RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/48 8 
12 April 2024 
(24-3092) Page: 1/26 
Dispute Settlement Body  
19 March 2024  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 19 MARCH 20241 
Chair man: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . He reminded delegations that the 
technical instructions for the remote participation remained the same as was the case at the previous 
meetings ; and (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda 
of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute . He said that, as Members would 
recall , that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the  Chair 's 
consultations with each interested party regarding that Agenda item . At the present meeting, 
he wished to inform delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to consult 
with each interested party on this matter and that those  consultations were ongoin g. 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a. 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: 
Statu s report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
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 State s – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ . 4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
2  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)  ................  5 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
3  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN: RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY T HE EUROPEAN UNION  ...... 10 
A. Report of the Panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 
4  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELIST S................................ ................................ ..................  11 
5  REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REFORM  ................................  11 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 2 - 
 
  6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STA TE 
OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; 
CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMIN ICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LAO PEOPLE' S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; MYANMAR; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; 
NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO;  TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE  BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.26)  ..............  20 
 
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 47) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.222) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union ( WT/DS291/37/A dd.185) 
 
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.69) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States ( WT/DS47 1/17/A dd.61) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia ( WT/DS477/21/A dd.56 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.56) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 required that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation  of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting 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 i tem, the Chairman wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every ef fort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States ( WT/DS184/15/Add.2 47) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 47, 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 7 March  2024, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States had WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 a ppropriate 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 implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to th is 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. 222) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 222, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 7 March 2024, 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 
mutu ally 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 marketi ng of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union ( WT/DS291/37/Add.1 85) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 185, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The represen tative of the European Union  wished to recall that the European Union  approval 
system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The European Union continue d 
to propose for vote authorizations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food 
Safety Authority 's risk assessment, had been concluded to be safe. On 6 January 2024, the 
Commission had adopted one decision authorizing the placing on the m arket of a GM maize2 and 
two decisions renewing the authorization for placing on the market of GM oilseed rapes.3 
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting . The United States  continue d to engage with the 
European Union on these issues, and continue d to provide recommendations as to how the European 
Union could  address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States ha d described 
these problems in de tail and had noted its concerns with the EU 's biotech approval procedures 
monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations, the next of which was 
tentatively scheduled for November 2024. The United States  appreciate d that a number of approvals 
and reapprovals had been  made in 2023, and look ed forward to the Commission 's continued progress 
in making decisions when the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee were unable to do so. 
Despite this progress, the United States  again request ed that the European Union move to issue 
final approvals for all products that had comple ted science -based risk assessments at the European 
 
2 GM maize Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 x MON89034 x 5307 x GA21 and sub -combinations . 
3 GM oilseed rape MS8, Rf3, MS8 x RF3 and GT73 . WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 4 - 
 
  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. 69) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 69, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 7 March 2024, 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 Re gister 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 recommend ations 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 thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea,  once again , urged the United States to take 
prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s 
in this dispute . 
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada thanked the United States for its status report. 
More than five years ha d passed since the expiry of the reasonable period of time for implementation 
of the DSB 's recommendations resulting  from the Appellate Body Report in "US-Washing Machines ", 
which had found  that the "differential pricing method " (DPM) had been  "as such " inconsistent with 
the WTO Agreements. Despite this, the United States continue d to apply the DPM "as such " in 
investigations of foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters 
based on this non -compliant methodology. Canada was deeply concerned by this failure , and invite d 
the United States to put an end to this practice as soon as possible . 
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologi es and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States ( WT/DS471/17/Add. 61) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 61, which contained the status 
report by the Un ited States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 7 March  2024, 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 address the 
recommenda tions of the DSB . 
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . China was disappointed that more 
than five years after the expiry of the reasonable per iod of time, the United States still fail ed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. Therefore, China, once again , 
urged the United States to honor its obligation by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 5 - 
 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal pr oducts : Status 
report by Indonesia ( WT/DS477/21/Add. 56 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 56) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 56 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 56, 
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 a nimal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia provide d a status report in these disputes 
in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. In addressing the concerns raised by the complainant s 
regarding Indonesia 's compliance, Indonesia wished to reaffirm that it ha d implemented Law 
No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government of Regulation in lieu of Law No. 2/2022 on Job 
Creation. This demonstrate d Indonesia's commitment to implementing the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB related  to the self-sufficiency measure. Significant adjustments ha d also been 
made to Indonesia 's import policies concerning Measures 1 -17 by amending the relevant Minister of 
Agriculture and Minister of Trade Regulations. Indonesia believed  that th ose adjustmen ts had 
removed the disputed measures at issue, such as harvest periods restriction, import realization 
requirements, six -month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic purchasing. With 
regard to the concerns raised by the complainants  about  commodity ba lance, Indonesia remain ed 
confident that this mechanism serve d as a tool to facilitate, streamline and expedite trade flow 
without creating unnecessary burdens and restrictive effects on trade. Indonesia was ready to 
engage and work in a constructive manne r with New Zealand and the United States with a view to 
achiev ing an  acceptable solution to these disputes . 
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that  United States continue d to have concerns 
with Indonesia 's compliance with the DSB 's recommendation s. With respect to measures 1 -17, the 
United States had asked several times and would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations 
now comprise d Indonesia 's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would 
affect the regimes.  The United States noted that measures 9 and 17 were, respectively, the 
horticultural products, and animal and animals products import licensing regimes as a whole.  As the 
United States  had expressed  before , it continue d to have concerns about Indonesia 's administration 
of these regimes. To enable the United States to understand and evaluate Indonesia 's claim of 
compliance with the DSB recommendations, the United States had requested that Indonesia provide 
the regulations  that comprise d Indonesia 's current import licensing regimes, in addition to any draft 
regulations that might affect the regimes. The United States had received a response from Indonesia 
listing the laws and regulations which it believe d brought  the measur es into compliance with the 
DSB recommendations.  The United States was currently reviewing and was not in a position to agree 
with Indonesia 's claim of compliance regarding Measure 18. The United States remain ed willing to 
work with Indonesia to fully reso lve 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. As outlined at previous DSB meetings, New Zealand  remain ed concerned about a 
number of measures. New Zealand would still appreciate understanding better the regulations that 
now underpin ned Indonesia 's import licensing regimes  as a result of the relevant legislative 
adjustments, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New Zealand 
continue d to have concerns about the administration of these regimes, including a lack of 
transparency regarding allocat ion criteria and applicable timeframes. New Zealand also remain ed 
interested in better understanding how the new commodity balance would  in fact operate to simplify 
and facilitate trade in affected products. New Zealand look ed forward to further constructi ve 
engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)  
A. Statement by the United States  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He further said that before he would invite the representative of the United States WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 6 - 
 
  to speak, he wished to refer to Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedur e for DSB meetings regarding the 
need to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on the matter that had already been 
debated previously. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States referred  back to its previous 
statements regarding its position on essential security and its reason for placing this item on the 
DSB Agenda.  The United States would  not repeat those points in detail.4 As a consequence of Hong 
Kong, China 's decision to bring this matter to the DSB, the United States consider ed it appropriate 
to update the DSB on relevant factual developments since the circulation of the panel report that 
reinforce d US concern with the panel 's findings.  At the present meeting , the United States would  
again draw attention to the alarming and deteriorating circumstances regarding human rights and 
freedom of speech in Hong Kong, China – facts that further  demonstrate d the pattern of human 
rights abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, that  motivated the US measure at 
issue in this dispute. The Hong Kong, China government ha d once again committed repressive 
actions, using the National Securi ty Law as a basis, reflecting the negative impact the Beijing -
imposed legislation ha d on freedom of expression and democratic participation. In February  2024, 
activist Koo Sze -yiu had been  sentenced to nine months in jail over a plan to protest against the  
overhauled District Council race last December  2023.5 During these local elections, independent and 
pro-democracy candidates had been shut out following an electoral overhaul to guarantee that only 
so-called "patriots " could stand for election and govern . Mr. Koo was arrested in December by 
national security police hours before he was set to start the protest, and was later convicted of 
"attempting or preparing to do an act with a seditious intention. " To remind the DSB, this was only 
one of hundreds of a rrests and convictions that the Hong Kong, China government had made in the 
name of "national security ". As of the end of February 2024, since Beijing 's imposition of the National 
Security Law in 2020, 237  people had been arrested for alleged "national sec urity" offenses; 135 
people and organizations had been formally charged; and 90 people had been found guilty.6  
2.3.  The United States was concerned with the development of Hong Kong, China 's national security 
legislation under Article 23 of its Basic Law, which had begun this past January  2024.7 The US State 
Department last month had expressed particular concern regarding Hong Kong authorities ' proposal 
to adopt broad and vague definitions of "state secrets " and "external interference " that could be 
used to eliminate dissent through the fear of arrest and detention, as well as concern that Hong 
Kong authorities would apply Article 23 extraterritorially to intimidate and restrict the free spe ech of 
US citizens and residents.8 In February and March  2024, the Governments of the United Kingdom 
and of Australia had also released similar statements regarding the Article 23 proposal.9 The Hong 
 
4 See Statements by the United States at the January 27, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/01/28/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-january -27-2023-dsb-
meeting ; Statements by the United States at the March 31, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/04/03/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-march -31-2023-dsb-
meeting ; Statements by the United States at the April 28, 2023, DSB Meeting, available  at 
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/05/02/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-april-28-2023-dsb-
meeting ; Statement by the United States at the July 28, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/07/28/statement -by-the-united -states -at-the-july-28-2023-dsb-meeting ; 
Statements by the United States at the October 26, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/10/27/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-october -26-2023-dsb-
meeting ; Statements by the United States at the December 18, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/12/19/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-december -18-2023-dsb-
meeting ; Statements by the United States at the January 26, 2024, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2024/01/26/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-january -26-2024-dsb-
meeting . 
5 "Veteran Hong Kong activist Koo Sze -yiu jailed for 9 months over pl anned protest against District 
Council race ", Hong Kong Free Press (February 16, 2024),  https://ho ngkongfp.com/2024/02/16/veteran -hong-
kong-activist -koo-sze-yiu-jailed -for-9-months -over-planned -protest -against -district -council -race.  
6 US Consulate General Hong Kong and Macau, "Bearing Witness ", https://hk.usconsulate.gov/bearing -
witness .  
7 United States Department of State press statement (February 28, 2024), 
https://www.state.gov/hong -kongs -proposed -article -23-legislation -further -undermines -one-country -two-
systems -framework .  
8 United States Department of State press statement (February 28, 2024), 
https://www.s tate.gov/hong -kongs -proposed -article -23-legislation -further -undermines -one-country -two-
systems -framework .  
9 Hong Kong national security proposals: UK statement (February 28, 2024),  
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk -statement -on-hong-kong-national -security -proposals ; Statement on 
proposed laws under Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hon g Kong , Australian Government Department of Foreign WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Kong, China government had released full text of the A rticle 23 legislation on March 8, and had 
pledged to pass the legislation as soon as possible. On 10 March 2024, the Hong Kong, China 
government had issued a statement accusing a US -based activist, Frances Hui, and the Committee 
for Freedom in Hong Kong (C FHK), where Ms.  Hui was on staff, of possible "foreign collusion " under 
the National Security Law.  The CFHK had advocated for US sanctions on Hong Kong officials 
responsible for the new Article 23 legislation.10 Ms. Hui was one of the activists on whom the  Hong 
Kong, China government  had issued arrest warrants and financial bounties last December  2023, 
along with a US citizen and several other individuals living in the United States.  The United States 
had expressed grave concern with these bounties and transnational repression in previous US 
statements. United States  officials ha d also expressed grave concern over growing internet 
censorship in Hong Kong, China, including removing certain content and blocki ng websites such as 
the website of the UK -based rights group Hong Kong Watch.11 In addition, Hong Kong media 
reportedly ha d been resorting to self -censorship, resulting in, e.g., significant drops in references to 
democracy -related words and phrases in Hon g Kong newspapers ' editorials.12 As noted in its 
previous statement, the national security trial of pro -democracy advocate and media owner  Jimmy 
Lai began last December  2023. The United States urged China and Hong Kong, China authorities to 
respect press f reedoms in Hong Kong, China, and to immediately release Mr. Lai and all others 
imprisoned for defending their democratic rights guaranteed in Hong Kong, China 's Basic Law.13 In 
January  2024, the United Nations human rights experts had called on authorities  to drop all charges 
against Mr. Lai, calling for his immediate release.14 The experts had stated that Mr. Lai 's arrest and 
detention appeared to be directly  related to his criticisms of the Chinese government and his support 
of democracy in Hong Kong, Chi na, and condemned the "multiple and serious violations of Jimmy 
Lai's freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and his right to a fair trial ".15 
Human rights lawyer and activist Chow Hang -Tung ha d been detained since September 2021 over 
her ties to a group that organized annual pro -democracy vigils.16 She was recognized last December 
2023 by the foreign ministries of France and Germany with the Franco -German Prize for Human 
Rights and the Rule of Law 2023.17 In January  2024, Hong Kong, Chi na's top court had overturned 
Ms. Chow 's acquittal regarding unauthorized assembly, meaning that Ms. Chow now face d a re-trial 
on that charge in addition to a separate national security trial for incitement of subversion.18 Ms. 
Chow remain ed at a maximum security women 's prison.19 
 
Affairs and Trade (March 1, 2024), https://www.dfat.gov.au/news/media -release/statemen t-proposed -laws-
under -article -23-basic-law-hong-kong.  
10 "Article 23: 'Reasonable defence ' needed for keeping 'seditious publications ' like Apple Daily at home, 
Hong Kong security chief says ", Hong Kong Free Press (March 11, 2024), 
https://hongkongfp.com/2024/03/11/article -23-hong-kong-security -chief-says-reasonable -defence -needed -
for-keeping -seditious -publications -like-apple -daily-at-home/ .  
11 "Top US Envoy in Hong Kong Warns of Creeping Internet Curbs ", Bloomberg  (March 1, 2024), 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us -envoy -warns -hong-kong-030040132.html .  
12 "Under China scrutiny Hong Kong media slips into self -censorship ", Nikkei Asia  (February 4, 2024), 
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Hong -Kong-security -law/Under -China -scrutiny -Hong-Kong-media-slips-into-
self-censorship2 .  
13 United States Department of State press statement (December 17, 2023),  
https://www.state. gov/trial -of-jimmy -lai-under -the-hong-kong-national -security -law.  
14 "Hong Kong: UN human rights experts call for immediate release of Jimmy Lai ", UN News (January 
22, 2024), https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145777 .  
15 "Hong Kong SAR: UN experts urge authorities to drop all charges against Jimmy Lai, call for his 
release ", United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commi ssioner (January 22, 2024), 
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press -releases/2024/01/hong -kong-sar-un-experts -urge-authorities -drop-all-
charges -against -jimmy-lai.  
16 "Bail denied to Hong Kong rights lawyer in landmark security case ", Reuters  (December 21, 2023),  
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/bail -denied -hong-kong-rights -lawyer -landmark -security -case-2023-12-
21/.  
17 "Franco -German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law 2023 ( December 12, 2023) ", French 
Ministry f or Europe and Foreign Affairs, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country -
files/germany/events/articl e/franco -german -prize-for-human -rights -and-the-rule-of-law-2023-12-12-23#.  
18 "Hong Kong's top court overturns acquittal of human rights lawyer ", Reuters  (January 24, 2024), 
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong -kongs -top-court-overturns -acquittal -human -rights -lawyer -2024-
01-25.  
19 "Hong Kong's top court overturns acquittal of human rights lawyer ", Reuters  (January 24, 2024), 
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong -kongs -top-court-overturns-acquittal -human -rights -lawyer -2024-
01-25.  WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.4.  As the United States ha d explained, these were the types of facts that demonstrate d the pattern 
of human rights abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, that  motivated the US 
measure at issue in this dispute.  These facts also demonstrate d the error in a WTO panel finding 
that such a pat tern did not "meet the requisite level of gravity to constitute an emergency in 
international relations under Article XXI(b)(iii). "20 Again, the United States fundamentally disagree d 
with the panel 's approach, which replace d the view of the United States w ith the panel 's own 
assessment of the "gravity " of the situation.  That was not the role of a panel or the WTO.  The panel 
also suggest ed every WTO Member ought to defer consideration of its essential security interests 
until after a breakdown in relations w ith another Member.  The United States strongly disagree d. A 
WTO Member could not  be expected to wait until it was too late to act, or be required to sever all 
relations with another Member as a prerequisite for security action.  The United States reiterate d 
that, in order to prevent further undermining of the WTO, Members need ed to clarify and adopt a 
shared understanding of the essential security exception.  The right of every Member to take the 
actions it consider ed necessary to protect its essential security interests was a critical element in the 
international trading system and permit ted Members to take on trade commitments to each other.  
2.5.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that, a s a friend of the system,  Hong Kong, China 
saw it important to uphold the rules -based multilateral trading system. Ever since the US had lodged 
an appeal against the DS597 panel findings, Hong Kong, China ha d made clear repeatedly its 
readiness to have the case heard by an appella te body. Hong Kong, China  regret ted that the WTO 
Appellate Body ha d been made defunct singlehandedly by one Member. Even more deplorable was 
that the same Member ha d repeatedly abused the procedure of the DSB to challenge the panel 
findings and smear Hong Kong, China. For the record, this was the ninth time that  the DS597  dispute  
had been  put on the Agenda of a regular DSB meeting. While Hong Kong, China had heard its learned 
friends from the U nited States stating on various occasions that they were keen to  improve the 
efficiency of the WTO and prioritize  DS reform in that respect, what Hong Kong, China saw at DSB 
meetings was the exact opposite. Putting this item on the DSB Agenda once again was a total 
disregard of the intended purpose of DSB meetings in f acilitating resolution of trade disputes, and 
enforcement of Members ' rights and obligations under the WTO covered agreements.  Hong Kong, 
China  failed to see how the introduction of the Safeguarding National Security Bill into its legislative 
body earlier this month could be an excuse for the US imposition of an arbitrary trade measure in 
contravention of its WTO obligations four years ago in 2020. Hong Kong, China wished to make it 
very clear that the bill was to honor  Hong Kong 's constitutional duty stipulated under Article 23 of 
its constitutional document, the Basic Law. Its introduction had been prompted by a genuine and 
urgent need to avert any fur ther attempts at compromising its national security. During the public 
consultation before the introduction of the bill, 98.6 % of over 13 ,000 respondents had showed 
support and given positive comments, indicating that the legislation ha d strong support fro m its 
citizens. In drafting the Safeguarding National Security Bill, Hong Kong, China's  government ha d 
drawn reference to the national security law of other common law jurisdictions, and had made 
adaptations to suit the local circumstances. The bill was in line with international practices and legal 
principles, and it was not any different in purpose and substance from the national security legislation 
of many of them in the room. The so -called "transnational repression " mentioned by the U nited 
States was a distorted portrayal of a common legitimate feature of national security laws around the 
world to regulate acts pertaining to national security offences that took place outside of a sovereign 
territory and/or by non -nationals. The extraterritoriality of na tional security of th ose national security 
laws was derived from the "Personality Principle " and the "Principle of Protective Jurisdictions " that 
provide d exceptions to the "Territorial Principle ". Details of the two exception principles had applied 
in the Hong Kong National Security Law and the security laws of other jurisdictions could  be found 
in Hong Kong, China's  statement  made  at the 28 July 2023 DSB meeting.  
2.6.  On the different prosecution case s mentioned by the U nited States , including Jimmy Lai 's case , 
which legal proceedings were ongoing and therefore must not be commented on, Hong Kong, China 
wished to reiterate that the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong SAR was independently 
responsibl e for criminal prosecutions, free from any interference. Their decision to prosecute would  
only take into consideration the applicable laws and the admissible evidence to justify instituting 
proceedings. The prosecution ha d the burden to prove beyond reaso nable doubt the commission of 
an offence before a defendant m ight be convicted by the court. The Judiciary of the Hong Kong SAR 
also exercise d its judicial power independently. The courts decide d cases strictly in accordance with 
the evidence and all appli cable laws. Any attempt to interfere with the judicial proceedings in Hong 
Kong in order to procure a defendant 's evasion of the criminal justice process was simply a blatant 
 
20 United States – Origin Marking Requirement , WT/DS597/R , para. 7.353.  WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 9 - 
 
  attempt at undermining the rule of law of the Hong Kong SAR. Freedom of speech an d freedom of 
the press in Hong Kong were protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. 
Article  4 of the Hong Kong National Security Law also stipulate d that such freedoms shall be 
protected in accordance with the law in safeguarding natio nal security in the Hong Kong SAR. The 
legally protected rights of the media to comment on and criticize  government policies remain ed 
unchanged. Hong Kong, China wished to point out that the panel in the DS597  dispute , as well as 
the panels in the DS544, D S552, DS556 and DS564 disputes had all dismissed the U nited States 
claim that interpretation of Article XXI of the GATT 1994 was entirely self -judging. It was not up to 
the U nited States to replace the panel 's interpretation and application of the WTO agreements with 
its own. Instead, a Member who object ed to a panel report should allow the case to be heard by the 
Appellate Body. This repeated abuse of DSB meetings was objectionable as it reflect ed the total 
disregard of the rules -based dispute settleme nt system in the WTO.  
2.7.  The representative of China  said that  China  was deeply disappointed with the United States 
ninth request to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly debated item into the DSB Agenda and discuss  
it at the DSB meeting. China wished  to regi ster its serious systemic concerns of this action, which it 
believe d was in contradiction with Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings.21 Particularly 
in the context of the WTO reform, China  wonder ed how such behavior could reconcile with the Un ited 
States call for more efficient operation of and more meaningful discussions in the WTO bodies. As a 
third party to this case, China appreciate d the Panel 's impartial and objective rulings and 
recommendations. It was clear from the text, the context, the object and purpose and the 
negotiating history that the security exception under GATT 1994 was not entirely self -judging, as 
had correctly been found by thi s Panel and six previous panels  on this matter.  China  reject ed in the 
strongest terms the U nited States' false allegations and unilateral judgement as well as  interference 
in other Members ' internal affairs.  The WTO dispute settlement mechanism was a forum  to resolve 
trade disputes rather than a place to discuss political issues. Any Member, regardless of its power 
and size, should  refrain from taking unilateral and protectionist measures in the name of "national 
security ", or using it as a vehicle to disre gard the core principles of the WTO or to interfere with 
other Members ' internal affairs.   
2.8.  The representative of the United States  said that, a t the outset, the United States wanted to 
be clear that it was not an abuse of the WTO DSB  procedures for the United States to raise these 
issues.  In each instance, the United States  had brought to light new facts and new circumstances 
that reinforce d the concerns expressed by the United States  underlying the measures at issue in this 
dispute. It was, of course, not the United States that had brought these circumstances into the WTO.  
It was Hong Kong, China 's choice to challenge a US national security action and to encourage the 
WTO panel to review the US invocation of the essential security exc eption. It was, therefore, Hong 
Kong, China, that invite d WTO Members in the Dispute Settlement Body to review its actions that 
had eroded protected rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, and to review its actions which breach ed 
its obligations under the Hong K ong Basic Law and the Sino -British Joint Declaration. And the United 
States did not agree that the circumstances in Hong Kong, China, merely involve d "political issues. " 
The US actions at issue, and its presentation at the present meeting  related to those actions, were 
grounded in the facts. Those facts include d the prosecutions of individuals, even for speech in foreign 
countries, warrants for individuals engaging in constitutionally -protected activities in the United 
States, and acts of transnational repr ession against individuals residing in the United States.  Those 
facts demonstrate d the pattern of human rights abuses and erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, 
China.  And those facts form ed the basis for the challenged US actions taken to protect its essential  
security interests. The United States also did not agree that adjudicators should hear and decide 
issues of essential security.  These were questions reserved for Members to decide.  But WTO 
adjudicators were charged to make such findings as would  assist th e Dispute Settlement Body in 
making recommendations provided for in the WTO Agreement.  The Dispute Settlement Body was 
comprised of WTO Members, and so it was entirely appropriate to bring forward the facts to WTO 
Members concerning the pattern of human ri ghts abuses and erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, 
China, that form ed the basis for the challenged US actions. If Hong Kong, China, or other Members 
did not wish Members in the Dispute Settlement Body to hear and be aware of the facts related to 
essential s ecurity concerns, then they should not have brought this complaint to the Dispute 
Settlement Body. When Hong Kong, China, had chose n to pursue these matters at the WTO, Hong 
 
21 Rule 27 of Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council (when convened as the Dispute 
Settle ment Body) provides that Representatives 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/L/161  and WT/DSB/9 ). WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Kong, China, had known it was bringing issues of national security into the WTO.  Indeed, with this 
dispute and others, the United States  saw the People 's Republic of China pursuing a strategy that 
would convert the WTO into a permanent venue for national security disagreements.  The United 
States for long ha d been clear that it was a mistake to begin adjudicating national security at the 
WTO.  The United States had warned at the time that this would open the door to future disputes 
that would further undermine the foundations of t he WTO. This dispute only further illustrate d why, 
in order to prevent further undermining of the WTO, Members need ed to clarify and adopt a shared 
understanding of the essential security exception, which was a critical element in the international 
trading  system and permit ted Members to take on trade commitments to each other.  
2.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN: RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
A. Report of the Panel ( WT/DS577/RW  and WT/DS577/RW/Add.1 ) 
3.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that at its meeting on 28 July 2023, the DSB had agreed, pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer to the original Panel the matter raised by the European Union 
concerning the implementation by the United  States of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
pertaining to this dispute. He also recall ed that the Report of the Panel contained in document 
WT/DS577/RW  and Addendum 1 had been circulated on 20  February 2024 as an unrestricted 
document. The Panel Report was now before the DSB for adoption at the request of the European 
Union. This adoption was without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on the 
Panel Report.  
3.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he WTO compliance Panel Report pursuant 
to Article 21.5 of the D SU left no room for doubt that the United States ha d failed to comply with 
the original panel's pass -throug h finding. The E uropean Union regret ted that it had to go through 
these compliance proceedings and now expect ed the United States to fully and timely implement 
the compliance panel report and to finally provide relief to the Spanish olives sector, which was 
being unlawfully hit by the countervailing duties imposed by the United States since 2018. The 
European Union hoped for constructive engagement from the side of the United States to resolve 
this trade irritant once and for all. The European Union reserve d its right to take further steps under 
the WTO procedural framework if the United States fail ed to take immediate action to implement 
the Panel Report . 
3.3.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the Panel, and the Secretariat staff assisting 
it, for their work in this dispute.  The United States  acknowledge d the Panel 's thorough review of the 
legal arguments put forward by the parties, although it was  disappointed in the compliance Panel 's 
finding s in this dispute. To recall, the European Union had  brought numerous claims before the 
original Panel regarding anti -dumping and countervailing duties on ripe olives from Spain, as well as 
one statutory provision.  The original Panel had rightly rejected m ost of those claims, including key 
EU claims relating to injury and whether anti -subsidy duties might  be applied to "decoupled " 
payments under the Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP. On th ose two core issues, the original 
Panel had disagreed with the very premise of the E uropean Union's claims, and those findings had 
been adopted by the DSB.  The European Union had not raise d those issues before the compliance 
Panel. The United States had taken  a number of actions in response to the DSB 's recommendation 
in the original dispute.  The majority of those compliance actions by the United States were not 
challenged by the European Union , including US Commerce Department 's re-examination of whether 
the Basic Payment Scheme ( "BPS") program was specific, the finding that the BPS program was de 
facto specific, the re -calculation of the total subsidy rate for one respondent, and the recalculation 
of the all -others rate. The United States was disappointed, however, with the compliance Panel 's 
analy sis of one statutory provision that it had considered to be inconsistent with WTO rules.  The 
United States  regret ted that the compliance Panel did not agree that the actions of the United States 
Commerce Department brought Section 771B of the Tariff Act of  1930 into conformity with the 
relevant WTO agreements "as such " and as applied. Although the United States was disappointed 
with the Panel 's findings, on balance, it had decided to permit the report to be adopted at the present 
meeting . The United States took this step in light of all the circumstances, including its desire to 
work with the European Union to resolve this dispute. Contrary to certain comments, including in 
press reports, that upon adoption of the panel report the United States had to take i mmediate action 
to remove the duties, the Panel had declined to make a specific suggestion on how the United States WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 11 - 
 
  might bring Section 771B into conformity.22 The United States would engage with domestic 
stakeholders, and with the European Union , on this matter. The United States thanked Members for 
their attention to its statement.  
3.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada thank ed the Panel and the WTO Secretariat for 
their work in this Article 21.5 proceeding. Canada support ed the compliance Panel 's conclusion that 
the United States ha d not brought its measures into conformity with the adopted recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in relation to Section 771B of the Tariff Act of 1930. Canada agree d with the 
Panel 's finding that under Article VI:3 of  the GATT 1994 and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement, an 
investigating authority had to  establish the existence and the extent of indirect subsidization, or 
pass-through, taking into account all relevant factors, in order to impose countervailing duties. 
Canada support ed the Panel 's finding that Section 771B was "as such " inconsistent with Article VI:3 
of the GATT 1994 and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement, because it direct ed that subsidies to 
producers of the upstream raw agricultural product "shall be deemed " to be provided to the 
downstream processed product solely based upon consideration of the two factual circumstances 
listed in Section 771B. Canada also agree d with the Panel 's finding that this "shall be deemed " 
statutory approach violat ed the US obligat ions under the subsidy disciplines because it did not 
require an investigating authority to assess other factors that might touch upon the question of the 
extent of any pass -through, nor did it provide a basis to calculate with any precision the degree or 
the extent of pass -through.  
3.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and adopt ed the Panel Report contained in WT/DS577/RW  
and WT/DS577/RW/A dd.1. 
4  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS ( WT/DSB/W/729 ) 
4.1.  The Chair man drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/729 , which contain ed new nominations 
proposed by the delegations of Ecuador, Japan and Kenya for inclusion on the Indicative List of 
Governmental and Non -Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He then 
proposed that the DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/729 . 
4.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
5  REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REFORM  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that, u nder this Agenda item, he wished to report on the consultations that 
he carried out from 11 to 1 5 March  2024 to hear delegations ' views on how to follow up on the MC13 
decision by Ministers on DS reform, and on the issue of appointment of a facilitator for the DS reform 
process, following the departure of Mr. Marco Molina, the convenor of the informal DS process. First, 
he noted that 31 delegations, including group coordinators, collectively representing more than 
two-thirds of the Membership,  had met with him and had provided their views on these matters. He 
thank ed all delegations for their interest and their constructive participa tion in these consultations. 
The Chairman was pleased to note that Members remain ed committed to the MC12 mandate to 
conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024 and were ready to accelerate this work given the short period of 
time left before the end of 2024, as instructed by Ministers at MC13. Turning to the substance of the 
consultations , he had noted that many Members stressed the need to build on the work done so fa r 
and expressed their desire to formalize the process. In this regard, the majority of Members had 
indicated that one way of formalizing the process would be to have the General Council appoint a 
facilitator. Many Members had requested that capital -based e xperts should be able to participate via 
Interprefy. It was the Chairman's understanding that such participation was now acceptable to all 
delegations. During the consultations, most Members had stated that they consider ed the General 
Council as the approp riate forum to oversee the DS process. In that regard, the majority of Members 
believe d that the General Council would provide the necessary political impetus to complete this 
process by the mandated deadline, and that it would be the General Council that would have to take 
the decision to meet that deadline. Having said that, the Chairman noted the views of two 
delegations, which prefer red formalizing the process under the auspices of the DSB, to be overseen 
by the DSB Chair, given that this was a dispute settlement matter. During the consultations, several 
qualifications for the facilitator emerged as desirable and broadly acceptable to the Membership. In 
 
22 US – Ripe Olives (Spain) (Article 21.5), WT/DS577/RW , para. 8.5.  WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 12 - 
 
  particular, many Members believed that a facilitator should be at the level of Ambassador and have 
legal expertise and experience in WTO dispute settlement. Furthermore, a facilitator should 
command the authority to advance and conclude the process by the end of 2024. Many delegations 
had indicated that they would prefer a facilitator from a small Member. Some Members were of the 
view that the facilitator should preferably be from a developing Member, while others believe d that 
this criterion was not so important as long as the right person was appointed. In any event, many 
had stressed that a facilitator s hould ensure that all views were heard and taken into account. It had 
also been emphasized that a facilitator should be impartial, able to maintain the delicate balance 
between ensuring full participation and facilitating quick progress, and comfortable wi th holding 
Members accountable to carry out the instruction from Ministers by the deadline. Many Members 
had put forward different names of candidates for this role. Members had also expressed the view 
that the facilitator should be supported by a legal ex pert from another delegation – preferably one 
who had actively participated in the previous informal  DS process. Many Members value d the 
interest -based approach and believe d that this was a key element in reaching substantive progress 
in the informal DS discussions within a short period of time. Several had stated that this approach 
was essential to achieving the objective by end of 2024. At the same time, some Members  had 
considered that the new process should ensure proper records of meetings, attributions of proposals, 
and circulation of documents. In addition, many delegations  had expressed the view that the 
facilitator should be assisted in his or her work by the Secretariat. After his extensive consultations, 
the Chairman had  reached out to three candidates for facilitator whose names had come  up most 
often and who broadly fit the profile, to determine if they were interested in serving as facilitator. 
Unfortunately, none of the candid ates were available to take on this role. Accordingly, while the 
Chairman  had hoped to able to seek the appointment of a facilitator at the upcoming General Council 
meeting, he was not able to do so. Given the limited time Members had left and in the inter est of 
advancing this process, he intend ed to continue consulting with Members to determine the next 
steps. The Chairman eagerly would welcome new suggestions for the facilitator role. In addition, 
Members might  wish to reflect on whether the criteria that  had been  laid out to during the 
consultations in March 2024  might unduly limit Members  options. He strongly urge d Members  to be 
creative. The Chairman would also be giving further thought to this and would  be reaching out to 
colleagues who could be strong  candidates for this role as he heard Members thoughts.  Finally the 
Chairman said that his report will be circulated to all delegations as a J OB document immediately 
after the meeting.23 
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the DSB Chair 
for the explanations provided at the present meeting  and for his efforts to identify an appropriate 
way forward. The European Union  welcome d the significant progress that had been achieved so far 
through t he interest -based discussions in Geneva, as reflected in the text contained in the report of 
the DSB Chai r (JOB/GC/385 ). That text provide d a very good basis for further work. However, the 
package was incomplete. The fundamental issue of appeal review was still outstanding. Therefore, 
it was urgent to intensify Members'  work. To that end, the European Union was open to consider 
different options in terms of how the process should look like going forward. But the process had to  
be focused and build on the progr ess Members had  already achieved  if they wanted to have a fully 
and well -functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible, as Members  had reiterated at 
MC13.  
5.3.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed the Chair for the report and congratulate d 
the Chair of the DSB  and the Membership for the Ministerial Decision on Dispute Settlement Reform. 
Brazil, along with many others, had been  surprised by the departure of the informal facilitator of the 
DS reform process. M r. Marco  Molina had managed to steer Members  in a successful process, based 
on interests rather than on positions, which  had facilitated dialogue and understanding among 
Members. With this spirit, Members had  managed to make much progress in one year. Brazil wished 
to thank Mr. Molina for his work and wish ed him success in his future endeavors. The MC13 mandate 
was clear: Members  had to accelerate discussions by building on the progress already made and 
should focus their work on unresolved issues, mainly a ppeal/review and accessibility, so that they 
could  conclude their task by the end of 2024. Brazil noted that  the Chair's consultations had been  
fruitful and trust ed that the Chair would find convergence on a new leader for th e DS process. 
Members had to  continue their hard work to bring back the system that would ensure the fulfillment 
of rights and obligations of all Members and would guarantee the credibility of their commitments. 
 
23 WT/DSB/9 . WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Brazil would  continue to actively engage in negotiations with the view to h aving a fully and well -
functioning two -tier binding dispute settlement system accessible to all by 2024.  
5.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada t hanked the Chair for his report on the 
consultations conducted on the way forward and the appointment of a facilitator for the DS reform 
process. At MC13, Ministers recognized the work done on dispute settlement reform since MC12, 
including the interest -based discussions and the i nformal process that was led by Mr. Marco Molina 
resulting in a consolidated text. The significant progress that ha d been made was thanks to the 
dedication, hard work and constructive engagement of Mr. Molina and participating delegations. 
However, there was more work to be done. As directed by  Ministers at MC13, Members had to now 
accelerate discussions in an inclusive and transparent manner, and had to build on the progress 
made and work on unresolved issues such as appeal/review and accessibility. As Members move d 
forward with the DS reform process, they had to continue using the interest -based approach, which 
gave the best chance to complete this work during  the remaining time in 2024 . Focusing on 
identifying the interests and concerns of all Members and  then seeking solutions to address those 
interests and concerns on challenging issues like appeal/review and accessibility was the best way 
to resolve these issues, which should be Members'  priority.  
5.5.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan appreciate d the Chair 's hard work and his report 
on the consultations on the follow -up to the MC13 decision and appointment of a new facilitator. In 
accordance with Paragraph 3 of the MC13 Decision, Members need ed to resume and accelerate the 
discussions as soon as possible. In this sense, they needed a new facilitator. Japan wished to proceed 
in a flexible and constructive manner toward s the earliest possible appointment of a new facilitator. 
On a matter closely r elated to the appointment of a new facilitator, Japan  noted that several 
Members maintain ed the formalization of the process. Japan was open to the formalization of the 
process in the future and was flexible on the methods for conducting meetings. However,  as 
Members ha d divergent views as to what constitute d the formalization of the process, they should 
not take a long time discussing the definition and modalit ies of such formalization. Further, Japan 
appreciate d the tireless efforts  of Chair towards  the Ministerial Decision  on DS reform  at MC13. By 
having this decision, Members  recognize d the progress made and acknowledged that it provide d 
guidance for discussions on DS  reform. Japan  believe d that Members would be able to make progress 
because they engaged  in the interest -based discussions  and not position -based discussions. In this 
regard, Japan wished to continue with the interest -based discussions, regardless as to whether  the 
process was formal or informal. For the way forward, considering the remaining  time left until the 
end of 2024, Members  should  first focus on unresolved issues . Even if the process was formalized 
at a later stage, Members  needed to leave room in the informal mode, in particular,  with regard to  
the appeal/review mechanism. If Members resume d the discussion on the consolidated text, Version 
7 of the text should serve as the base for discussions , as agreed at MC13 , namely  "to build on the 
progress already made. "  
5.6.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia wished to join other Members in thanking 
the Chair for the time he ha d spent consulting Members on this critical issue and for his report made 
at the present meeting . Australia continue d to appreciate the Chair's  leadership. Like many 
Members, Australia 's highest WTO reform priority was having a fully -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members in 2024. For this reason, Australia  warmly welcome d the decision 
made by Ministers a few weeks ago at MC13, which had recognized the valuable progress Members  
had made. Ministers had also instructed  Members  to build on and accelerate that progress towards 
their shared objective, through inclusive and trans parent discussions. Members had  very little time 
left to fulfil Ministers ' instruction and achieve their goal of fixing the system in 2024. It was vital that 
Members  move quickly to appoint an experienced and capable facilitator to guide their 
interests -based discussions. To that end, it was disappointing to hear that it would  not be possible 
to make an appointment at the upcoming meeting of the General Counci l. Australia  would repeat 
the Chair 's call for Members to be both creative and flexible with respec t to this important matter . 
Members had no time to waste  in this regard.  
5.7.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed the Chair for holding  the recent 
consultations on DS reform and the process to be followed as well as  for his report made at the 
present meeting . Ministers at MC13 had mandated Members  "to accelerate discussions in an inclusive 
and transparent manner, build on the progress already made, and work on unresolved issues, 
including issues regarding appeal/review and accessibi lity to achieve the objective by 2024 ". 
Following these directives by Ministers, Bangladesh  expect ed the mandated entity of the WTO  - the 
DSB - to take  necessary actions to accelerate  these  discussions. This might commence with a clear WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 14 - 
 
  road map and the app ointment of a new facilitator or facilitators in the new phase. Bangladesh  
acknowledge d that there had been some challenges and concerns raised regarding  the dispute 
settlement  system , including with regard to  the Appellate Body,  from a few Members. By ref erring 
to the challenges and concerns, to accelerate  the discussions, Member must not derogate from or 
dismantle the core and foundational principles of dispute settlement system of  the WTO, as the 
context for reform ha d been amply clarified in Paragraph 3  of the MC12 Outcome Document . 
Following the Ministerial Decision on DS reform at MC13, Bangladesh  expect ed the  DSB to initiate 
discussion s in a Member -driven, inclusive and transparent manner. The process must not  to repeat 
the inadequacies of the informa l discussion s, which had been  conducted among a privileged group 
of Members, following procedures that could  in no way be called inclusive and transparent.  The 
informal discussion s had not been fully member -driven.  This deficit of credibility and confidence 
needed to be overcome in any future reform discussions. The latest draft text that had come  out of 
the informal discussion had imbalanced focus on some aspects and neglected discussion s on the 
appellate stage of the dispute settlement system. So me of the problems and shortcomings had been  
clearly identified in the joint communication contained in document JOB/DSB/8 , which  Bangladesh  
co-sponsor ed. Bangladesh  reiterate d that any "reform " should not make the existing dispute 
settlement  system more comple x and onerous for developing countries and LDCs.  The LDC Group's 
communication contained in document  JOB/GC/223/Rev.1  adequately highlight ed the urgency that 
LDCs voices had to  be heard and that the reform discussions ought to be conducted throug h a 
multilaterally -guided process with inclusivity, transparency and with the opportunity for full, effective 
and equal participation of all Members.  
5.8.  To conclude,  Bangladesh highlight ed the following points:  (i) DS reform was a mandate from 
the Ministerial Conference; therefore, as a relevant WTO body, the DSB had to  be at the core of any 
future discussions on this issue. Considering the importance of DS reform, the DSB might  prepare a 
progress report periodically for the Gene ral Council regarding discussions held and progress made ; 
(ii) Before appointing a facilitator, a clear road map had to  be agreed upon by Members at the DSB 
in order to have a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members b y 
2024. The facilitator would  follow that road map and report every month to  the DSB of the progress 
made ; (iii) The new facilitator of the reform discussion s should be an Ambassador with proven 
experience and understanding of the WTO functions and process es. The facilitator had to  be neutral 
and ready to listen to all the ideas/opinions from Members ; (iv) The Appellate Body was at the core 
of WTO dispute settlement  system and the restoration of its functions had to  be at the heart of any 
future discussions . Without the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement  system would  not be fully 
functional ; (v) The current Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) should be the starting point for 
the reform discussions. Members should have equal opportunity to participate with written and oral 
submissions. The ideas and options already discussed and generated in the informal discussions 
might  be considered as one of the inputs for future discussions. A timeline might  be agreed upon for 
submission of inputs by interested Members ; and  (vi) The process of the discussion s had to follow 
general WTO norms, notably participation of capital -based delegates, with proper record keeping 
and circulation of necessary documents well ahead of meetings. Bangladesh look ed forward to 
workin g constructively with Members on this important topic.   
5.9.  The representative of Argentina  said that, a t the outset, Argentina thanked the Chair for his 
report and for the consultations held over the past few weeks . For Argentina,  the Ministerial Decision 
on DS reform was  the right basis for starting up work again on the DS reform process. Argentina 
understood  that the decision to formali ze the process should take into account the need to retain 
methods of work that would enable Members  to make  progress, as this was the case until February 
2024. Formali zing the process should  not undermine the effectiveness of the discussions. The 
objective was to reform the dispute settlement  system and to restore a two-tier system that would  
be as flexible and as efficient as possible. The informal process led by Mr. Marco Molina  had shown  
that, in the right context, Members were committed  to substantive discussions . Argentina wished to 
invite all Members to resume  a process with the  same  principles  as was done previously. Finally, 
Argentina believe d that transparency and inclusiveness of the process did not necessarily depend on 
its nature.  
5.10.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the Chair for his report made at the present 
meeting . The United States  had initiated interest -based discussions on dispute settlement reform 
with the goal of resetting the stale conversations of past years. As Ambassador Tai had explained at 
MC13, the United States  believe d that the interest -based approach ha d played a central role in the 
significant progress achieved over the past year. The United States  recognize d that considerable 
work remain ed and that achieving fundamental dispute settlement reform would  not be easy. This WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 15 - 
 
  difficult task had been further c omplicated by the departure of the volunteer facilitator, an individual 
that was uniquely skilled in convening and bringing Members to the table and fostering a process 
for real conversation. As Members  move d forward, the United States remain ed committed to 
continuing the interest -based process. The United States  looked forward to engaging further with 
Members as they collectively reflect ed on how best to carry the discussions forward.  
5.11.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the Chai r for his report made at the 
present meeting , and  for his efforts in reforming the system in close consultation with Members. 
Korea highly value d the progress made through the interest -based discussions on dispute settlement 
reform thus far. Those open and  transparent discussions – under Mr. Marco Molina 's exemplary 
guidance – had allowed participants to be flexible, nimble, and constructive, as they worked in close 
consultation with colleagues of other Member states and those in capital. Korea did not  think it was  
an accident that Members had been  able to arrive at a concrete result so quickly, and it would be 
counterproductive and counterintuitive to dismiss those efforts or to not utilize them in a meaningful 
way. Korea was  open and flexible to exploring various ways of moving forward, including the specific 
format and the facilitator, so that Members could  arrive at a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement  system accessible to all by the end of 2024, as instructed to do  so. Members could  either 
discuss how to conduct discussions, or they could  restart those discussions in the very near future.  
5.12.   The representative of China  said that China thanked the Chair  for holding timely consultations 
with Members right after MC13  and for his leadership to make the Ministerial Decision on Dispute 
Settlement Reform work for every Member, and appreciate d the Ministerial instruction to "achieve 
the objective by 2024 as we set forth at MC12 ". Looking forward, there were still a number of 
challenges ahead of Members . China would suggest as follows . First, Members should appoint a new 
facilitator to lead the reform discussions as soon as possible, and avoid procedural issues a ffecting 
the progress of substantive issues. China saw the benefit of appointing an Ambassador -level 
facilitator who could be supported by a legal expert familiar with the previous discussions and could  
guarantee the continuity of the reform work. Second, Members  should build on the progress already 
made and continue with the interest -based discussions. The discussions should be conducted in an 
inclusive and transparent manner, while warranting the effectiveness and efficiency of the reform 
given the limite d time Members had . Finally, Members  should focus on unresolved issues, especially 
the appeal review mechanism, which was the most difficult but extremely important issue for all 
Members . In China's  view, the next three months  constituted the most critical  period. Members  
should continue the positive momentum they had had before MC13 and make their best efforts to 
conclude substantive discussions before the summer break. Based on that, Members  could take 
stock of progress made and provide further guidance f or the next steps at the General Council 
meeting to be held in July 2024, so as to ensure Members deliver ed by 2024. The restoration of 
dispute settlement system was essential in order to uphold the efficacy of the multilateral trading 
system. This was  the top priority for China and most WTO Members. China  believe d that, with 
Members ' strong commitment and continu ed collective efforts, a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members could  be achieved by 2024 . 
5.13.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom thanked the Chair 
both for his report made at the present meeting and for the consultations on the next steps in the 
process. The United Kingdom welcome d the Ch air's efforts to find agreement on a new facilitator 
swiftly. Now that Members had  MC13 behind them and ha d reiterated their collective agreement to 
achieve Members ' shared objective of a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system, 
accessible to all Members by the end of 2024, Members  needed to urgently agree  on a way forward 
for the next stage of discussions. Members must not lose valuable time, nor the mom entum they 
had had to date. Members had to ensure their process was rooted in Members ' interests, building 
on the extensive work they had  completed thus far. Members needed a process that was ambitious 
in both its timeframe and in tackling the difficult outstanding issues like appellate review. The process 
had to  continue to allow for the frank conversations, and the flexibility and creativity that ha d been 
key in their progress to date. Membe rs had to do this whilst being inclusive and transparent, taking 
into account the requirements of all delegations and the need now to involve capitals. As Members  
prepare d for the next phase of their work, they had to  remember that all  Members  benefit ted from 
a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system, and it was in all their best interests to swiftly 
resolve the current impasse.  
5.14.   The representative of Switzerland  said that t he Ministerial Decision on DS Reform adopted on 
2 March 2024 provided  a clear mandate to accelerate discussions. It was therefore key that any 
process  should  start very soon and Switzerland thanked the C hair for his efforts and consultation s WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 16 - 
 
  on this matter. The interest -based approach ha d been very valuable  over the past two y ears and 
given the little time  left, Switzerland  consider ed it essential as Members  move d forward to build 
upon the hard work done thus far and to continue their work on outstanding issues, as  reflected in 
document JOB/GC/385 . Switzerland remain ed committed to working constructively in order to 
progress  quickly towards Members  shared goal.  
5.15.   The representative of Norway  said that  Norway thanked the C hair for  his report on the 
consultations carried out over the past week. Restoring a fully and well-functioning dispute 
settlement mechanism accessible to all Members was a  top priority for Norway. A lthough Norway  
was disappointed  that Members were not able to achieve th at goal at the Ministerial Conference in 
Abu Dhabi , it welco med the Ministerial Decision to accelerate work going forward and note d that 
time was short if Members were  to finish their task in 2024.  Norway was  therefore pleased to note 
the constructive approach by the Membership and thank ed the C hair for urgently following up  on 
the instructions from Ministers. Norway  again underline d that the significant progress achieved in 
the run up to the M inisterial Confe rence facilitated by Mr . Marco  Molina should be preserved and 
further built upon when Members  resume their work on the important outstanding issues. Norway 
was flexible with regard to the choice of format and facilitator.  
5.16.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  thanked the Chair for 
his repor t made at the present meeting . The African Group wished to make a formal request that 
the Chair's  report be made available to delegations to provide an opportunity for internal 
consultati ons. The African Group believe d that it was imperative that the future conduct of the 
negotiations of the dispute settlement reform should be made in a way and manner prescribed by 
the WTO, through formal negotiations at  the DSB, where all Members , includi ng their capital -based 
officials, were able to fully participate in the process. This provide d the required legitimacy. 
Negotiations under a formal DSB following the agreed Rules of Procedure of the General Council or, 
as might  be, adjusted and agreed by others, had to  be transparent and inclusive. This was consistent 
with Paragraph 3 of the Ministerial Decision on DS Reform that instruct ed officials to accelerate 
discussions in an inclusive and transparent manner. On the choice  of the next facilitator, the African 
Group  noted the Chair's report, and would consult internally on an appropriate facilitator for the DS B 
negotiations and to avoid repetition, the African Group  support ed the views raised by Bangladesh 
on this point. Fin ally, the African Group hold the view that  there should be a clear road map to the 
dispute settlement reform negotiations with realistic deadlines and with particular attention to the 
constraints concerning the participation of developing countries. Member s should strive to avoid the 
limitations of the previous informal process and ensure that  DS reform meetings did not clash with 
other negotiating meetings.  
5.17.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico thanked the Chair for his report made at the 
present m eeting on the consultations held in the past week, and for all of his efforts made thus far 
in order to reach th e Ministerial Decision on DS reform at MC13. Mexico  recogni zed the Chair's  
commitment to these discussions. Mexico  regret ted that it would not  be possible to appoint a 
facilitator at  the next General Council meeting. Mexico  wished to meet th e mandate in order to have 
a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members in 2024,  and if 
Members were to do that, they needed to resume  discussions as quickly as possible . Mexico was 
concerned that appointing a facilitator was taking too much time. Mexico was open to discuss with 
Members the best way to  continue with the  DS discussions  either  formally or informally.  Irrespective 
of the format that the process would take  or who the facilitator might  be, Mexico  wished to 
underscore the importance of the fact that the process should put at the very heart of the discussions 
a possible solution to the appellate body mechanism, which was Mexico's  major concern . Finally , 
Mexico  wished to take this opportunity to recogni ze the valuable work of Mr. Marco Molina, who had 
shown  strong  commitment to  this role and had guide d Members through a constructive process.  
5.18.   The representative of Türkiye  said that Türkiye wished  to take this opportunity to thank the 
Chair for holding consultations with delegations to test the ground in particular with regard to the 
appointment of a new facilitator for the DS reform process. The DSB was a bedrock of an equitable 
and predictable mu ltilateral trading system. Through effectively addressing the bottlenecks which 
had led to the stalemate on its operation over the 5 years, making it fully, well -functioning and 
accessible should be a top priority for all WTO Members in the ongoing reform process. Türkiye 
wished to reiterate that its fundamental objective in the reform process was to make the Appellate 
Body functional again and to maintain the two -tiered multilateral dispute settlement system in order 
to fulfil Members'  commitment made at the past two Ministerial Conferences. In the following steps, 
Members' main goal should be to pursue discussions in an inclusive and transparent manner to WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 17 - 
 
  resolve the Appellate Body crisis , which had been  the motivation for launching the DS reform process 
in the first place, as well as to address any reservations/comments of Members regarding all 
proposals put forward thus far. Türkiye believe d that any text targeting the reform mandate should 
represent the mutual interests of all and should be negotiated am ong all Members. As expressed in 
consultation, it was Türkiye 's view that the new facilitator should be at Ambassador/Permanent 
Representative level. In addition, a  new facilitator should be experienced in conducting multilateral 
negotiations, his/her tenu re of office should carry on until the end of 2024 at the least and should 
have experience in dispute resolution mechanism. Needless to say, in order to be able to g ain the 
support of the Membership, as well as to address concerns of many  Members , the DS reform process 
should be carried out in an impartial and transpa rent manner.  
5.19.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation thanked  the 
Chair for his report on consultations regarding DS reform. The Russian Federation was dis appointed 
that Members did not manage at the Ministerial Conference to restore the fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members. As the result of the actions of one particular 
Member, the selection processes for Appellate Body members had been impeded, the possibility to 
file appeals into the void had been created with simultaneous blockage of the decision -taking 
process. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation had to state that for the past 5 years the WTO 
instrument aimed a t ensuring the compliance with the existing obligations was de facto  not 
functioning. Rules/obligations that could be ignored were meaningless. Nevertheless, Members 
should not give up. Ministers had instructed to accelerate the discussions with the focus on the 
appeal mechanism. The Russian Federation believed that the fo cus on the appeal mechanism was 
the key for the discussions to have a significant and decisive progress in pursuing the goal reflected 
in Paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document and confirmed by Ministerial Decision on DS Reform 
adopted at MC13. At the sa me time, the Russian Federation noted that the remaining issues on the 
negotiating agenda were still not closed and not agreed upon, including the issues of enhancing the 
transparency of procedures, as well as improving access to procedures for developing countries. This 
fact should be taken into account in organizing future negotiations, including their schedule. Also, 
one of the preconditions for successful discussions was a good convener. In this regard, the Russian 
Federation considered that only a pers on who had significant experience in dispute settlement and 
a deep understanding of its functioning could efficiently facilitate Members with this challenging task. 
To conclude, the Russian Federation emphasized its commitment to the two -tier WTO dispute 
settlement system. The Russian Federation reaffirmed its readiness to continue discussions to 
achieve this outcome, in accordance with the mandate adopted at MC12 and confirmed by MC13.  
5.20.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia welcome d the Minist erial Decision on DS 
Reform . Indonesia  reiterate d its strong commitment and urge d all Members to fulfill the mandate of 
MC12 Outcome Document and MC13 Ministerial Decision to achieve a full y and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. This objective should be conducted 
in a Member -driven, inclusive and transparent manner and should work on unresolved issues, 
including on the appellate review. Building on this momentum, Indonesia thank ed the Chair for the 
consultations h eld last week and the subsequent report. While Indonesia  regret ted that no facilitator 
candidates were available, it welcome d the intention to formalize the discussion and look ed forward 
to the integration of features that reflect ed the formal nature of th e negotiation, including and not 
limited to, capital -based  participation in person or through Interprefy . Indonesia understood  that 
time was of the essence, however, Indonesia wished to reiterate its call reflected  in document 
JOB/DSB/8  that sustainable reform could  only be carried out in the context of the operation of the 
dispute settlement system in its entirety. The reforms had to  be conceptualized and implemented 
as a comprehensive package, and not in isolated and piecemeal secti ons. As such, Indonesia would 
not be rushed into an outcome that would  not reflect the interest of Members in preserving, among 
others: due process rights, confidentiality, and most importantly, the right to appeal under the 
Appellate Body. On the latter, Indonesia wished to emphasize the importance of the restoration of 
the Appellate Body in parallel with the DS reform process as soon as possible to ensure the security 
and predictability of multilateral trading system. Indonesia stood  ready to work with th e DSB Chair 
and the Membership in achieving the mandate s of MC12 and MC13 on this matter.  
5.21.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thanked the Chair for his report 
made at the present meeting . New Zealand took note of this and support ed the Chair's call for 
creativity and flexibility to ensure Members had a new facilitator in place as soon as possible to take 
this critical work forward. The consolidated draft text reported to the General Council, and to 
Ministers ahead of MC13, provide d a strong basis for the work to continue. It capture d a range of 
reform options that would  bring about meaningful improvements to the efficiency, affordability, and WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 18 - 
 
  accessibility of the system. There was more to be done, however, including on some of the most 
difficult outstanding issues. With continued focused and constructive engagement Members could 
finalize  their work on a package of reforms that would  enable the system to return to full  functionality 
by the end of 2024. New Zealand  looked forward to building on the progress achieved to date and 
intensifying their efforts, as directed by Ministers at MC13. New Zealand  joined other Members in 
expressing its sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Marco Molina for his work in supporting the 
process over the past year. Members  owed him a debt of gratitude for the time and energy he had 
dedicated to advancing their work. New Zealand wished to  thank him in particular for always 
conducting the process in an open, transparent and inclusive way – and for his door (and inbox) 
always being open to a request to meet.  Members had a strong foundation from which to build on 
in the coming months as a result of Mr. Molina 's support to the process.  
5.22.   The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking  on behalf of the OECS, 
thank ed the Chair for  the report provided and for the consultations he had held in succession . The 
OECS also wished to reiterate its standing commitment to achieving a meaningful outcome, including 
with respect to appeal /review acce ssibility . The OECS wished to make  two substantive points, first 
was to recall Paragraph 3 of the MC13 Ministerial Decision which instruct ed Members to accelerate 
their discussions  in an inclusive and transparent manner, and therefore the methods of work that 
they should adopt going forward should align favourably with the established convention in terms of 
how multilateral discussions were conducted in the WTO. The second substantive  point was that the 
OECS  remain ed open in terms of who the facilitator would be and where she or he was from. The 
OECS would  not be particularly wedded to whether the facilitator was from a developing or developed  
country,  a small or a large Member. The OE CS believe d that what was important was to have 
someone who command ed the respect of the Membership, someone who was impartial and neutral  
and someone who could  drive the work forward in an inclusive and transparent manner.  
5.23.   The representative of South Afri ca said that South Africa took note of the Chair's report and 
thank ed him for the consultations and for sharing his reflections on the consultations that had been 
undertaken. South Africa  wished to be associate d with the  statement made by the Africa n Group. In 
responding to the Chair's report, South Africa  wished to recall the MC 13 Decision where Ministers 
had instructed officials to accelerate discussions in an inclusive and transparent manner , build on 
the progress already made and work on unresolved issues, including those regarding appeal /review 
and accessibility to achieve the objective by 2024. In fulfilling this decision, prudence would require 
Members  as a collective to take stock of where they were , where they wanted to go  and how to 
achieve the mandate in a pragmatic and constructive  manner a nd in accordance with the practi ced 
rules and procedures of the WTO . South Africa was amongst the Members that had called for 
formali zation of the dispute settlement discussions and welcome d such formali zation. For South 
Africa, formali zation of the process should be informed by  negotiations taking place within the DSB 
and under the agreed Rules of Procedure of the G eneral Council,  or any other adjusted and agreed 
rules by Members , such as  a DSB Chair-led process with reporting to the G eneral Council . A work 
programme with a clear road map and deadline to be met were key elements to ensure transparency 
and able planning  and full and effective participation of all Members . A Member -driven process wit h 
negotiations based on Member s' submissions  and open , transparent and inclusive process  and record 
keeping of the negotiations. It was South Africa's belief that it was only an inclusive and transparent 
approach that would  enable Members  to achieve their shared objective of a fully functioning dispute 
settlement mechanism by 2024. With regards to facilitato r, South Africa noted the Chair's report 
and would consult on an appropriate facilitator for the DSB negotiations. South Africa  noted during 
the consultations that the Chair  indicated that the facilitator would  be appointed by the G eneral 
Council  and would report to the G eneral Council . As indicated during the consultat ions it was South 
Africa's  view that any appointed  facilitator for this process should be appointed by the DS B Chair. 
The facilitator should report to the DSB Chair and the DSB Chair should report to the GC Chair. 
Bypassing the DS B, which was the  appropria te platform to discuss DSB issues  and having these 
issues dealt with at the General Council raised questions as to why . In addition, South Africa was  of 
the view that the selection of the facilitator should be informed by several principles, some of which 
had already been mentioned by other Members. The facilitator should be at Ambassador level, should 
have an understanding of the dispute settlement mechanism , should be neutral and independent in 
thinking and operation , should be someone who would command r espect amongst the Membership 
and should be someone who w ould be able to take the discussions forward in an inclusive manner. 
To avoid repetition  with regard to these points, South Africa aligned itself to the views that had been 
aligned by Bangladesh and T ürkiye and any support that might  be required by the facilitator could  
be provided by officials as per Paragraph 3 of the MC13 mandate. It was officials that had been 
instructed to accelerate discussions in an inclusive and transparent mann er. Members  desire d to WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 19 - 
 
  have a well-functioning, effective dispute settlement mechanism that addresse d the interests of all. 
With regards to  effectiveness , South Africa  mean t having a balanced system that avoid ed two 
extremes , a system where no Member imple mented rulings and relie d on power dynamics, or a 
system that act ed as the government of the world imposing stringent rules. Effectiveness also mean t 
success in attaining the objectives of dispute settlement in a number of areas : efficiency, 
inclusiveness and compliance with legal obligation. Members needed  a balanced agenda  and 
balanced discussions if they were to arrive at a balanced outcome. This mean t the interests and 
concerns of all need ed to be taken on board and considered in a balanced manner.   
5.24.   The representative of Peru said that Peru thanked the Chair for the  consultations and for his 
efforts to appoint a facilitator as soon as possible. Peru believe d that Members had to maintain th is 
spirit in order to resume discussions as soon as possible with the aim of having a fully functional 
dispute settlement system by the end of the year. Peru recall ed that the status quo was more 
burdensome for smaller countries. Peru also believe d that appo inting the facilitator, important as it 
might  be, should  not be a major obstacle in moving forward with the discussions  as the time was 
not on Members'  side. As other delegations  had mentioned, Peru believe d that it was important for 
the facilitator to con tinue working in an interest -based dynamic rather than position -based 
discussion s because this in Peru's  view was what had allowed Members  to narrow the gaps. Peru 
also expect ed that Members could give priority to appellate review and, if possible , to esta blish a 
well-defined work programme based on the work done thus far in order to ensure  reaching Members'  
goal by the deadline  set forth.  
5.25.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thanked the Chair for his efforts to search 
for a new facilitator immediately following MC13, living up to Ministers ' instructions to keep up and 
accelerate momentum. While Singapore was disappointed that a new facilitator had not been found 
in time for appointment at the upcoming  General Council , it was very hopeful that the Chair's next 
attempt would be successful. To meet the mandate of both MC12 and MC13 to have a well and 
fully-functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, Members had no time to lose, and certainly 
not from t angling unnecessarily about procedure. Singapore suppor ted and echoe d the Chair's call 
for flexibility and creativity regarding the choice of a facilitator and the format of discussions going 
forward. Singapore saw the value of the interest -based approach to foster frank exchanges which 
would be critical as Members  explore d reforms to the most difficult and important issue – namely, 
the appeal mechanism. Singapore  would strive to maintain such an approach no matter the format 
of discussions going forward, b uilding upon the progress already made as embodied in Version 7, 
the latest version of the draft text.  
5.26.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wished to thank the Chair  for his report on 
the DS  Reform work as well as the proposed way forward . At the outset, Malaysia welcome d the 
adoption of the Ministerial Decision on D S Reform at MC 13. This decision serve d as a testament to 
Members'  collective commitment to advancing the work initiated following M C12. The decision  had 
reflected Members unwavering dedication to continuing and expediting the discussions on dispute 
settlement reform and ensuring the timely and effective implementation o f the reform agenda. 
Malaysia's  aim was to achieve a fully operational dispute settlement system by 2024, with a 
particular emphasis on the reestablishment of a strengthened two-tier dispute settlement  system 
upholding the W TO's foundational principles . This mechanism would  enhance the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the system, ensuring that disputes were resolved in a fair and timely manner. In 
the interest of promoting trust and confidence among Members, Malaysia  strongly advocate d for a 
transparent, inc lusive and open process. It was crucial that all delegations had equal opportunities 
to contribute and participate actively in the discuss. By fostering an environment of openness and 
inclusivity, Members could collectively ensure that the voices and persp ectives of all were heard and 
duly conceded. In this regard, Malaysia  looked forward to all Members participation both in capital 
and in Geneva, in this process moving forward. Malaysia would like to express its gratitude for the 
Chair's leadership  and gui dance throughout this process, look ed forward to the continued 
engagement of all Members as they worked together towards achieving a fully functional and robust 
dispute settlement system by 2024.  
5.27.   The representative of Ecuador  said that Ecuador thank ed the Chair for his report made at the 
present meeting and for  his consultations . It was Ecuador's priority to meet the mandate of restoring 
a dispute settlement system and to make  it fully operational and accessible to all by 2024 . Ecuador  
regret ted not having made progress in appointing a facilitator  but would continue working 
constructively  and with the necessary flexibility to support the Chair's  efforts in moving this process 
forward, keeping in mind that time was not on Members' side. Ecuador thank ed Mr. Marco Molina WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 20 - 
 
  for his enormous efforts in leading this process in an open, inclusive and transparent  manner . Even 
though Members had  much work to do , particularly on pending iss ues such as  the Appellate Body 
and matters related to accessibility , they had to take advantage of all the work carried out since 
2023.  
5.28.   The DSB took note  of the Chairman's report and of the statements made  under this Agenda 
item.  
6  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMEN TS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LAO PEOPLE 'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ; L ESOTHO ; L IECHTENSTEIN ; M ADAGASCAR ; M ALAWI ; 
MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; 
NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; 
PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; 
SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; 
UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE ( WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 26) 
6.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Colombia , on behalf of a number of delegations . He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 26 and invited the representative of Colombia  to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Colombia , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 6, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 6 September  2023 to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body  members . On behalf of those 1 30 Members, Colombia  wished to 
state the following . This Agenda item and the extensive  number of  Members submitting the joint 
proposal reflected a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body  and, more generally, 
in the functioning of the dispute settlement system . The joint proposal sought to : (i) start seven 
selection processes ; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee ; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for 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 co -sponsor s 
invited and urged all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and 
multilateral trading systems . 
6.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, at the outset, the United States noted that 
the United States and other Members had jointly issued WT/GC/244 , "The Joint Statement on 
Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus, " which 
condemn ed Russia 's actions as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental 
principles of international peace and security.  The United States reiterate d its support for Ukraine 
during this unimaginably difficult time.  The United States paid  tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian 
people, their armed forces and Leaders. Turning to this A genda item, Members were aware of the 
longstanding US concerns with WTO dispute settlement.24 Those concerns remain ed unaddressed, 
and the United States did not support the proposed decision.  Under the previous Agenda item , 
Members ' statements had focused on the future of the dispute settlement system; under the current 
Agenda item, Members continue d to look back.  Investing in dispute settlement reform present ed an 
opportunity to build a new system that would overc ome the problems of the past, and the United 
States  welcome d Members ' efforts in this regard.  As Members  engage d on reform, they had to  bear 
in mind that re -launching the Appellate Body selection process would  not address the concerns – 
 
24 US Trade Representative Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (February 
2020) , available at  https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/DS/USTR.Appellate.Body.Rpt.Feb2020.pdf .  WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 21 - 
 
  and calls for the re storation of the Appellate Body undermine d Members'  collective effort for reform. 
As WTO Members continue d their efforts to better understand each other 's interests in WTO dispute 
settlement, the United States remain ed focused on achieving a reformed syste m that met the 
interests of all Members to the greatest extent possible.  The United States had been working with 
Members to advance this goal , and look ed forward to continued engagement.  
6.4.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to b e associate d with the 
statement made  by Colombia on the proposal of Appellate Body appointment s. South Africa also 
support ed the statement to be made by Nigeria,  on behalf of the Africa Group. When Members 
agree d to bind themselves to the Uruguay Round Agreements, it had done so  on the understanding 
that their rights would be protected by a predictable , binding rules -based order underpinned by  a 
two-tier dispute settlement mechanism. The assurance that their trade  relations would be subject 
to rules rather than soft power was a fundamental element of the  bargain that was struck , and the 
continued dysfunctionality of the Appellate Body undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay 
Round and imperil led the multilat eral trading system. A fully functioning Appellate Body was  a top 
priority for reform of the WTO, and it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading 
system. South Africa remind ed itself, as a Member , of the commitment that it had undertaken not 
only at MC13, but also at MC12 , for fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system that was 
accessible to all Members by 2024. South Africa would work actively and constructively with all 
Members towards finding lasting solution to the cu rrent impasse.  
6.5.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  wished to thank 
Colombia  for its statement and , as co-sponsors of this proposal, the African Group fully support ed 
the proposal on  appointments of  Appellate Body member s. The African Group  reiterate d its support 
for a fully functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members by 2024 , in 
accordance with the mandate from Ministers at MC12, as well as the mandate from Paragraph 1 of 
the 13th Ministerial Decision on Dispute Settlement Reform . The fact that the Appellate Body could 
not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. There might  be a lack of incentive on the part of Members 
to negotiate new multilateral trade rules due to the abs ence of an appropriate enforcement 
mechanism at the WTO. The critical mass of Members asking for the launch of the selection process es 
indicate d the importance Members attached to having a fully functioning dispute settlement system 
for the multilateral tr ading system. The African Group  therefore urge d the D SB to promptly launch 
the selection process es to replace the Appellate Body m ember vacancies. Finally, the African Group 
stood  ready to engage constructively in any negotiations regarding dispute settlem ent reform in 
order to fully restore the Appellate Body . 
6.6.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed Colombia  for presenting the 
proposal for AB appointment s contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26 . The two -tier dispute 
settlement  system was an indispensable feature of the WTO and part of the foundational principles 
of the WTO. For the restoration of the Appellate Body, Bangladesh, as a co -sponsor of the proposal 
on Appellate Body appointment s, was requesting  that the DSB take a decision to launch the selection 
processes immediately to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. In order to ensure the security, 
predictability, and proper functioning of this multilateral  trading system, Members had to launch the 
process for Appellate Body appointments as a top priority. Bangladesh request ed that Members 
engage in discussions for Appellate Body appointments without further delay.  This was an urgency, 
in the interest of a f ully and well -functioning dispute settlement  system, which had also been 
expressed by Ministers at MC13. Bangladesh look ed forward to working constructively with other 
Members on this crucial topic.  
6.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kon g, China join ed other Members to 
reiterate its concerns about the A ppellate Body impasse, which ha d also been mentioned by various 
Members under the previous Agenda item. Hong Kong, China also wished to emphasize  its 
commitment to work constructively with all WTO Members to restore a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system by 2024 , as mandated at MC12 and reaffirmed in the MC13 Ministerial 
Decision.  
6.8.  The representative of Canada  said that, b efore speaking under  this Agenda item, Canada 
continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. These 
hostile acts were a flagrant violation of international law and the rules -based international system, 
upon which organizations suc h the WTO were based. Canada  express ed its solidarity with the 
Ukrainian people. Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to  be respected, and the 
Ukrainian people had to  be free to determine their own future. Canada call ed on Russia to WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 22 - 
 
  immediat ely cease all hostile and provocative actions against Ukraine, and to withdraw its military 
forces from the country. Turning to this Agenda item, Canada  support ed the proposal and thank ed 
Colombia for its statement  made  on behalf of the co -sponsors. The critical mass of WTO Members 
supporting this proposal clearly demonstrate d the importance Members  all attach ed to a fully 
operational appeal mechanism and Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement 
system. Canada would  continue to participate actively in discussions aimed at finding solutions to 
the current situation. Canada's  priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all 
Members. In the meantime, the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbi tration Arrangement (MPIA), provide d 
access to binding dispute settlement that include d the possibility of appeal in disputes between its 
participants. Currently, 53 WTO Members endors ed the MPIA . Canada had  witnessed the positive 
impacts of this arrangeme nt in the context of several disputes and invite d all WTO Members to 
consider participating in the MPIA. Canada was  available to discuss its details with any interested 
Members.  
6.9.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Colombia for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its 130 co-sponsors to call for the selection of new Appellate Body members without further 
delay and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda item.  
6.10.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented 
by Colombia to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body , supported by 130 
Members . A fully functioning, two-tier dispute settlement system accessible to all Members  was 
critical to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system  and for t he credibility of the WTO as 
a rules -based Organization Norway  referred to  its previous statements made  under this Agenda item 
and to its statement  made under Agenda item  5 of the present meeting.  Norway wished to use this 
opportunity to remind Members of the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA).  
The MPIA was open for WTO Members to join for as long as the system remain ed unable to function 
fully. As the work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding of the rules -based international order, 
Norway  also found  it appropriate to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway condemn ed Russia 's 
illegal war of aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. Russia 's war of aggression 
against Ukraine constitute d a gross violation of international law  and the rules -based system , which 
underpin ned this Organization  and the work of the DSB. Norway urge d Russia to end its hostilities 
and withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally f rom the territory of Ukraine within its 
internationally recogni zed borders.  
6.11.   The representative of Cameroon  said that Cameroon  wishes to be associated with the 
statement made  by Nigeria,  on behalf of the African Group. Cameroon wished  to begin by thanking 
the Chair for his report following the consultations with Members. Cameroon also welcome d the 
decisions taken by Ministers in this regard in Abu Dhabi. Regarding Agenda item 6, Cameroon 
thank ed Colombia for presenting the proposal, which Cameroon co-sponsored, on the appointment  
of members of the Appellate Body, a body that form ed part of the mechanism for settling disputes 
in the multilateral Organization. In the interest of transparency and fairness, Cameroon reaffirm ed 
its support for a fully fu nctioning dispute settlement system that was inclusive and accessible to all 
WTO Members, and its commitment to having such a system in place by the end of 2024, in 
accordance with the mandate given by Ministers at MC13 in Abu Dhabi. Cameroon also wishe d to 
point out that the non -functioning state of the Appellate Body remain ed a major concern for most 
developing countries. Cameroon stood  ready to continue working constructively with all Members 
and to engage in further discussions to find a consensual mech anism that organize d and support ed 
the appointment of Appellate Body members, with a view to maintaining the credibility and security 
of the multilateral trading system and securing the interests of all Members in a transparent manner. 
Cameroon thank ed the outgoing facilitator, Mr . Marco Molina, for the enormous amount of work he 
had done to move discussions forward. Cameroon also agree d with other Members on the need to 
appoint, on the basis of objective criteria, a new impartial facilitator with the skill s required to lead 
Members  through the next steps in the process and ensure that outstanding issues were addressed 
in the ongoing discussions.  
6.12.   The representative of Australia  said that, f irst, Australia wished to note that it condemn ed in 
the strongest ter ms Russia 's illegal, unjustified , and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Australia 
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organizations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia stood  in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to this Agenda item,  Australia welcome d the Ministerial Decision on  Dispute Settlement 
Reform reached at MC13, and thank ed the Chair and the Minister -Facilitator for their roles in securing WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 23 - 
 
  it. The Decision recognize d that, since MC12, Members had made valuable progress towar ds their 
goal. Looking forward, Ministers had also given them a clear instruction to take this progress and – 
working in an inclusive and transparent way – to build on it, and to accelerate discussions. Members 
had to therefore continue their interests -based discussions as soon as possible and with the urgency 
that their shared objective demand ed. While those discussions were ongoing, it was important to 
ensure that Members had confidence in their ability to enforce WTO rules. The best way to guarantee 
this was through increased participation in the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  
(MPIA) . Australia  encourage d all Members who had not yet joined to consider doing so.  
6.13.   The representative of Pakistan  said that Pakistan express ed its appreciation to Colombia  for 
presenting the AB proposal and as well as extend its gratitude to the other co-sponsors for their 
continuous commitment towards the appointment process es of Appellate Body members. Pakistan 
fully support ed this proposal and rei terate d its earlier stance for initiating the selection process es to 
appoint Appellate Body  members to serve as a mean s to restor ing the fully functioning , two-tier 
dispute settlement system by 2024.  
6.14.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished  to reiterate its previous  statements 
made  on this matter and thank ed Colombia for presenting the proposal  for the appointment s of 
Appellate Body member s. Thailand  continue d to support  and co -sponsor this proposal. Thailand  
agree d with other co-sponsors that this was an urgent matter . Thailand  wished  to confirm its 
commitment to continue working to restore the two -tier system and maintain ing Members'  right to 
appeal.  
6.15.   The representative of Switzerland  said that, first,  Switzerland condemn ed Russia 's military 
aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms . It was  a flagrant violation of international law, 
most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. 
Switzerland called on Russia to take  military de -escalation measures , end hostilities and immediately 
withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory.  Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international 
law, in particular international humanitarian law. With regard to the Appellate Body  appointments, 
Switzerland thanked  Colombia for presenting the proposal  and wish ed to refer to its statements 
made  on this matter  at previous DS B meetings. Switzerland's  priority was to find a multilateral 
solution to ensure the dispute settlement system was fully functioning . Switzerland also took  this 
opportunity to encourage all Members to join the  Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitra tion Arrangement  
(MPIA). The MPIA was a pragmatic and effective way of preserving Members ' rights  until the 
Appellate Body impasse was resolved.  
6.16.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Colombia for presenting the 
proposal on Appellate Body appointments for the 74th time on behalf of 130 co-sponsors , which 
reflected  the urgency of the matter and the length of which this unprecedented situation prolong ed. 
While working towards implementing the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Documen t and the MC13 
Ministerial Decision on the Dispute Settlement Reform , Indonesia also emphasize d the importance 
of launching the selection process es to fill the Appellate Body members ' vacancies promptly. For 
Indonesia , and clearly for many other Members, t he restoration of the function of the Appellate Body 
was a crucial step to strengthen the dispute settlement system and ensure a lasting solution for a 
two-tier dispute settlement system. Indonesia, in this regard, invite d the rest of the Membership to 
join as co -sponsors of this important proposal.  
6.17.   The representative of Japan  said that, f irst, Japan wished to touch upon the situation in 
Ukraine. Japan strongly condemn ed Russia 's ongoing aggression against Ukraine and its attacks 
against civilian infrastruc ture and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urge d Russia once again to 
stop the aggression and immediately withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine . Japan would  
continue to stand with Ukraine and would keep providing strong support to the country. Turning to 
this Agenda ite m, Japan refer red to its statements made at the previous DSB meetings  on this 
matter  and support ed the AB proposal. Japan absolutely share d the sense of urgency for reform of 
the dispu te settlement system and ha d set as the utmost priority to achieve this reform. For that 
purpose, Japan appreciate d the DS reform discussions that had taken place thus far. Japan wished  
to continue  the intensive discussions . Japan wished to work actively a nd constructively with all WTO 
Members  with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement  system by 2024, as 
agreed at MC12 and referred to at MC13 .  
6.18.   The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Colombia on  
behalf of 130 co -sponsors. China  wished to refer to its previous statements  made  on this urgent WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 24 - 
 
  matter, and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. China  reiterate d its firm commitment 
to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, which had not only facilitated 
prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members, but had also provided security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system. T o ensure such objectives continue d to be fulfilled, 
China  believe d that the most urgent task was to immediately launch the selection process es and fill 
the vacancies for the Appellate Body. China would  continue its constructive engagement in the 
discussion s on DS reform  and urge d all Members to engage in this exercise with a pragmatic  and 
outcome -oriented spirit. In addition, China  encourage d more Members to join the MPIA as a 
contingent measure to safeguard Member's  right to appeal. China stood  ready to di scuss with and 
provide further information to any interested Members.  
6.19.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wishe d to thank Colombia  for presenting 
this joint proposal on behalf of 130 co-sponsors  to launch the selection process es for the vacancies 
of the Appellate Body  members . Malaysia wished to reiterate the importance of the immediate 
commencement of the selection process es and prompt filling of vacancies for the Appellate Body. A s 
Malaysia had consistently emphasi zed at previo us DSB meetings , and other relevant platforms, the 
restoration of a fully operational dispute settlement system, in particular the two -tier system, was 
of paramount significance. It serve d as the cornerstone of this esteem ed institution. Overtime, the 
effectiveness of this system in facilitating expeditious and equitable resolution of disputes among 
Members had been well demonstrated. It ha d fostered a sense of security and predictability within 
the multilateral trading system, which was highly valued by al l Members . In addition to the tireless 
efforts and unwavering commitment displayed during the informal discussions on dispute settlement 
reform, Malaysia respectfully urge d all Members who had yet to endorse this proposal to promptly 
extend their support. The collective endorsement of this proposal was indispensable in accelerating 
the commencement of the selection process es without any further delay . Malaysia  also refer red to 
its previous statements made on this matter.  
6.20.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body. The United Kingdom  referred to its 
previous statement made  on this matter  and encourage d all remaining Members to join in support. 
The United Kingdom continue d to condemn President Putin 's war against Ukraine in the strongest 
terms. The United Kingdom again recall ed that Russia 's actions were a repudiation of the principles 
of the UN Charter and of the purp ose and principles of this Organization. The United Kingdom stood  
with Ukraine and would  continue to do everything it could  to support Ukraine 's heroic resistance to 
this assault on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
6.21.   The representative of Korea  said that  Korea echoes other delegations and reaffirm ed its 
consistent position on Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected. With regard to this Agenda  item, Korea thank ed the 
co-sponso rs for their continuous support in favour of launching the Appellate Body selection 
process es. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and refer red to its previous statements 
made on this matter . The WTO dispute settlement system had enhanced t he security and 
predictability of the multilateral  trading system in response to the needs of WTO Members. With that 
in mind, Korea very much appreciate d the progress which  Member s had collectively made through 
the interest -based process and highly value d the Ministerial Decision to reaffirm the mandate of the 
MC12 Outcome Document in achieving a fully  and well -functioning dispute settlement system  
accessible to all Members by 2024. As reiterated in the Ministerial Decision adopted at MC13, Korea 
hereby rea ffirmed its firm commitment to moving forward to achieve the objective as set forth at 
MC12.  
6.22.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand continue d to condemn, 
unequivocally, Russia 's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. These actions  were egregious 
and unlawful: the use of force to changes borders was strictly prohibited under international law, as 
was the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia 's invasion of  Ukraine 's sovereign 
territory ha d deep implications for global peace, security, and economic stability. New Zealand  
continue d to stand firmly alongside its Ukrainian partners and again call ed on Russia to withdraw its 
forces. Turning to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal 
co-sponsored by 130 WTO Members and refer red to its previous statements  made  on this matter. 
Restoration of a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system remain ed a key priority for 
New Zealand. Members had to capitalize  on the momentum and progress achieved in the reform 
process to date. Like others , New Zealand  also took this opportunity to invite those Members who WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 25 - 
 
  had not joined the MPIA to consider doing so. The MPIA provide d an avenue to safe guard access to 
an appeal level of review, while Members  worked collectively towards reform.  
6.23.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Colombia for stepping up to 
present the AB proposal , which Singapore strongly support ed. First, Singapore  wished to reiterate  
its previous statements made  on this matter  regarding the importance and urgency of this Agenda 
item. Second , regarding the US comment that : "Under the previous agenda item Members focus on 
the future, but under the c urrent item,  Members continue to look back ", Singapore observe d that 
the large number of co -sponsors, standing at 130, demonstrate d that Members saw a fully and well -
functioning appellate mechanism served by a standing body of adjudicators in the future of  the WTO. 
Finally, while the Appellate Body impasse persist ed, Singapore  encourage d Members to join the MPIA 
as an interim solution that would preserve Members' right to appeal.  
6.24.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union reiterate d its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation 's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violate d the UN Charter and disregard ed the rules -based international order. This undermine d 
international security and stability, and ha d no place in the 21st century. The European Union 's 
support for Ukraine 's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of self-defense  was 
unwavering. The European Union  called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression and 
withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia had to  cease actions endangering the civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukrai ne and its people. The 
European Union wished to refer to its previous statements made on this issue and thank ed all 
Members that had co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes. Since 
11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent and 
impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial. 
That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the joint proposal. The European 
Union  believe d that restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system and appointing members 
of the Appellate Body was a key priority. At MC13 , it had been  clear that the overwhelming majority 
of the Membership share d this view. The European Union  treated very seriously the commitment, 
made at MC12 and reiterated at MC13, of having a fully and well -functioning system by 2024. As 
stated under the  previous Agenda item, the European Union  welcome d the progress that had already 
been achieved in dispute settlement reform discussions. The European Union  hoped that Members 
would  continue constructive discussions and accelerate work with a view to finalizing the package of 
reforms by the end of 2024. In the meantime, the European Union was concerned with the impact 
that the absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system was having on the international 
trading order. In that context, the MPIA had been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system among its participants and to support rules -based 
trade. The MPIA was open to any WTO Member, and the European Union  invite d any WTO Member 
to join the M PIA as long a s a solution to this impasse had not been found.  
6.25.   The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia supported the statement made by 
Colombia  on behalf of the 130 co-sponsors. Cambodia wished to refer to its previous statement 
made under  this Agenda item. The deadline from MC12 and MC13 was clear and fast approaching. 
Cambodia  called on more Members to co-sponsor this proposal . A fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system was crucial for all WTO Members. It was time for t he immediate launch of the 
selection process es of the Appellate Body.  To conclude , Cambodia stood  ready to continue its 
constructive engagement  in the discussion s on the restoration of the Appellate Body  in a transparen t, 
open, inclus ive and result -oriented manner.  
6.26.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thanked Colombia and the co -sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of Appellate Body members. The 
Russian Feder ation reiterated its strong support for launching the appointment processes 
immediately as a vehicle to the restoration of the fully and well -functioning, two -tiered dispute 
settlement system. With regard to political statements made by certain Members, th e Russian 
Federation was forced to remind the following. First, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate as 
expressed in different DSU provisions. The political issues raised by some WTO Members neither 
concerned any of the issues contained on the Agenda of t he present meeting, nor were within the 
competences of the DSB. Second, the WTO was not a political organization. This meant that the 
issues raised by certain Members were not to be addressed in this forum.  WT/DSB/M/488  
 
- 26 - 
 
  6.27.   The representative of Colombia  said that Colombia , on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that for the sevent y-fourth  occasion, Members had not been able to launch the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body . Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their 
duties as Members of the WTO . Colombia noted that Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated  that: 
"vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute 
settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body  from continuing  to operate fully, and 
Members shall comply with their obligation under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise . Colombia  
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 . 
6.28.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements. As in the past, the DSB would  take 
note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would  be reflected in the minutes 
of the present  meeting. The Chairman took the opportunity to recall that at MC13  in Abu Dhabi  
Members had reaffirmed their commitment to work towards a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system by 2024. He hoped that Members would be able to achieve this outcome within the mandated 
time-frame.  
6.29.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________