and urgent priority for Brazil. As Brazil continue d to engage in informal discussions 
towards this meaningful outcome within the d eadline set out by Ministers at MC12, it also encourage d 
Members to reach a binding solution to their disputes . Therefore, Brazil recall ed that, while the 
impasse with the appointment of A ppellate Body members was not resolved, WTO Members could  
ensure the  resolution of their disputes by joining the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement, the MPIA. The Arrangement ha d prove n to be  solid, efficient and reliable. Brazil wished 
to take this opportunity to invite other Members to join the MPIA.  Brazil was ready to discuss the 
MPIA with any delegation that wishe d to learn more about the Arrangement and its functioning.   WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.6.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada  strongly condemn ed the unjustified and 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President Putin. Canada  wished to express its solidarity with the 
Ukrainian people.  Putin's plans to "annex" Ukrainian territory were devoid of legitimacy and would  
never be recognized. Th ose hostile a cts ha d now continued for more than a year. Th ose acts were a 
flagrant violation of international law and of the rules -based international system. Ukraine 's 
sovereignty and territorial integrity had to  be respected and the Ukrainian people had to be free t o 
determine their own future. Canada urge d Russia to immediately cease all acts of hostility and 
provocation against Ukraine and to withdraw from the country its military and intermediary forces. 
Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for th ree years now, the Appellate Body 
had no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals.  Canada support ed the 
statement made by Guatemala at the present meeting on behalf of the co-sponsors and thank ed 
that Member for taking the floor.  Canada invited 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 that support ed this proposal was a clear testimony to the importance 
Members al l accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute 
settlement system.  Members recall ed the Membership 's objective, which was to have a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all by 2024.  Canada would  continue to 
actively participate in solution -oriented discussions on the current situation. Canada 's priority 
remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the  United States. In 
the meantime, Canada and 50 oth er WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement ( the MPIA) as an emergency measure. Th at measure ma de it possible to 
safeguard Members ' right to binding dispute settlement that include d the possibility of appeal in 
disput es amongst  them. Canada invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA.  
3.7.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of 127 co -sponsors. China  wished to refer to its previous statements made on this urgent 
matter, and call ed upon more Members to join th at proposal. Like others, China  reiterate d its firm 
commitment to an independent, impartial , two-tier dispute settlement system, which ha d been 
proven to not only facil itate prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members, but also 
provide d security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. To fulfill such objectives,  
China  believe d that the most urgent task at present was to immediately launch the se lection 
process es and fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. Th at was a treaty obligation of all WTO 
Members, and no prerequisite should be attached to it. China would continue working constructively 
with all Members in the ongoing discussion of DS refo rm with a view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system at the earliest date as mandated by the Ministers at 
MC12. China  called upon all Members to engage in this exercise in good faith and with pragmatic, 
outcome -oriented spirits. China also encourage d more Members to join the MPIA as a contingent 
measure to safeguard their right to appeal until the Appellate Body was restored.  
3.8.  The representative of Peru said that Peru  appreciate d and support ed the statement  made by 
Guatemala on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors of the proposal, which includ ed Peru. The importance 
of safeguarding the integrity of the international trading system was to ensure that it was 
transparent, inclusive, and rules -based, and that was in jeopardy as long as Members  did not have 
a fully operational dispute settlement system that guarantee d the preservation of Members ' rights 
and obligations assumed through th ose rules. Without such a mechanism, there was a risk that, in 
the view of some Membe rs, the rules would become mere guidelines and thus erode the system. 
The importance of this mechanism ha d also become evident in the recent discussions on reform 
focused on the issue of development, in which the relevance of resolving trade disputes in th is 
Organization  for developing economies such as Peru's was underscored . This was because  it gave 
Peru the possibility of addressing its differences on an equal footing with Members with which Peru 
had asymmetrical economic -trade relations. Likewise, at the previous DSB meeting, new appeals 
had been filed thus  prolonging over time the imbalance of rights and obligations, and affecting the 
economy of those Members, while intensifying the reputational dam age to the WTO. To prevent 
more cases from being appealed in a vacuum and to preserve the security and predictability of the 
system, Peru had joined the MPIA, which ha d proven, through its first case, to be a viable option 
that ha d preserved two levels of adjudication through an impartial review and the binding nature of 
the dispute settlement system. Peru called on more Members to consider joining the MPIA and to 
preserve one of the central pillars of this Organization. Finally, Peru reiterate d that, while  Peru 
support ed and would  participate in all discussions and initiatives to address, in a pragmatic manner 
and with a sense of urgency, th ose concerns expressed by some Members about  the dispute 
settlement system , Peru believed that this should be a parall el process and should not serve as a 
justification for the reestablishment of the dispute settlement system.  WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.9.  The representative of Japan  said that , at the present meeting, Japan wished to refer to  the 
current  situation in Ukraine. A year had passed since  the start of  Russia 's aggression against Ukraine. 
Japan strongly condemned Russia 's aggression against Ukraine and its missile attacks against civilian 
infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urged Russia, once again, to stop the 
aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized 
borders, immediately. Japan would also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of imposing strong 
sanctions agai nst Russia and supporting Ukraine, in cooperation with the international community. 
With regard to Agenda item at hand , Japan wished to refer to its statements made at the previous 
DSB meetings and support ed the joint AB proposal. Japan absolutely share d the sense of urgency 
for the reform of the dispute settlement system and ha d set as the utmost priority to achieve a 
reform that would  contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and functional problems of 
the dispute settlement system. Members should discuss the reform, including on how to address the 
concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. In relation to this, Japan welcome d the new step in the 
informal DS reform discussions currently led by Members. With a view to having a fully and 
well-functioning DS system by 2024, as agreed at MC12, Japan would like to work actively and 
constructively with all WTO Members.   
3.10.  The representative of Korea  said that, like the previous speakers,  on the occasion of the  first 
anniversary of the Ukrainian war , Korea wished to reaffir m its consistent position to the effect  that 
the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine should be respected. Korea, as a 
responsible Member of the international community, support ed various diplomatic and econ omic 
efforts of the international community t o contribute to the end of the Ukrainian war and the 
restoration of peace, and would  more actively participate in those efforts. With regard to item at 
hand, Korea thank ed Guatemala for its statement and reitera ted its support for the joint proposal. 
Korea  also wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter.  The WTO dispute 
settlement system ha d been a central element in providing  security and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system. In that regard, Korea very much welcome d the ongoing discussions on 
dispute settlement reform and highly value d the MC12 Ministerial Declaration Outcome Document 
as paving the way for ensuring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. 
Korea was fully prepared to engage in constructive participation during the pertinent discussions on 
reform for  a durable solution to enhance the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system, with 
the objective of accommodating the needs of WTO Members . 
3.11.  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 are egregious and unlawful  – the act of aggression was strictly prohibited under international 
law, as was the targeting of civilians. Ru ssia's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory ha d 
implications for global peace, security, and economic stability , deeply undermining the work of this 
Organization  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 this conflict. In relation to the 
Agenda item at hand , New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal co -sponsored alongside 
126 other WTO Members and  referred to its previous statemen ts made on this matter. 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  instructions  of Ministers. New Zealand also wish to take  the 
opportunity to invite those Members who ha d not joined the  MPIA to consider doing so. The MPIA 
provide d an avenue to safeguard access to app eal, while Members worked collectively towards 
reform in order to restore a fully -functioning dispute settlement system.  
3.12.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African 
Group wished to thank Guatemala for its statement regarding the proposal on AB appointments, 
which the African Group co -sponsored. The African Group reiterated its support for a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members , in accordance with the directive from 
their Ministers at MC12. The fact that the Appellate Body could not hear new appeals remained a 
concern. The African Group urged the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation unde r the DSU which was 
to fill vacancies as they ar ose so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. Th at 
would  maintain the security, credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading system. The 
critical mass of Members asking for the  launch of the selection process indicate d the importance 
Members attach ed to having a fully functioning dispute settlement system for the multilateral trading 
system. Finally, the African Group  stood ready to engage constructively in the current ongoing WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 10 - 
 
  discussion on DS reform in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 
and as agreed at MC12. The African Group  called on all Members to approach th ose discussions with 
an open mind so as to find a lasting solution.  
3.13.  The representa tive 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 prohibition on the use of force and the principle 
of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland call ed on Russia to take military de -escalation 
measures, end hostilities, and immediately withdraw its troops from U krainian territory. Switzerland 
called on all actors to respect international law, in particular humanitarian international law.  
Regarding the A genda item in question , her delegation wishe d to refer to the statements made on 
this matter at previous DSB mee tings. Switzerland urge d all Members to commit to ensuring a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as set out in the 12 Ministerial Conference Outcome 
Document. This was a priority. Switzerland  welcome d the launch of a new phase of informal 
discussions on dispute settlement reform. Switzerland w ould continue to participate constructively 
in these discussions and hope d that concrete solutions c ould be discussed in the coming weeks and 
months.  
3.14.  The representative of Norway  said that since the wo rk of the Dispute Settlement Body directly 
concern ed the upholding of the 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 neighbor  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 Organization and the work of 
the DSB. Earlier th at month Norway had launched a 5 -year support progr am of 75 billion NOK for 
Ukraine that include d military support, humanitarian aid, funding to maintain civilian infrastructure 
and critical societal functions as well as funding to support the reconstruction of Ukr ainian society. 
The support provided by Norway would  be allocated in accordance with  Ukraine 's needs. Norway 
would  also provide an additional aid to developing countries that were particularly affected by the 
global ramifications of the war. With regard to  the Appellate Body appointments , Norway thank ed 
Guatemala for presenting the joint proposal, which  Norway fully support ed. A fully functioning 
dispute settlement system was critical to maintain ing the rules -based , international,  multilateral 
trading syste m and for the credibility of the WTO as a rules -based organization. Norway very much 
welcome d the ongoing informal discussions among Members and had participate d constructively in 
those to address the current impasse. Norway was  pleased that the discussions were moving into a 
new phase and was hopeful that with common efforts Members  would heed their commitment made 
at MC12 towards  having a fully and well -functioning DS system by 2024. Norway,  like the previous 
speakers  also wished to take  the opportunity to invite Members to join the Multiparty Interim Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement  (the MPIA).  The MPIA was open to WTO Members to join for as long as the 
Appellate Body remain ed unable to function fully. Finally,  Norway wished to refer to its previous  
statements made under this Agenda item.  
3.15.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia continued to support the proposal to launch 
the selection process es for new Appellate Body members, contained in WT/DSB /W/609/Rev.23. 
Malaysia thanked Guatemala for presenting the proposal on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors and 
supported the statement  made by Guatemala. Malaysia wished to refer to its statements  made  at 
the previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . Malay sia wished to reiterate its strong view that 
the dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body, was most critical and required urgent 
attention of all Members.  At the present meeting,  Malaysia wished  to urge all Members to work 
together towards h aving a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible by 2024 , 
as mandated by Ministers at MC12 and to proceed with the appointments of AB members.  
3.16.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statement , 
which it strongly support ed, and reiterate d its previous statements regarding the urgency and 
importance of this matter. Singapore was committed to participating constructively and with an open 
mind in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform in ord er to deliver on the MC12 mandate 
to have a well and fully -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. 
While the regrettable impasse on the appointment of Appellate Body members persist ed, Singapore 
encourage d Members to join the MPIA as an interim solution that preserve d Members ' right to 
appeal, until Members collectively found  a durable and lasting solution  to this matter. Singapore, 
together with other MPIA members, st ood ready to engage with any delegation  that wishe d to learn 
more about the Arrangement.  WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.17.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand thanked Guatemala for presenting the joint 
AB proposal and the statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors , which Thailand fully supported. 
Thailand wished to refer to its previous statements made under this Agenda item and reiterate d its 
commitment to an impartial, binding, two -tier dispute settlement system. Thailand welcome d the 
new step of the reform discussions as it remain ed committed to working constru ctively to fulfil the 
mandate given by the Ministers at MC12 in a prompt and pragmatic manner . 
3.18.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for its statement and 
for presenting the proposal on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors. The fact that the appointment proposal 
was supported by more than  two-thirds  of WTO Members demonstrate d the importance of a two -tier 
dispute settlement system with the Appellate Body by Members. Therefore , Indonesia would also 
encourage other  delegation s to co-sponsor the j oint AB proposal . Indonesia wishe d to refer to its 
statement made at previous DSB meetings on this matter. Indonesia was fully concerned that the 
Appellate Body was unable to hear  an appeal and to fulfill the two -tier dispute settlement system 
function, resulting in the suspension of a number of disputes involving appeal proceedings. At the 
present meeting , Indonesia like d to, once again , draw Members ' attention of the importance o f 
resolving the current Appellate Body impasse to restore predictability and security to the multilateral 
trading system and to secure positive solution to dispute s in the WTO. While actively participating 
in the ongoing discussion s relating to the dispute  settlement system reform, Indonesia strongly 
encourage d that Members should have a forward -looking discussion in order  to formaliz e and 
accelerate the discussion in the General Council and the Dispute Settlement Body as a sign of 
commitment to restoring a fully functional two -tier dispute settlement system by 2024. In light of 
this, Indonesia reiterate d its long-standing commitment to constructively engage with other 
Members with the aim to resolving this matter.  
3.19.  The representative of the Europe an Union  said that the European Union reiterated its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation 's war of aggression against Ukraine. That aggression 
constituted a manifested violation of international law. It undermined international security and 
stability. Russia 's brutal war, which had already lasted one year, had brought immense suffering 
and destruction upon Ukraine and its people. This should have no place in the 21st Century. The 
European Union firmly condemned Russia 's illegal attempt to annex s ome regions of Ukraine. The 
European Union 's support for Ukraine 's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its 
internationally recogni zed borders and its inherent right of self -defence remained unwavering. 
Russia 's unilateral decisions d eliberately violated the UN Charter and blatantly disregarded the 
rules-based international order. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop this 
atrocious war immediately. Russia must end its acts of aggression, withdraw its troops from Ukraine 
and fully respect Ukraine 's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. The European Union 
would stand firmly by Ukraine and its people for as long as it took. With regard to Agenda item at 
hand, the European Union wished to refer to its p revious statements  made  on this matter and 
thank ed all Members that 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 t rade disputes. A fully  functional  WTO dispute settlement system was crucial.  
That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the  joint AB  proposal. The 
European Union  believe d that restoring a fully functional dispute settlement system and appointing 
members of the Appellate Body was a priority. Th at task was a shared responsibility of WTO 
Members. In order to achieve this objective, the EU agree d that a meaningful reform was needed. 
The European Union  was ready  to engage constructively towards  finding a lasting solution to the 
current situation regarding appointments to the Appellate Body. The European Union support ed a 
reform that preserve d the core features of the dispute settlement system, including the right  to 
appeal review before a standing adjudicative body. The EU was participating in the ongoing process 
in Geneva and was looking forward to the next phase of discussions. During  that phase, the EU was 
keen to see focused, result -oriented discussions that p aved the way for text -based discussions and 
for finali zing the reform by MC13. The European Union  took very seriously its commitment, made at 
MC12, of having a full functional system by 2024. The European Union was  committed to continuing 
to work towards m eeting that goal.  
3.20.  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 wished  to refer to its previous 
statements made on this issue. The United Kingdom continue d to be seized of the urgency of 
reaching a resolution to the current impasse: witho ut a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system, Members were all left unable to fully realise the benefits of the agreements they had 
negotiated.  The United Kingdom support ed the ongoing Member -led discussions on dispute WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 12 - 
 
  settlement reform and we lcome d the plans for the next phase of those discussions. The United 
Kingdom encourage d Members to focus on the issues that must  be resolve d in order to achieve a 
fully and well -functioning system that can command the confidence of all Members, after consu lting 
with their capitals. The United Kingdom continue d to prioritise this work. A s Members  discuss ed 
these issues concerning how they ensure d that rules were respected, they 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 Kingdom unreservedly condemn ed Putin's outrageous and illegal war of 
aggression. What happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of this Organization and matter ed to 
all Members . Russia 's actions would  have a prolonged negative impact on the global economy, ha d 
global consequences, including on world trade, and jeopardi zed prospects for peace. The UK and the 
international community ha d made it clear to President 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. Th e 
current  week mark ed the one year anniversary of Russia 's illegal invasion. Th at week the UN Human 
Rights Office highlighted that this war ha d claimed the lives of over 8 ,000 civilians in Ukraine thus 
far – and the UN HR  O had described that figure as only the "tip of the i ceberg ", yet this atrocity 
continue d. As the people in Ukraine enter ed a second year, living under relentless Russian 
bombardment, the United Kingdom continue d to stand with Ukraine - and the United Kingdom  would 
do so for as long as it t ook. 
3.21.  The represent ative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China thanked Guatemala for 
presenting the proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors. Hong Kong, China  wished to  join other 
Members to reiterate its grave concerns about the Appellate Body 's impasse. Hong Kong, China also 
wished  to reiterate its commitment to work constructively with all WTO Members with a view to 
restoring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 as set out in the MC12 
Outcome Document.   
3.22.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements and thanked Guatemala and co -sponsors for their continuous and faithful 
commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body m embers. Russia reiterated its 
strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. In that vein, Russia welcomed 
the attempts to start the informal discussions on dispute settlement issues. Russia was ready to 
engage constructively with any delegation which intended to reinforce the building of the effective 
fully functioning dispute settlement system rather than demolish it. In order for the discussions to 
succeed they should be transparent, inclusive, and must address the interests of all M embers. 
Further, he said that the Russian Federation had to address certain political declarations made by 
some WTO Members at the present meeting, with respect to which it stressed the following . First, 
Members  should keep to the Agenda of the meeting, ci rculated on 23 February 2023 in document 
WT/DSB/W/714 and adopted as amended at the present meeting. The political discussions 
suggested by some WTO Members did not concern any of the issues listed on the Agenda. Second, 
the DSB had its own tasks and manda te expressed in different provisions of Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. 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 the issues that were not in 
the competence of the Organization. Russia considered that one of the root causes of crisis of the 
multilateral trading system Members were facing were the acti ons that blocked the Appellate Body 
appointments as well as the attempts to politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the present 
meeting. Russia encouraged WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and 
not create new ones, unless any WTO Member had an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral 
trading system further . 
3.23.  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 
Australia had stated before, it 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 
organ izations 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. With regard to the Agenda item at hand , 
Australia reiterate d the importance of ensuring that Members remain on track to deliver a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024, as agreed by 
Ministers at MC12. Th at was Australia 's number one WTO reform priority, and it was crucial to the 
effective operation of the mult ilateral trading system that they achieve this shared objective. 
Australia  welcome d Members ' continued efforts to advance the substantive discussions on dispute 
settlement reform. Australia  looked forward to continuing to work constructively with all Membe rs WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 13 - 
 
  to find ing a lasting resolution to the current impasse as soon as possible. Until a lasting resolution  
was found , Australia encourage d other Members to join the MPIA, which would remain the best 
interim solution to fully protect and enforce rights under  the WTO Agreements while Members 
worked to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system.  
3.24.  The representative of Guatemala , speaking on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors, regretted that 
for the sixty -third occasion, Members had not been able to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body. Thus, Members continued to fail to fulfil their duties as Members of 
the WTO. As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise". The fact 
that a Member may have concerns about certain aspects of the functioning of the Appellate Body 
could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the  work of the DSB and, more generally, of the 
dispute settlement system. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the selection 
processes,  which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. No 
discussion should pre vent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and Members had to 
comply with their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies as they arose. Guatemala noted with 
deep concern that by failing to launch the selection processes at the present meeting , the Appellate 
Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all 
WTO Members.  
3.25.  The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements  and said that, as in the past, the 
DSB would take note of the state ments expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected 
in the minutes of the present meeting. Once again, the Chair person  wished to take the opportunity 
to recall Members ' commitment at MC12 "to conduct discussions with the view to having a fu lly and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". It was her 
understanding that informal discussions on this matter, at the expert level, were currently taking 
place and she hoped that, going forward, Members would be a ble to find a solution to this matter. 
The Chair person  proposed that the DSB take note of the statements made under this Agenda item.  
3.26.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  STATEMENT BY TÜRKIYE REGARDING THE DISPUTE  ON: "UNITED STATES – CERTAIN 
MEASURE S ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS " (DS56 4) 
4.1.  The Chairperson , speaking under "Other Business ", said that as announced at the outset of the 
present meeting, she would now wish to invite Türkiye to make a statement under "Other Business " 
regarding the DS564 dispute.  
4.2.  The representative of Türkiy e, speaking under "Other Business",  said that, a s Members would 
recall, Türkiye had already made a statement on this matter at the 27 January 2023 DSB meeting . 
At the present meeting , Türkiye w ished  to address, amo ng other things, some of the arguments 
raised by  the United States at the  27 January  2023 DSB meeting.  Türkiye would like to make three 
points.  First, Türkiye  wished to reiterat e its concern about the United States ' decision to appeal the 
panel report into the void. The U S decision ha d deprived the complainants in these proceedings, 
including Türkiye, of their right under the DSU to obtain a prompt settlement of the dispute in which 
their benefits were being impaired  by WTO -inconsistent measures.  The U S decision also directly 
undermine d the effective functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system at large.  The dispute 
settlement system had been  designed to be automatic and binding.  Appeals into the void like the 
US appeal effectively undermine d the automatic and binding nature of the system.  In in its statement  
made at the 27 January  2023 DSB meeting, the United States had acknowledged that the purpose 
of its appeal was not  to avail itself of its rights to the appell ate review, but rather to block the 
adoption of what the United States consider ed to be "damaging and erroneous reports ". A system 
where a Member c ould decide to block the adoption of a report that it consider ed inconvenient, or 
determine d subjectively to be "damaging ", was not a binding and effective system. In th at context, 
Türkiye also wishe d to recall its communication3 to the DSB that had been  recently circulated, in 
which Türkiye had explained why it d id not consider the U S appeal as having been properly filed.  
4.3.  Second, in its statement  made at the 27 January  2023 DSB meeting , the United States had 
stated that it would not "cede decision -making over its essential security to WTO panels. " That 
argument paint ed an inaccurate im age. In Türkiye 's view, national security interests were a vital 
 
3 "WT/DS564/22", https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/dir ectdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/564 -
22.pdf&Open=True . WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 14 - 
 
  element of a government 's international relations policy. A government must always be able to 
pursue national security objectives. But the U S statement incorrectly suggest ed that, under prese nt 
WTO law, WTO Members ha d unfettered discretion to categorize measures as national security 
measures and that the DS564 panel report trie d to change that status quo, by asking the United 
States to "cede" all or parts of its discretion over its national s ecurity. But nobody was telling the 
United States to "cede" anything to a WTO panel or to the rest of the Membership.  Rather, in 1947, 
the United States agreed to – indeed, was instrumental in drafting – the text of Article XXI that was 
before the panel in  these disputes.  During the panel proceedings, Türkiye had provided ample 
evidence that, during the GATT 1947 negotiations, the United States had fully intended that, while 
certain elements of Art icle XXI would fall within the discretion of the invoking Me mber, others would 
be evaluated objectively. There was nothing inherently unusual or improper about striking this kind 
of balance between, on the one hand, the right of Members to protect their national security and, 
on the other, the rights of other Membe rs not to arbitrarily lose their market access that was 
guaranteed under the GATT. The historical record placed before and relied on by the panel reveal ed 
that the U S delegation in 1947 had fully appreciated th at need for balancing. Precisely for that 
reason, the United States had sought relevant language for Article XXI so as not to permit – as one 
of the delegates at that time had put it– "everything under the sun " in the name of national security.4 
It was therefore the United States that was currently  asking other Members, contrary to the text of 
the GATT 1994, to "cede" to the United States the right to determine that "anything under the sun " 
could be a matter of the U S national security.   
4.4.  Third, the Unit ed States had also alleged in its statement  made at the DSB meeting  that 
"the appropriate remedy " for an invocation of a national security claim was "to seek a 
non-violation/nullification or impairment claim ". However, th at was simply a repetition of the 
United States ' theory that all elements of Article XXI f ell within the invoking Member 's discretion.  A 
non-violation claim was essentially a fallback for a complaining Member when a measure d id not 
violate WTO law, in particular when it was not covered by W TO rules at all or f ell within a Member 's 
discretion.  But Members  had now heard from no fewer than seven panels in four disputes that a 
Member 's discretion was limited to certain elements of Article XXI and d id not extend to, for instance, 
the three subparagraphs of Article XXI(b).  For th ose objectively reviewable portions of Article XXI, 
a violation of WTO law c ould be found and therefore a complaining Member remain ed free to bring 
a standard violation -based cl aim. The U S proposal was also impractical.  Under a non -violation 
complaint, a complainant ha d to demonstrate that it could not reasonably anticipate, at the time 
that market access commitments had been  negotiated, that an Article XXI measure would be taken  
at a later point in time.5 But depending on the facts of the case, th at may be difficult for a 
complainant to demonstrate, including because national security measures generally were explicitly 
contemplated in Article XXI.  If the United States ' interpret ation of Article XXI were accepted, the 
WTO system as we know it would fall apart. No Member would be accountable to the rest of the 
Membership, and other Members would have no form of meaningful redress – other than, perhaps, 
taking similar measures of th eir own, perpetuating a downward spiral of self -defeating 
trade-restrictive actions.  
4.5.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States regretted that this item had 
been raised at the present meeting and that Türkiye and certain other Mem bers were seeking to 
drag issues of national security into the WTO. Under the rules of procedure for the present meeting, 
Rule 25 provided that "[d]iscussions on substantive issues under 'Other Business' shall be avoided, 
and the [DSB] shall limit itself t o taking note of the announcement by the sponsoring delegation" 
and any reaction by another delegation "directly concerned". The United States took note of Türkiye’s 
statement and would convey it to capital. To be clear, however, Türkiye’s comments appeare d to 
constitute a belated response to US arguments presented at prior meetings. Therefore, the United 
States simply wished to note that Türkiye had already illegally retaliated and the United States 
referred to its prior statements under the relevant Agend a items of the 27 January 2023 DSB 
meeting concerning United States – Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminum Products (DS544) and 
United States – Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminum Products (DS564).  
4.6.  The representative of China  said that China did not wish to have a very substantive discussion  
at the present meeting  on this matter , however , like Türkiye, China  wished to register its concern 
 
4 World Trade Organization, 'WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice, Article XXI - 
Security Exceptions', https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art21_e.pdf , p 600.  
5 See for instance Panel Report, EC – Asbestos , para. 8.291.  WT/DSB/M/47 6 
 
- 15 - 
 
  about the US position. China wished to refer to its statement made  at the 27 January  2023 DSB 
meeting.  
4.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States noted that China had already 
illegally retaliated and referred to its prior statement under the relevant Agenda item of the 
27 January 2023 meeting of the DSB concerning United States – Certain Measures on Steel and 
Aluminum Products (DS544).  
4.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
______