RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/48 2 
11 September 2023  
(23-5927) Page: 1/36 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 July 2023   
 
  
MINUTES  OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 JULY 20231 
Chair man: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating at 
the present DSB meeting 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 ; (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 recalled, 
that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the  Chair's consultations 
with each interested party regarding that Agenda item . At the present meeting, 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; and (iii) the representative of the 
United States  said that, under "Other Business ", the United States wished to make a statement to 
provide an update on the resolution of disputes involving the United States and India.  
 
The DS B took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States  ..... 3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ . 4 
F. Indone sia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
2 UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA) (DS597)  .. 6 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 2 - 
  3 UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  13 
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Union: Request for the establi shment of a 
panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  13 
4 CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN  . 14 
A. Report of the Panel ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  14 
5 DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  ................................ ................................ .... 15 
6 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; 
CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; 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; UR UGUAY; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.25)  ................................ ................................ ............................  27 
7 STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE RESOLUTION OF 
DISPUTES INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES AND  INDIA  ................................ ................  35 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF R ECOMMENDATIONS 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 41) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.216) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.179) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing mea sures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.63) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.55) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.50 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.50) 
 
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 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman  wished  to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also remind ed 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 3 - 
  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 41) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 41, which contained the status 
report by the United  State s on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 July 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States had 
addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue . With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as  to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 216) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 216, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative  of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 July 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in  order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter and said that it wished  to resolve 
this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 79) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 179, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The EU continue d to 
propose for vote authori zations for genetically modified organisms th at, in the European Food Safety 
Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 6 July  2023, the Commission had 
presented to the Appeal Committee two draft decisions authori zing the placing on the market of 
GM maize.2 The votes had resulted in "no opinion ". It was now for the Commission to decide on the 
adoption of the draft decisions.  On 3 July 2023, the Commission  had presented to the Standing 
 
2 GM maize MON 87419  and GA21 x T25.  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 4 - 
  Committee a draft decision authori zing the placing on the market of a GM  maize3 and a de cision 
renewing the authori zation for placing on the market of a GM maize.4 The votes had resulted in 
"no opinion ". The Commission would  refer the two decision s to the Appeal Committee in 
September  2023.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union ("EU") for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. The United Stated continued to engage with 
the EU on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several oc casions as to how the EU 
could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States had described these 
problems in detail and noted its concerns with the EU 's biotech approval procedures monthly in the 
DSB and during the semiannual US -EU biotech consultations, the most recent of which had taken 
place on 22 June 2023. The United States again requested that the EU move to issue final approvals 
for all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety 
Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee. 
Based on the parties ' conversation in June, the United States looked forward to the EU announcing 
additional authorizations before the end of 2023 . 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 63) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 63, 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 17 July  2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed . Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)) . With th at action, the United States had 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders . The United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropr iate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s in this 
dispute.  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that m ore than five years had passed since the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB recommendations arising from the 
Appellate Body report in US - Washing Machines , according to which the "Differential Pricing 
Methodology" (DPM) was inconsistent "as suc h" with the WTO Agreements. In spite of  this, the 
United States continue d to apply the DPM "as such" in investigations concerning foreign companies 
and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the basis of that non-compliant 
methodology . Canada was deeply concerned about that violation  and called on the United States to 
put an end to it 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 meth odologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 55) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 55, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
 
3 GM maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS-40278 -9 and its sub -combinations . 
4 GM maize MIR162 . WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 5 - 
  case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.   The representative of th e United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 July 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . As explained in 
that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address  the 
recommendations of the DSB . 
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . China was disappointed that nearly 
five years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States still fail ed to implement 
the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China , once again , urged the United States 
to honor its obligation s and to bring its measures into conformity without further de lay. 
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 50 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 50) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 50 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 50, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had provide d a status report in these 
disputes in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia  was making  genuine efforts to bring 
its measures into compliance with the DSB 's rulings and recommendations , and on 31 March 2023, 
Indonesia had passed Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in lieu of 
Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation to reinforce the revocation of measure s on self -sufficiency. 
Furthermore, Indonesia also reiterate d that relevant and significant amendments ha d been taken  
into effect to the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Trade Regulations administering 
measures  1-17, resulting in the removal of measures at issue, including harvest period restriction, 
import realization requirement, six -month harvest requirement, r eference price, and domestic 
purchase requirement. Indonesia referred  to its previous statement, Indonesia again wished  to 
highlight that Commodity Balance would serve as a tool mechanism to provide comprehensive, 
accurate, and reliable data through an int egrated national database system. Indonesia truly believe d 
that this mechanism was part of Indonesia 's effort to enhance the ease of doing business, streamline 
import approval procedures, and facilitate trade in transparent manner. Indonesia remain ed ready 
to engage with New Zealand and the United States with the aim of reaching amicable solutions for 
these disputes.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States continue d to have concerns 
with Indonesia 's compliance with the DSB 's recommendations.  As the United States had expressed 
before, it would still appreciate further clarity on: which regulations presently  comprise d Indonesia 's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect th ose regimes; and 
how Indonesia expect ed the new commodity balance mechanism to, in its words, streamline the 
import approval procedures, enhance the ease of doing business, as well as facilitate trade in a 
transparent manner.  The United States would also appreciate further clarity on whether Indonesia 
was planning on making any adjustments to the operation of its import licensing process to ensure 
that the significant delays in issuing permits for the first half of 2023 were not repeated.  The United 
States remain ed willing t o confer and work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute.  
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thanked Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledged Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines had long since expired and New Zealand remained concerned 
about a number of measures. Like the United States, New Zealand would also appreciate 
understanding  better the regulations that presently underpinned Indonesia 's import licencing 
regimes, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New Zealand was 
similarly interested in better understanding how the new commodity balance would in fact operate WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 6 - 
  to simplify and facilitate trade in affected products. New Zealand looked forward to further 
constructive engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its ne xt regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA) (DS597)  
A. Statement by the United States  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the present meeting at the request of 
the United States, and he invited the representative of the United States to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States recalled that this dispu te 
had serious systemic and practical implications. The WTO did not have the competence or the 
authority to assess the national security assessments of a Member. Nor did it have the competence 
or authority to pass judgment on the importance that the United  States placed on fundamental 
freedoms and human rights, or actions taken to support those values. This dispute highlighted the 
damage that might result when a WTO panel second -guessed the essential security interests and 
actions of a WTO Member. GATT 1994  Article XXI(b), the essential security exception, recognized 
the inherent right of a Member to take "any action which it considers" both "necessary" for the 
protection of its essential security interests and "relating to" or "taken" in the circumstances s et out 
in the subparagraphs. All of the elements in the text were expressly left to the determination of the 
Member. In the Origin Marking  dispute Hong Kong, China, nevertheless sought to have the WTO 
adjudicate the essential security interests of the Unit ed States. The WTO panel erred in deciding that 
it had been appropriate to substitute its security judgment for the US sovereign judgment of its own 
security interests. And the panel had also erred in finding that, from a WTO law perspective, the 
pattern o f human rights abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China did not "meet the 
requisite level of gravity"5 to qualify as an "emergency in international relations" under 
Article  XXI(b). The United States disagreed with this WTO panel assessment in the strongest terms. 
In past DSB statements, the United States had explained factual developments since the circula tion 
of the panel report that reinforced US concern with those findings. These developments 
unfortunately confirmed the ongoing degradation of Hong Kong 's promised autonomy, human rights, 
and democratic institutions . 
2.3.  At the present meeting, the United Stat es was again compelled to draw attention to 
deteriorating circumstances in Hong Kong, China. As the United States had explained, the panel in 
the Origin Marking dispute had erroneously found that the degradation of autonomy, human rights, 
and democracy did  not rise to the level of an "emergency in international relations." The United 
States fundamentally disagreed with the WTO panel 's lack of concern over the circumstances in 
Hong Kong, China. And, as it had noted in prior statements, the United States was not alone in its 
concerns. For instance, on 15 June 2023, the European Parliament had adopted by 483 votes to 9, 
a resolution on the deterioration of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, finding that "since the 
Chinese regime imposed the National Security La w (NSL) on 30 June 2020, fundamental freedoms, 
the rule of law and the judiciary 's independence in Hong Kong have deteriorated alarmingly".6 The 
United States agreed that Hong Kong, China, authorities, under the supervision of the PRC central 
government, had continued to use the National Security Law (NSL) – which the PRC central 
government had imposed on Hong Kong in June 2020 – to further erode the rule of law and the 
human rights and fundamental freedoms of people in Hong Kong, China .  
2.4.  The United States  noted that 4 June 2023, had marked the 34th anniversary of the Tiananmen 
Square crackdown. For 30  years, from 1989 to 2019, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers had 
gathered at Victoria Park for an annual candlelight vigil on the anniversary. Hong Kong had b een the 
beacon for such commemoration under the freedom of expression and assembly that was supposed 
to be ensured by the Hong Kong government under various international obligations. In 2023, the 
Tiananmen vigil had been effectively banned by the National  Security Law, through ongoing arrests 
and imprisonment of organizers since the passage of the National Security Law. The location for the 
 
5 US – Origin Marking Requirement , WT/DS597/R, para. 7.353.  
6 European Parliament, Resolution on the deterioration of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, notably 
the case of Jimmy Lai, 2023/2737(RSP),  available at  
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2023/2737(RSP) . WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 7 - 
  vigil, Victoria Park, instead had become the grounds for a trade fair organized by pro -Beijing groups 
to celebrate th e anniversary of the 1 July 1997 handover. Nonetheless, some individuals had 
attempted to publicly commemorate the events in Tiananmen Square, which had resulted in their 
detention and arrest.7 
2.5.  On 4 July 2023, the Hong Kong police issued arrest warrants a nd separate bounties of $1  million 
Hong Kong Dollars each for information leading to the arrest of eight pro -democracy activists who 
no longer live d in Hong Kong for allegedly violating the Beijing -imposed National Security Law.8 The 
allegations against p ro-democracy activists include d "incitement to secession ", "subversion ", 
"incitement to subversion ", and "collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to 
endanger national security. "9 A Hong Kong police spokesperson had stated that the National Security 
Law applie d to non-residents  outside Hong Kong  and against conduct "including through the 
internet. "10 These bounties ha d been placed on eight individuals who were currently residing in  the 
United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States.11 The United States ha d condemned th ose actions.  
The United States had called on the Hong Kong, China government to immediately withdraw the 
bounties, and had called on Hong Kong, China, to respect the  sovereignty of other countries.  The 
United States ha d also condemned "the extraterritorial application of the Beijing -imposed National 
Security Law " as "a dangerous precedent that threaten s the human rights and fundamental freedoms 
of people all over the world. "12 The United Kingdom, Australia, and others ha d issued similar 
statements and had expressed similar concerns. For example, UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly 
had stated: "We will not tolerate any attempts by China to intimidate and silence individ uals in the 
UK and overseas. The UK will always defend the universal right to freedom of expression and stand 
up for those who are targeted.  We strongly object to the National Security Law that China imposed 
on Hong Kong, including its extraterritorial reach, in breach of the legally binding Sino -British Joint 
Declaration.  We call on Beijing to remove the National Security Law and for the Hong Kong 
authorities to end their targeting of those who stand up for freedom and democracy. "13 Australian 
Foreign Minister Penny Wong had similarly stated that "Australia is deeply concerned by reports of 
Hong Kong authorities issuing arrest warrants for democracy advocates, including those in Australia.  
Freedom of expression and assembly are essential  to our democracy and we support those in 
Australia who exercise those rights ".14 
2.6.  As the United States had previously explained, these types of facts further demonstrated the 
error in the WTO panel finding that this pattern of human rights abuses and the e rosion of autonomy 
in Hong Kong, China, had not "meet the requisite level of gravity to constitute an emergency in 
international relations under Article  XXI(b)(iii)."15 Again, the United States fundamentally disagreed 
 
7 Hong Kong Remembered the Tiananmen Massacre, Until it Couldn 't, The New York Times, available at 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/04/world/asia/t iananmen -square -massacre -china.html . 
8 https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/03_police_message/pr/press -release -
detail.html?refno=P202307030002 . 
9 https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/03_police_message/pr/press -release -
detail.html?refno=P202307030002 . 
10 https:/ /www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/03_police_message/pr/press -release -
detail.html?refno=P202307030002 . 
11 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/03/hong -kong-issues -arrest -warrants -for-eight-
overseas -democracy -activists . 
12 U.S. Department of State, Press Statement:  Hong Kong 's Extra -Territorial Application of the N ational 
Security Law (July 3, 2023), available at:  https://www.state.gov/hong -kongs -extra-territorial -application -of-
the-national -security -law/. 
13 Hong Kong National Security Law arrest warrants: Foreign Secretary 's statement, 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement -on-hong-kong-national -security -law-arrest -warrants ; see 
also https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/status/1675917738399637522  ("The UK strongly objects to China 's 
National Security Law, which suppresses Hong Kong 's freedoms. The decision to issue arrest warrants for 8 
activists, some of whom are in the UK, is a further example of the authoritarian reach of China 's extraterritorial 
law."). 
14 https://twitter.com/SenatorWong/status/1676051440543096832 ; see also  Statement on Hong Kong, 
https://www.foreignminister.g ov.au/minister/penny -wong/media -release/statement -hong-kong ("Australia 
remains deeply concerned by the continuing erosion of Hong Kong 's rights, freedoms and autonomy, two years 
since the imposition of the National Secu rity Law.  The National Security Law has been applied broadly to arrest 
or pressure pro -democracy figures, opposition groups, the media, trade unions and civil society.  The electoral 
reforms imposed by Beijing in 2021 have further eroded Hong Kong 's democratic governance.  We urge the 
Chinese Government and Hong Kong authorities to uphold and protect those elements which have been so 
crucial to Hong Kong 's success, including its high degree of autonomy, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by 
the Basic L aw and the Sino -British Declaration, to which Beijing committed. "). 
15 US – Origin Marking Requirement , WT/DS597/R, para. 7.353.  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 8 - 
  with the panel 's approach, which sugge sted a state ought to defer consideration of its essential 
security interests until after a breakdown in relations with another Member. A WTO Member could 
not be expected to wait until it was too late to act, or be required to sever relations with another as 
a prerequisite for action it considered necessary to safeguard its essential security interests. The 
United States reiterated that, in order to prevent further undermining of the WTO, Members needed 
to clarify and adopt a shared understanding of the ess ential security exception, which was a critical 
element in the international trading system and permitted Members to take on trade commitments 
to each other.  
2.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that since the circulation of the DS597 panel 
report o n 21 December 2022 and the US  notification to appeal on 26 January 2023, this had been 
the fourth time that DS597 was discussed at the regular DSB meeting. Hong Kong, China ha d 
seriously considered objecting to the placement of this item on the Agenda prior to the present 
meeting, given  the grave procedural abuse and the damaging implications for the conduct of DSB 
business  and the rules -based dispute settlement system. As pointed out by the Chair man, the Rules 
and Procedures governing DSB meetin gs ma de it very clear that :"[r]epresentatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members ' 
positions already on record ". Hong Kong, China  regret ted and strongly object ed that the U nited 
States had raised yet again the same issues in a ruled DS case for the fourth time in a time span of 
six months. The panel ha d already rightly dismissed the US claims  in this case. The U nited States 
was abusing the use of regular DSB meetings by seeking to validate its claims that ha d already been 
rejected by the panel. Indeed, the Chair and Members would recall that the U nited States had lodged 
an appeal against the panel 's rulings . It was true that the Appellate Body ha d already been 
dysfunctional also due to the US blocking  of the appointment of new AB members . However,  since 
an appeal avenue ha d been chosen by the U nited States, then t he only proper way to handle the US 
further claims relating to DS597 would be through the appeal avenue, be it a restored Appellate 
Body, or an appeal mechanism, whatever  it look ed like, after the DS reform.  
2.8.  Hong Kong, China ha d pointed out repeatedly tha t the DSB was not a forum for discussions of 
another Member 's internal affairs, or political aspirations of any individual Member; and it continue d 
to hold this view. The objective of the DSB was to facilitate the resolution of trade disputes, and 
enforcem ent of rights and obligations under the WTO covered agreements, among other things. The 
DSB had no mandate to scrutinize  any Member 's internal affairs; nor should it be used by a certain 
Member to scrutinize  another Member 's internal affairs in order to ac hieve that certain Member 's 
ulterior  and political motive. By allowing the U nited States to do this, not only twice, but for three 
times, for four times, and m ight still be counting, Members were going down a slippery slope. There 
was no reason that the U nited States might  continue to smear on Hong Kong 's internal affairs in this 
trade dispute resolution forum with no reprimand. There was no reason that Members attending 
DSB meetings should be forc ed to hear from the U nited States their one -sided version of Hong 
Kong's internal affairs, on a nearly monthly basis. Nor should Hong Kong, China be forced to be 
answerable to the US description of our city 's state of affairs in its fact -twisting, out -of-context, or 
otherwise over -simplified version, in the DSB, a trade dispute resolution forum. Now, Hong Kong, 
China was  forced  to respond to the United States as the U nited States had presented at the present 
meeting  yet again its biased and untrue descripti ons of the current state of affairs in Hong Kong, 
China, to which it had to  register its strong objection on record and set the record straight in detail, 
again.  
2.9.  Hong Kong, China  had to put on record that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 
(Hong K ong SAR) Government steadfastly safeguard ed the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong 
Kong people as protected under the law. Human rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of 
speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of processio n and of demonstration 
had always been robustly, constitutionally guaranteed in our city, under the Basic Law and the 
provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International 
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cult ural Rights as applied to Hong Kong. It was also true that 
such rights and freedoms were not absolute, as the ICCPR also expressly state d that some of them 
might be subject to restrictions as had been prescribed by law that were necessary for protection of 
national security, public safety, public order or the rights and freedoms of others, etc.  
2.10.   For those who actually k new Hong Kong , this was a society underpinned by the rule of law. 
Article 25 of the Basic Law,  its mini constitution, provide d that all Hong Kong residents should be 
equal before the law. All law enforcement actions taken by law enforcement agencies were based WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 9 - 
  on evidence, strictly according to the law and for the acts of the people or organizations  concerned, 
and ha d nothing to do  with their political stance or background. It would be totally contrary to the 
rule of law for someone to suggest that a certain group of people could enjoy privileges and break 
the law without getting arrested or bearing legal responsibilities due to the ir capacity. Everyone, 
including journalists, politicians, tourists, etc. should abide by the law, as much as other Hong Kong 
citizens do. As in many other jurisdictions that uph eld the "rule of law ", so long as people, institutions 
or organizations  observ ed the laws in Hong Kong, they would not unwittingly violate the law, 
including the National Security Law. Likewise for prosecutions. Pursuant to Article 63 of the Basic 
Law, the Hong Kong Department of Justice was independently responsible for criminal pr osecutions, 
free from any interference. The prosecutors act ed strictly in accordance with a long -standing 
international practice that the decision to prosecute would only take into consideration the applicable 
laws and the admissible evidence to justify in stituting proceedings. Cases would never be handled 
any differently owing to the political beliefs or backgrounds of the persons involved.  
2.11.   For those who were familiar with common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong 's judicial system ha d 
always been highly regarded by international communities. Article 85 of the Basic Law clearly 
stipulate d that the Judiciary should  exercise judicial power independently in accordance with the 
law, free from any interference. As guaranteed by the Basic Law  and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, 
everyone charged with a criminal offence ha d the right to a fair hearing. On Hong Kong National 
Security Law, it ha d clearly stipulated that human rights should be respected and protected in 
safeguarding national security  in the Hong Kong SAR. It provide d clear definition to the specific 
elements of four categories of offences, namely secession, subversion of state power, terrorist 
activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger natio nal 
security. Endangering national security was a very serious offence, no country would  watch with 
folded arms any acts and activities that endanger ed national security. The Hong Kong law 
enforcement agencies ha d been taking law enforcement actions based on evidence and strictly in 
accordance with the law in respect of the acts of the persons or entities concerned, and had nothing 
to do with their political stance, background or occupation.  The actions of the Hong Kong Police Force 
to go after persons susp ected of having committed offences under the National Security Law were 
reasonable, rational and legal.  
2.12.   In respect of the action taken by the Hong Kong Police Force on 3  July 2023 to list 
eight persons as wanted persons , those eight persons ha d absconded overseas while suspected of 
having committed offences under the Hong Kong National Security Law. Again, Hong Kong 's action 
was law-based.  The eight persons concerned who ha d fled overseas were suspected of having 
continued to commit offences under the Hong  Kong National Security Law that seriously endanger ed 
national security. The Hong Kong Police ha d the responsibility to take all necessary measures in 
accordance with the law to arrest the persons related to the cases and bring them to justice. The 
actions  by the Police were reasonable, rational, legal, and indeed necessary. The scope of application 
of the Hong Kong National Security Law fully align ed with the principles of international law, 
international practice and common practice adopted in various cou ntries and regions. Such practice 
was both necessary and legitimate, and was also in line with those of other countries and regions 
around the world. The national security laws of various countries ha d also extraterritorial effect 
under the principles of "personality " and "protective jurisdiction ". It was also a common and 
international practice for law enforcement agencies in other places to release information of fugitive 
offenders who ha d allegedly commit ted serious offences and were wanted, and appeal ed to members 
of the public to assist in bringing fugitive offenders to justice.  
2.13.   At the present meeting, Hong Kong, China  had to go into details of the legal principles that 
were used in its National Security  Law. In general, the criminal law of the Hong Kong SAR only 
regulate d acts that took place in the Hong Kong SAR, and this was known as the "territorial principle " 
in the international law and international practice. At the same time, international law and  relevant 
practice ha d also established exceptions to the "territorial principle ", including the "personality 
principle " and the "principle of protective jurisdiction ". Any State ha d the right to formulate laws 
based on th ose principles to exercise jurisdi ction over criminal acts committed outside its territory. 
The Hong Kong National Security Law formulated by the Central Authorities define d the scope of 
application of the Law precisely in accordance with th ose principles of international law, internationa l 
practice and common practice in various countries and regions. Article 36(1) of the Hong Kong 
National Security Law stipulate d that "this Law shall apply to offences under this Law which are 
committed in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by any  person. An offence shall be 
deemed to have been committed in the Region if an act constituting the offence or the 
consequence (s) of the offence occurs in the Region. " That provision was directed at criminal acts WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 10 - 
  that were wholly or partly committed in the Hong Kong SAR, and reflect ed the "territorial principle ". 
Article 36(2) of the Hong Kong National Security Law was directed at "offences under this Law 
committed on board a vessel or aircraft registered in the Region ", which also complie d with the 
provisions of the relevant international treaties. Under certain situations , in line with international 
law and practice, the criminal law might  regulate acts that took place outside the Hong Kong SAR.  
2.14.   The Hong Kong National Security Law provide d for two types of situations as follow s. The 
personality principle : the first type of situation concern ed an offender whose identity ha d close 
connection with the Hong Kong SAR, rather than a foreigner who ha d absolutely no ties with the 
Hong Kong SAR, and this was known as the "personality principle ". Under this principle, a State 
might  exercise jurisdiction over criminal acts committed by its citizens outside its territory. As a 
matter of fact, as a citizen or permanent resident of a country or region, it was incumbent on him 
or her to abide by the laws of  the respective country or region, regardless of where he or she was. 
To that end, Article 37 of the Hong Kong National Security Law stipulate d that: "this Law shall apply 
to a person who is a permanent resident of the Hong Kong SAR or an incorporated or unincorporated 
body such as a company or an organization  which is set up in th e Region if the person or the body 
commits an offence under this Law outside the Region. " There were also numerous overseas 
examples of national security laws that tackle d criminal acts committed outside the sovereign 
territory in accordance with the "personality principle ", such as the offences of treason, unlawful 
disclosure of classified information and the Logan Act which target ed activities of collusion with a 
foreign country or with external elements in the US; the offence of treason and the Terrorism  Act 
2000 in the UK; the foreign interference offence in Australia; the offence of treason in Canada and 
the offence of dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional and terrorist organizations  
in Germany, etc.  The second was t he principle of pr otective jurisdiction : this second type of situation 
arose when the criminal acts went against and undermine d the security or the vital interests of Hong 
Kong, and this was the principle of "protective jurisdiction ". Under the principle of "protective 
jurisdiction ", if foreigners commit ted criminal acts abroad against a sovereign State that endanger ed 
its security or its vital interests (such as government systems or functions), the sovereign State 
could adopt laws with extraterritorial effect to exercise p rescriptive criminal jurisdiction. To th at end, 
Article 38 of the Hong Kong National Security Law stipulate d that: "this Law shall apply to offences 
under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside of the 
Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region. " The national security laws of 
other countries in which the protective principle was applied include d the terrorism offences in the 
US, the National Security Bill currently at the final legislative stage in the UK, the espionage offence 
in Australia, the espionage offence in Canada and the offence of theft of state secrets in Germany. 
So, in gist, it was noted that the national security laws of various countries, including the US, the 
UK, Australia, Canada and the EU member States, ha d also extraterritorial effect under the principles 
of "personality " and "protective jurisdiction ", which amply expose d that any criticism by the relevant 
countries against the law enforcement authorities in Hong Kong was nothing but double standards 
and sophistry. It was the inherent right and obligation of Hong Kong, China as a sovereign State to 
enact the Hong Kong National Security Law as well as to exercise prescriptive extraterritorial 
jurisdiction over the relevant offences endangering national security, in which other countries should 
not meddle. It was the constitutional duty of the Hong Kong SAR to safeguard national s ecurity and 
the Hong Kong SAR Government would definitely spare no effort in taking all necessary measures 
in accordance with the law and to pursue the liability of those who h ad allegedly committed offences 
under the Hong Kong National Security Law outsid e Hong Kong.  
2.15.   Turning back to DS597 , Hong Kong, China was a staunch supporter of the multilateral trading 
system with the WTO at its core. Hong Kong, China took its rights and obligations under the WTO 
covered agreements seriously. The DS597 decision had been  reached after the parties and panelists 
had gone through all the stipulated rules and procedures under the DSU. The U nited States, in 
DS597, had been  given ample  opportunities to put forth, elaborate and clarify its arguments and 
respond to Hong Kong, China 's submissions and responses before the Panel, composed of 
three  independent and fair -minded experts. The Panel had considered the submissions that set out 
in full all the facts and issues of law that were considered relevant by the U nited States and Hong 
Kong, China, as well as submissions from the third parties. The Panel  had considered a ll those 
submissions, in full and in totality, and had come  to the unanimous decision that the challenged 
measure in question was discriminatory and WTO -inconsistent, and that the U nited States should 
bring its WTO -inconsistent measure into conformity. As the U nited States had already notified the 
DSB on 26 January 2023 of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body issues of law covered in the 
DS597 panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel, Hong Kong, China  invite d the 
United States to either stop blocking appointments to the Appellate Body so that the Appellate Body WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 11 - 
  could  restore its operation and consider the US claims further  or the U nited States should work with 
other Members in full sincerity for a reformed DS system, under which,  presumably, DS597 would 
be further processed alongside other cases that ha d appealed into the void.  Hong Kong, China 
appeal ed to the Chair and Members that such abuse of DSB regular meetings for one to continue its 
"appeal " with sheer political motivation  had to be curtailed and had to not be encouraged. Ultimately, 
it was the Membership 's fundamental systemic interest that the rules -based dispute settlement 
system be respected and Members allow the adjudicative process to do its work per the governing 
rules and procedures.  
2.16.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had to take the floor a 
second time to respond to the quite incorrect suggestion regarding the rules of procedure. The 
proposed Agenda for the present meeting had been circulated in accordance with the rules of 
procedure and ado pted by consensus  at the present meeting. It was, of course, not the United States 
that had brought these circumstances into the WTO. It had been Hong Kong, China 's choice to 
challenge a US national security action and to encourage the WTO panel to review the US invocation 
of the essential security exception. It was, therefore, Hong Kong, China, that invited WTO Members 
in the Dispute Settlement Body to review its actions that had eroded protected rights and freedoms 
in Hong Kong, which undermined its oblig ations under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Sino -British 
Joint Declaration. And the United States did not agree that the circumstances in Hong Kong, China, 
merely involved "political issues." The US actions at issue, and its presentation at the present 
meeting related to those actions, were grounded in the facts, including the recent warrants for 
individuals engaging in constitutionally -protected activities in the United States. Those facts 
demonstrated the pattern of human rights abuses and erosion of aut onomy in Hong Kong, China. 
And those facts formed the basis for the challenged US actions taken to protect its essential security 
interests. Turning to Hong Kong, China 's assertion that it did not understand the purpose of 
discussing the implications of th is report at the DSB – the United States noted that in its prior DSB 
statement and again at the present meeting, Hong Kong, China, had stated that it did not see "how 
it would help resolve the dispute, for the US to present its one -sided arguments time and  again at 
DSB meetings, when those should be heard by adjudicators." The United States 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 charg ed to make such findings as would assist the 
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 rights abuses and erosion 
of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, that formed the basis for the challenged US actions. If Hong 
Kong, China, did not wish Members in the Dispute Settlement Body to hear and be aware of the 
facts then it should not have brought this complaint to the Dispute Settlement Body . 
2.17.   The representative of China  said that, a t the outset, China wished  to raise its serious concerns 
about  the US fourth request to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly debated  item on the DSB 
Agenda, which should have been avoided by the U nited States with every effort as required by Rule 
27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings.16 The U nited States had plenty of time and 
opportunities to defend its case. Should the U nited States wish to further provide arguments and 
challenge the legal interpretation in this case, it should work with other Members to restore the 
second tier adjudicative mechanism , which was a proper place to do so. As a third party in this 
dispute, 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 also from the negotiating history that 
the security exception under GATT 1994 was not entirely self-judging, as found by this Panel and 
six previous panels. China  urged the United States to faithfully hono ur its multilateral obligations, 
and stop abusing national security. China reject ed in the strongest terms the US false allegations 
and unilateral judgement  and interference of other Members ' internal affairs. China had to remind 
the United States that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism was a forum to resolve trade disputes 
rather than a place to discuss political issues. The DSB was a forum for Members  to adopt the ruling 
and recommendation, monitor the implementation and exchange views on the legal interpretation 
of the WTO agreements. It would be extremely dangerous for this Organization to allow Members to 
bring the political issues and internal affairs of other Members to th e DSB  under the disguise of 
discussion on the specific case. Members should take concrete actions to stop such tendency so that 
 
16 Rule 27 of Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council (when convened as the Dispute 
Settlement 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. (See WT/L/161 and WT/DSB/9).  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 12 - 
  the boundary of WTO competence would  not be exceeded and the spillover effects could be avoided. 
Any Membe r, regardless of its power and size, should refrain from taking unilateral and protectionist 
measures in the name of "national security ", or using it as a vehicle to disregard the core principles 
of the WTO or to interfere with other Members ' internal affairs.  
2.18.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation highly regret ted 
that the United States had decided t o use the DSB  meetings to promote its political agenda . Under 
the pretext of discussing the trade dispute and marking requirement s, the United States in fact 
intensifie d its policy towards Hong Kong, China and derail ed Members ' discussions through delibera te 
politization . Such actions undermine d the trust among st Members and impede d their work. 
2.19.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China had said enough just now 
of the legal structure and operation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the enforcement 
actions of the Law in Hong Kong. It had also said enough of how its National Security Law and 
practice ha d been in line with international law and practice, which had also been adopted by many 
of the Members present in this room and therefore  Hong Kong, China  would not repeat them now. 
With regard to  the US continued accusation that it was Hong Kong, China bringing all th ose issues 
into the WTO o r the DSB, Hong Kong, Chia  wished  to recall its second statement made under Item  4 
at the 28 April 2023 DSB meeting . Hong Kong, China wished to add that should the U nited States 
be genuine about not bring ing these issues in the WTO or the DSB, Hong Kong, C hina invite d the 
United States not to raise this Agenda item again, now that it ha d been raised for the fourth time as 
discussion s on substantive points, if any, ha d long been exhausted, and let the adjudicative process 
do its work pursuant to the  rules and procedure. If the U nited States had any concern over an alleged 
overreach in a ruling of a panel or the Appellate Body, Hong Kong, China underst ood that there were 
certain proposals under deliberation in the informal DS reform process. The fact that there were 
proposals under deliberation reflect ed that per the current rules and regulations, the DSB regular 
meetings were not a forum for this purpose.  
2.20.   The representat ive of the United States  said that the United States would like to respond to 
several of the comments Members just heard. First, the United States noted China had offered 
"to remind the United States", but the United States did not need to be reminded of a nything: The 
United States had been clear from the beginning that issues of national security should not be 
brought into the WTO. If Hong Kong, China, or other Members  did not wish Members in the Dispute 
Settlement Body to hear and be aware of the facts re lated to essential security concerns, then they 
should not have brought those complaints to the Dispute Settlement Body. Hong Kong, China, knew 
this when it chose to challenge US actions, which had been expressly "due to the determination that 
Hong Kong is  no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to China" 
– as stated in the challenged Federal Register notice.17 And the United States referred Members to 
the panel report describing the measures at issue. In the US Feder al Register, the United States had 
expressly explained the determination "pursuant to section 202 of the United States -Hong Kong 
Policy Act of 1992, that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) is no longer 
sufficiently autonomous to jus tify differential treatment in relation to the [PRC]."18 The public notice 
further stated that "[i]n late May 2020, the National People 's Congress of China announced its 
intention to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose national security legislation on Hong  Kong" as part of 
"a series of actions that have increasingly denied autonomy and freedoms that China promised to 
the people of Hong Kong under the 1984 Joint Declaration. As a result, on 27 May 2020, the [U.S.] 
Secretary of State had announced that the PR C had fundamentally undermined Hong Kong 's 
autonomy and certified and reported to the Congress, pursuant to sections 205 and 301 of the 
United  States -Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, that Hong Kong no longer warrants treatment under 
United States law in the s ame manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before 
July 1, 1997."19 The determination further stated "that the situation with respect to Hong Kong, 
including recent actions taken by the PRC to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong 's autonomy, 
constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat . . . to the national security, foreign policy, and 
economy of the United States."20 Thus, when Hong Kong, China, had chosen to pursue those matters 
at the WTO, Hong Kong, China had known it was bringing issues  of national security into the WTO. 
 
17 See US – Origin Marking Requirement , WT/DS597/R, para. 2.1 ( "Measure at Issue ") (citing 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP Dec. 20 -15], Country of Origin 
Marking of Products of Hong Kong, 85 F ed. Reg. 48,551 (August 11, 2020)).  
18 85 Fed. Reg. 43,413 (July 17, 2020) (Executive Order 13936 on Hong Kong Normalization).  
19 85 Fed. Reg. 43,413 (July 17, 2020) (Executive Order 13936 on Hong Kong Normalization).  
20 85 Fed. Reg. 43,413 (July 17, 2020) (E xecutive Order 13936 on Hong Kong Normalization).  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 13 - 
  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 had been clear that it had been 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 the WTO. This dispu te only further 
illustrated why, in order to prevent further undermining of the WTO, Members needed 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 .  
2.21.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that , from a systemic point of view, it was a very 
dangerous suggestion that , despite all the rights and obligation set out in the WTO covered 
agreements, Members should impose self -sanction s on exercising their legitimate rights and 
obligations under the said agreements, just because a Member was not happy with certain rulings 
in previous cases, and in the current one.  
2.22.   The Chairman  said that serious concerns had been raised by Members at the present meeting 
regarding  this important  matter. He noted that the rules of procedure ha d been followed  correctly 
in relation to the present meeting.  However, he  would reflect on how to deal with this  matter  in the 
future  if this item  appeared  again  on the DSB Agenda . He also noted that t here was no time -limit 
for Members to make statements in the course of DSB meetings . However, in the General Council  
the time -limit for Members to make statements was already put in place. Therefore, one might look 
into this  possibility to be introduced in the DSB as well in the future.  
2.23.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILIN G DUTIES ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN  
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Union: Request for the 
establishment of a panel (WT/DS577/16)  
3.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS577 /16 and he invited the representative of the European Union to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union regret ted that it still 
needed to litigate this matter despite a clear ruling in its favour adopted by the DSB and t hat its 
numerous attempts to find a solution ha d failed because of the lack of engagement by the United 
States. The panel report adopted by the DSB on 20 December 2021 had found, among others, that 
Section 771B of the Tariff Act of 1930, which presume d that the entire benefit of a subsidy  had 
provided in respect of a raw agricultural product passe d through to the downstream processed 
agricultural product, was "as such " inconsistent with the SCM  Agreement.  The EU  had expected the 
United States to fully implement the recommendations of the DSB. However, in light of the final 
determination adopted by the United States on 20 December 2022, the EU disagree d with the US 
suggestion that it ha d completed the implementation o f the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB, notably regarding the pass -through of the benefit. As a result, on 28 April 2023 the EU 
requested consultations with the US on the implementation of the pass -through finding of the DSB. 
The EU regret ted that th e consultations held on 24 May 2023 had not result ed in a resolution of the 
dispute. As a result, on 14  July 2023 the EU had communicated to the Chairperson of the DSB its 
request for the establishment of a compliance panel to rule on the implementation by  the US of the 
pass-through finding in this case. The EU expect ed the US to cooperate with the EU and the panel 
in order to ensure a swift conclusion of the compliance procedure.  
3.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had commu nicated to the 
DSB and to the European Union the steps it had taken to comply with the panel recommendations, 
and how those steps complied with the recommendations. Accordingly, the United States was 
disappointed that the European Union had requested the e stablishment of a compliance panel. 
However, pursuant to the "Understanding between the United States and the European Union 
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU", dated 13 February 2023, the United 
States accepted the establishment of a compliance panel. The United States remained willing to 
engage with the EU to positively resolve this dispute . WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 14 - 
  3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed , pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU, to refer 
to the original Panel, if possible, the matter ra ised by the European Union in document 
WT/DS577/16. It was agreed that t he Panel would have standard terms of reference.  
3.5.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , China , India, Japan , the Russian Federation , Switzerland  
and Türkiye  reserved  their third-party rights to participate in the Panel 's proceedings.  
4  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN  
A. Report of the Panel (WT/DS601/R and WT/DS601/R/ADD.1)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting on 27 September 2021, the DSB had established a 
Panel to examine the complaint by Japan pertaining to this dispute. He also recalled that the 
Report  of the Panel contained in document WT/DS601/R and WT/DS601/R/Add.1 was circul ated on 
19 June 2023 as an unrestricted document. At the present meeting, the Panel Report was before 
the DSB for adoption at the request of Japan. This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the 
right of Members to express their views on the Panel Re port. 
4.2.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan was pleased to request the Dispute Settlement 
Body to adopt at the present meeting the Panel Report in : "China — Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Stainless Steel Products from Japan " (DS601) . Japan first wishe d to express its appreciation for the 
time and effort  that had been  devoted to this case by the Panel and the Secretariat.  Japan also 
wished  to extend its gratitude to the contributions by the third parties who had participated in th is 
case, as well as all other actors involved. This case was about China 's imposition of anti -dumping 
duties on imports of certain stainless steel products originating from Japan since July 2019.  The 
Panel had appropriately found that China had acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under 
Articles  3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1 and 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and had recommended that 
China bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreements.  Japan 
welcome d those findings and rulings by the Panel , and adoption  of the report  at the present meeting , 
which would lead to a definitive settlement of this case. Japan believe d that these findings and 
rulings by the Panel had clearly indicate d that China 's anti -dumping measures at issue were 
essentially flawed and therefore not tenable.  Japan wishe d to call on China to take these findings 
and rulings by the Panel seriously, and abolish its measures at issue immediately and completely in 
accordance with the DSB 's recommendations.  If China wishe d, Japan stood ready to engage in 
bilateral dialogue with a view to achieving a prompt and full compliance, in securing a positive 
settlement of this case.   
4.3.  The representative of China  said that China wished to thank the Panel and the Secretariat for 
their time and effor ts in the course of th e proceedings . This dispute concerned China 's anti -dumping 
measures on stainless steel billets and hot -rolled stainless steel plates and coils originating in Japan 
and several other Members, which had been imposed following an anti -dumping investigation 
initiated by MOFCOM on 23 July 2018. With its panel request, Japan had challenged MOFCOM 's 
determination specifically with regard to the existence of injury and a causal link. However, 
important parts of MOFCOM 's analysis had been  uncon tested. In particular, Japan had not challenged 
any of MOFCOM 's findings related to dumping. It had therefore been undisputed that the imports at 
issue originating in Japan had been dumped on the Chinese market. Importantly, Japan also had 
not challenge d MOFCOM 's use of the best facts available, in line with Article 6.8 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement, which MOFCOM had to rely on for several aspects of its final determination. China took 
note of the findings and recommendations of the Panel in its final Repor t. While the Panel ha d 
concluded that there had been  certain deficiencies in MOFCOM 's final determination, the Panel ha d 
dismissed quite a number of claims put forward by Japan as well as many of the arguments that 
Japan had raised to challenge MOFCOM 's injury and causation analyses. In particular, on cumulative 
assessment, the Panel ha d wholly rejected Japan 's claims that MOFCOM had acted inconsistently 
with Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The Panel had agreed with China that 
there had been no basis for Japan 's interpretation of Article 3.3 as establishing an obligation on 
investigating authorities to identify factual circumstances in which the imported products compete d 
with each other "in such a way that the imports from any source can make up for lower levels of 
imports from any other source". The Panel had also held that the data put forward by Japan about 
the alleged differences between the dumped imports had not und ermine d the objectivity of 
MOFCOM 's conclusion regarding the competitive relationship between th ose imports. The Panel ha d 
also dismissed the majority of the claims on procedural violations put forward by Japan. In particular, 
the Panel had found that MOFC OM had acted consistently with Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 15 - 
  Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to its confidential treatment of certain information provided 
by the Applicant. The Panel had also held that Japan had failed to establish any inconsistency of  
MOFCOM 's public notice with Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. In light of 
the above, while China disagree d with certain aspects of the Panel Report, it ha d decided not to 
appeal the Report. This show ed that China firmly support ed the multilateral trading system, and it 
would continue to uphold the authority and efficiency of the WTO . 
4.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked China for its statement. I t was true that 
the Panel had ultimately rejected some of Japan 's claims and arguments, such as those with respect 
to Articles 3.3, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  However, it was important to note 
that such findings were limited in scope when compared with the overall findings and rulings of the 
Panel, and thus did not justify China 's measures at issue, which had multiple flaws at the 
fundamental level.  
4.5.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished  to emphasize that the parties to this 
dispute had concluded an appeal arbitration agreement , in accordan ce with the model in Annex 1 of 
the MPIA. Canada took  careful note of this appeal arbitration agreement 's contribution to settling 
the dispute between the parties.  
4.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  welcome d the Panel 
Report, which had been circulated to Members on 19 June 2023. As the constructive engagement in 
finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the current situation regarding appointments to the 
Appellate Body continue d, the EU wishe d to use th is opportunity to, once again , thank Japan and 
support ed its decision to join the MPIA. The EU congratulate d the parties to this dispute for securing 
a binding outcome. The EU welcome d the agreement of the parties on a way forward  that did not 
entail an appeal , which  could not be heard by the Appellate Body  and would effectively amount to 
blocking this dispute. This would have happened  if the parties had not been MPIA participants.  
4.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in document 
WT/DS601/R and WT/DS601/R/Add.1.  
5  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that , under this Agenda item , he wished to refer to informal discussions on 
DS reform, wh ich were currently ongoing amongst delegations at the technical level. As in the past, 
this item was placed  on the Agenda of the present meeting in order to allow the representative of 
Guatemala, Mr  Marco Molina, who convene d these informal discussions on DS reform , to report on 
this matter for transparency. The Chairman said that he also wished to take  this opportunity to draw 
Members ' attention to the communication  regarding DS reform, which was  circulated at the request 
of the African Group in document JOB/DSB/5 . He said that t his document  had also been made 
available electronically to delegations for the present meeting.  He then  invite d the representative of 
Guatemala to make a report on discus sions concerning DS reform.  
5.2.  The representative of Guatemala , Mr Marco Molina, made the following statement:  
"Let me start by thanking you, Mr Chairman, for providing an opportunity for Members 
to share the work that is being undertaken on dispute settlemen t reform. As on previous 
occasions, I would like to note that I am making this statement in my personal capacity 
and under my own responsibility, as the convenor of the informal process on dispute 
settlement reform. Mr Chairman, since my last report on 30 May 2023, delegates, 
experts on dispute settlement, have continued to actively participate in  the intense 
programme of meetings. We  have had substance -based and highly technical discussions 
with a view to finding practical solutions to the concerns and int erests identified by 
Members. We have reached an understanding on 80% of the issues under consideration, 
which are now ripe to move to the drafting process. Let me be clear, this did not happen 
overnight. This is the result of five months of tireless and c onstructive engagement by 
all delegates, who through conversations and mutual understanding have explored ways 
to reconcile the different interests and concerns identified during this process. This 
process belongs to everyone and delegates participating in  the informal process should 
be recognized and commended for their efforts and dedication. During the last five 
months, delegates have had plenty of opportunities to express their ideas, interests, WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 16 - 
  and concerns; and to make as many observations as they dee med appropriate. We have 
proceeded with flexibility and, when necessary, we have returned to review our 
understandings to ensure that we have taken into account everybody 's interests and 
concerns. In my assessment, half of the issues in the remaining 20% a re close to 
reaching the level of maturity needed for the drafting process. The other half of that 
20% refers to the highly sensitive issues for which Members still hold different 
conceptual views about how to tackle them. After the summer break, I will co ntinue 
consulting with delegates with a view to reaching a common understanding of potential 
solutions to these issues by the end of September.  I am convinced that despite of our 
conceptual differences, we can find a solution at the technical level that ca n reconcile 
our interests and concerns. It is time to unlock our full creative potential. I am confident 
that we will succeed in this undertaking. In addition to the conversations on the 
remaining issues, the drafting process will start right after the sum mer break. The texts 
will be drafted by delegates through a process that I will organize and facilitate. In the 
next phase of the informal process, the same principles will continue to apply, namely, 
a process that is multilateral, because all Members will  be invited to participate; 
transparent, because everyone will have access to all documents and information; and 
inclusive, because it will continue to facilitate the participation of small delegations and 
take into account the interests and concerns of al l Members. In the coming days I will 
circulate the tentative calendar of meetings. This calendar of meetings seeks to avoid, 
as much as possible, clashes with other important meetings. In this regard, I am trying 
to prevent scheduling conflicts with meetin gs that have been identified by some small 
delegations as also important to them, such as those of the fisheries negotiations, the 
TNC, the General Council, WTO reform retreats, the Senior Officials, and the DSB. I can 
anticipate a very intense process. Ti me is of the essence and circumstances oblige. 
Members have identified the reform of the dispute settlement system as the top priority 
and an expected outcome of the 13th Ministerial Conference. Before being considered 
by the Ministerial Conference, any ou tcome of this informal process should be 
introduced to a WTO body, most likely the DSB. Considering that Members should have 
enough time to analy se the outcome of the informal process, that gives us only 3 to 4 
months to conclude our work as part of the in formal process. We are in the final stretch 
and there is still a lot of work to do. To strike the right balance between the intensity 
needed to achieve the objective of delivering by the Ministerial Conference; and the 
need to ensure meaningful participati on of all, particularly, of small delegations, I will 
continue to take every possible measure to ensure that all delegates have plenty of 
opportunities to participate, express their views and see those reflected in the final 
outcome. Finally, I would like to note that this Monday 24 July, I delivered a statement 
during the General Council meeting, under agenda item 3.A. on WTO reform, which 
included the African Group 's communication on Dispute Settlement Reform. The 
conversations at the General Council were  interesting and useful. I have taken good 
note of Members ' views regarding the Dispute Settlement informal process.  I would like 
to thank Members for the overwhelming expressions of support. I will continue my 
consultations with those delegations that rai sed questions and concerns with a view to 
addressing any remaining issue. I would like to invite delegates to  reach out to me 
should they have any further issues that need to be addressed. To conclude, I wish you 
all of you a great summer break. I look for ward to continuing working with you soon, 
with renewed energy! Thank you. " 
5.3.  The Chairman  thanked the representative of Guatemala  as well as  all delegations participat ing 
in this intense process  on DS reform.  He recognized  the efforts of the representative of Guatemala  
towards  making this process  multilateral, transparent and inclusive , which was of vital importance 
to all Members. The Chairman  noted the point made by the representative of Guatemala  in his 
report , namely,  that any outcome of t his informal process should be introduced to a WTO body, 
most likely the DSB . He said that t his would be an important  step for all Members.  
5.4.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States welcomed the engagement 
of all Members on disput e settlement reform. The United States intended to lead in all areas where 
it could contribute, including on dispute settlement reform, but achieving fundamental reform could 
only happen through a collective, Member -driven process. Here, Members were fortu nate to have a 
capable facilitator who had volunteered his time and energy to coordinate an inclusive 
Member -driven process. The United States strongly supported his efforts. The United States 
recognized the importance of an inclusive and transparent proce ss – and indeed the United States WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 17 - 
  shared that interest. A process in which all WTO Members were working collectively towards a 
reformed system provided the greatest chance of achieving durable, lasting reform. The United 
States believed the current informa l discussions were taking place in an inclusive and transparent 
manner. Each Member was invited to every meeting, with steps taken to keep all Members apprised 
of developments, even if they could not attend each meeting. And all Members had complete access  
to all information in the process. The United States appreciated the efforts taken to do this. Certainly, 
the United States agreed that discussions would need to move to a WTO body at the appropriate 
time; that must occur for any decision to be taken by M embers. The United States was open to 
discussions on when that appropriate time might be. However, the United States ' priority remained 
to continue the work without delays, and it welcomed the ongoing efforts of the volunteer facilitator . 
5.5.  The representative of Cameroon , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  said that t he Africa n 
Group welcome d this opportunity to introduce its submission contained in document WT/GC/W/892 
entitled: "Dispute Settlement Reform Communication ". The African Gr oup's submission had been 
tabled at the GC meeting on 24 July 2023 and call ed for formali zing and multilaterali sing the informal 
dispute settlement process and discussions.  The WTO dispute settlement system remain ed in crisis 
as Members continue d to appeal  into the void, leaving some disputes unresolved. At MC12, WTO 
Members had committed to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all Members by 2024. To that extent, reforming the dispute settlement mechanism and restorin g 
the two -tier system with the right to automatic appeal and ensuring accessibility and equitable 
participation remain ed priorities for the Africa n Group. The informal discussions on dispute 
settlement reform that  had begun in 2022 were ongoing and current ly in phase III under a 
facilitator -led process. The Africa n Group ha d engaged actively and constructively in the informal 
discussions, with the aim of having a balanced agenda, balanced discussions and a balanced outcome 
that would address its concerns, preserve d an effective, independent, fair, two -tier dispute 
settlement mechanism that was accessible to all. The African Group acknowledge d the importance 
and contribution of the informal process. The African Group  noted that the discussions ha d been 
advancing at a fast pace, and with only a few months before MC13, Members were at a critical stage, 
which require d Members to bring all th ose issues to a conclusion. The African Group underst ood that 
the informal discussions were now moving towards i nitiating the drafting phase after the summer 
break.  
5.6.  The Africa n Group was of the view that the next step to move to , if Members  were to proceed 
towards the drafting phase, was to formali ze and multilaterali se the process and discussions. It was 
in this r egard that the Africa n Group ha d put forward its proposal at th is stage, in view of the 
progression towards the drafting phase, but also considering the time left  before  MC13. In addition, 
the African Group was calling for a multilateral process with a cle ar roadmap that would facilitate a 
clear and shared process towards meeting Members ' objectives. The lack of a roadmap ma de it 
difficult for Members to see how they would move  forward in terms of meeting the MC12 mandate. 
The African Group was  concerned wi th calls for an early harvest or mini package at MC13, especially 
if it d id not address Members ' issues. Any outcome had to be balanced and take into account the 
interests of all. The African Group 's interest was to address long -standing concerns with the dispute 
settlement system, and thereby achieve a meaningful reform that would ensur e a system accessible 
to all Members.  At the July GC meeting , the African Group had  noted the responses from Members 
to its communication.  Some Me mbers agree d on the need for formali zation and multilaterali sation 
of the process and discussions. While some  other  Members h eld the view that: the process and 
discussions were already multilaterali sed; should remain informal until a certain point at which  they 
could  be multilaterali sed; had been open to all Members and inclusive; by the time of the senior 
officials meeting in October 2023 technical discussions on the text should be sufficiently advanced 
to allow for political discussions; ongoing discussio ns continue d in a result -oriented manner and 
begin text -based discussions after the summer break with the aim for a landing zone agreement on 
dispute settlement reform as a deliverable at MC13 as Members could  miss this political opportunity.   
5.7.  It was the A frican Group 's considered view and understanding that the dispute settlement 
discussions were neither formal nor multilateral under the WTO. More specifically, Members were 
aware how the informal process had come  about : there had been  no translation during  meetings 
into WTO official languages to ensure inclusivity and engagement by all; there had been  an overly 
ambitious agenda with tight scheduling of meetings often with meeting clashes, thereby having 
made  it impracticable for developing countries to part icipate effectively; despite numerous requests, 
no effort ha d been made to enable virtual participation in meetings; unofficial reporting on the 
dispute settlement reform discussions was merely for information sharing and not for engagement 
and exchange. The African Group 's view was that when the process would move to the drafting WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 18 - 
  phase, the process had to be multilaterali sed and formalized to address all th ose limitations and 
ensure a tr uly inclusive process. Reform of the WTO dispute settlement system would  have 
significant implications for the functioning of the entire multilateral trading system and was an issue 
of high importance for developing and least -developed countries. Failure t o update the WTO dispute 
settlement system in a formal and multilateral setting might  inevitably undermine the current 
process and progress. If the objective was to have a multilaterally agreed outcome on dispute 
settlement reform by MC13, now was the time  to ensure that a formally recognized multilateral 
process was followed. The Africa n Group would  continue to be actively and constructively engaged 
in the discussions and was interested in working with all Members to find a solution. The African 
Group believed that all Members need ed to be actively engaged towards finding a lasting solution. 
The Africa n Group ha d an open mind on how Members  would move forward with the process, 
however it  believe d that there was need for a clear process on how Members  would bring the issues 
to a successful conclusion.  
5.8.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia first wished  to thank the convenor of the 
informal dispute settlement reform discussions, Mr Marco Molina, for his ongoing work to facilitate 
the process. Australia  appreciate d his report made at the present meeting  and support ed his plan 
for the next steps. Australia  also wished  to thank the African Group for its communication and 
acknowledge d the constructive spirit in which it had been  made. Australia  agree d that it was 
important for the discussions on dispute settlement reform to be multilateral and to be conducted in 
a transparent and inclusive manner that would facilitate the full, effective,  and equal participation 
of all Members. Australia  consider ed that the current informal process ha d all of th ose key features. 
It was multilateral, it was transparent, and it was inclusive. The process was open to all Members, 
who had  had the opportunity t o submit their ideas and proposals. Information was shared in a 
transparent way with all participating Members. Australia  also wished  to acknowledge Mr Molina 's 
significant efforts to support the full, effective and equal participation of all Members. For example, 
having made  himself available to brief delegations and regional groupings.  While Australia  
appreciate d that the pace and frequency of the timetable ha d been challenging, particularly for 
smaller delegations, the urgency and importance of their task demand ed it. Members  only ha d a 
limited time -frame to deliver on their MC12 mandate. Australia agree d that the process should be 
formali zed at the right time, but now was not that time. The innovative, informal nature of the 
discussions ha d been essential in moving some issues to the stage where they were now ready for 
drafting. However, there was still more work to be done, including on topics of fundamental 
importance. Members  should give the informal process the space to make further prog ress on th ose 
issues. Australia therefore encourage d all Members to continue working intensively and 
constructively in the informal process to maintain their momentum to deliver on their MC12 
commitment. Australia look ed forward to resuming discussions on remaining topics and to beginning 
the text -based drafting exercise after the summer break.  
5.9.  The representative of Brazil  said that , first of all,  Brazil wished  to thank Mr Marco Molina for 
the report made  at the present  meeting and reaffirm ed Brazil 's gratitude regarding his unwavering 
work to assist Members  in order to find a way to conclude discussions on DS reform. Brazil  
underst ood that the level of engagement shown by delegations ha d been possible not only due to 
the priority given by Members, but also due to the informal process conducted by Mr Molina. The 
process  enable d substantive, creative and frank discussions, while , at the same time , it ensure d that 
all Members could  participa te and safeguard ed full transparency throughout the process. Although 
Brazil recognize d that the pace of discussions and meetings was high, it also acknowledge d "the 
importance and urgency " of addressing challenges and concerns with respect to the dispute 
settlement system, "to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". Brazil was confident that the process 
would be formalized in due course, and look ed forward to con tinued engagement with all Members 
to conclude discussions on the remaining issues and to prepare the ground for text -based 
negotiations that it expect ed would take Members  to the goal agreed  by Ministers.  
5.10.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that  the United Kingdom wished  to begin by 
commending the excellent work of Mr Marco Molina. Without his commitment and leadership, the 
convergence achieved thus far would not have been possible. As Members  move d forward into the 
next phase and beg an drafting a reform package, it was worth noting that the progress achieved 
and the mo mentum attained were precisely because of the informality of the process . It had allowed 
for candour, openness and flexibility, which ha d been invaluable in the discussions. During the 
informal discussions, Mr Molina and Members ha d been mindful of the abs olute need for an inclusive 
and fair process open to all Members, and the United Kingdom  had seen this reflected in the active WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 19 - 
  participation of Members contributing in a variety of formats. The United Kingdom recogni zed the 
need to carry forward th ose prin ciples of openness and inclusion as they began drafting. The United 
Kingdom  was committed to processes ensuring Members c ould participate in as drafters or as 
contributors, or as part of the plenary sessions. The United Kingdom noted the call from some 
Members for a road map and a formali zation of the reform process. The United Kingdom advise d 
caution, however, on formali zing the process too soon, as doing so  risked disrupting their positive 
advances achieved over the past few weeks and months.  
5.11.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway wished  to thank Mr Marco Molina for all his 
personal efforts in organi zing and structuring the informal meetings on dispute settlement reform. 
Especially , the last months ha d been very busy . Norway  welcome d the inclusive and transparent 
manner with which meetings ha d been organi zed, including the high degree of flexibility given to 
delegations. Norway had noted with great pleasure that Members from all regions ha d engaged 
constructively and had made  important contributions to the ongoing discussions. Norway , at the 
same time, d id very much understand and could  relate to the concerns that the frequency of 
meetings d id add burden especially to smaller delegations, and  thank ed the African Group for thei r 
communication . If Members wanted to attain their objective, they could not however get around the 
need for having many meetings. For smaller delegations, like Norway , it was therefore especially 
valuable that Mr Molina  and others ha d arranged for regular  updates on the progress in the 
discussions. Members  needed to be flexible and pragmatic. Norway  very much hope d that Members  
would be able to formali ze the process, but now was not the right time. There were very challenging 
discussions ahead, including on fundamental topics, but Norway looked forward to the constructive 
and pragmatic engagement of all Members in the time to come, and to start text -based negotiations 
right after the summer break. Ensuring a fu lly and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members was a top priority for Norway and Members  had to  do their utmost to 
deliver on the commitments made at MC12.  
5.12.   The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , speaking on behalf of the O ECS, said that the 
OECS  wished to thank Mr Marco Molina , the conven or of the informal discussions on DS reform , for 
his oral report. The OECS  also thank ed the United States for their communication contained in 
JOB/DSB/4  and the African Group for their comm unication contained in JOB/DSB/5 . In particular, 
Mr Molina had to  be commended for his dedication to facilitating the interest of Members to finding 
a durable solution to the current impasse in WTO dispute settlement , which continue d to be a stain 
on this Organization. The OECS assign ed great importance to the full restoration of a binding dispute 
settlement at the WTO. The dispute settlement system stood  as a cornerstone in maintaining a 
rules-based global trading system. It also stood  as an indispensable mechanism to help the smallest, 
poorest and most vulnerable Members to better navigate the uneven power dynamics of the global 
trading system. The OECS  remain ed committed to a meaningful outcom e on dispute settlement 
reform at MC13. In th at regard, the OECS  support ed a system which would uphold the principles of 
fairness, openness and inclusivity. Germane to such a system was full accessibility for developing 
and least -developed Members, especia lly those with capacity and financial constraints. Empirical 
research suggest ed that if the cost of litigation was too high, the potential complainant w ould choose 
not to litigate. As such, Members  had to lower the costs associated with using the system so  as to 
allow for an increase in the equity participation of developing and least -developed Members in the 
system. There were also negative systemic externalities associated with the lack of willingness or 
inability of a potential litigant to engage in disp ute settlement activit ies. In essence, th at weaken ed 
the public good characteristics of the system. The OECS also want ed to see an enhancement in the 
ability of the system to generate compliance in a reasonable period of time. The OECS ' sole 
experience as a complainant ha d revealed that compliance was a bugbear, especially for those 
countries without the market size for effective retaliation. Therefore,  the OECS  believe d that further 
institutionalizing certain Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) proceeding s at the compliance stage 
could contribute to the ability of the system to enhance compliance with rulings.  While the OECS 
would remain engaged in a constructive manner in the informal process, the OECS  caution ed against 
downplaying the concerns of those M embers who believe d that the process f ell short of their 
expectations. Therefore, the OECS  had to  redouble all efforts to reach out to delegations individually 
and in their respective group configurations. The OECS were  aware that Mr Molina ha d been making 
best efforts in this regard. Nonetheless, it was important to determine what more, if anything, could 
be done to build trust across the entire Membership. Essentially, Members  needed to ensure that 
the work being accomplished in the informal process d id not go to waste. As soon as it was 
practicable, the OECS support ed the formalization of the inform al process under the DSB in keeping 
with the multilateral, Member -driven, fair, transparent and inclusive ethos which they collectively 
subscribe d to. WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 20 - 
  5.13.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished  to thank 
Mr Marco Molina for his hard work and patience in facilitating the informal negotiating process on 
the dispute settlement reform. Th is was not an easy task, and despite some  progress, there was still 
much at stake. The Russian Federation was ready to fully engage con structively in this process in 
an effort to move towards consensus. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation  still believe d that the 
confidential nature of the process and non -attribution of the proposal discussed in fact could work 
not to the advantage of the Membership . Informal discussions could divert Members  from their goal 
to a consensus -based  decision . Certain Members  claim ed that formal discussions w ould paralyse the 
process, however , in fact, such allegations and thinking undermine d one of the core WTO functions , 
i.e. the negotiating function. Therefore, the Russian Federation continue d to urge WTO Members to 
move discussions on the dispute  settlement reform into a formal mode.  
5.14.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to add its voic e to thank  
Mr Marco Molina for his report  and his excellent facilitation of the informal discussions on dispute 
settlement reform. Th ose discussions were intens e, but they were also efficient, transparent and 
solution -oriented. They  allowed  Members to cond uct a genuine dialogue and to exchange about their 
concrete interests. As stated  by Norway, it was true that it was challenging for small delegations  to 
participate in  all meetings. Even with extra support, there had been weeks where they could not be 
everywhere. However, there had always been a way to catch up and to access the information. 
Switzerland  wished  to stress that th at pace was a consequence of the ambitious goal that Members 
had set for themselves at MC12, and that the informal process was the only way forward to achieve 
it. In Switzerland 's view, departing from the informal discussions at th at stage would prevent 
Members  to further exchange on the remaining issues in a solution -oriented way  whilst their 
schedule would not become any lighter. To conclude, Switzerland  maintain ed that having a fully 
operational dispute settlement system by 2024 remain ed its highest priority.  
5.15.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand welcome d the further report at the 
present meeting  on the informal process on dispute settlement reform. New Zealand  again wished 
to thank  Mr Marco Molina for his able leadership, and considerable personal effort, in helping to 
organi ze Members in th ose discussions. The pace of meetings ha d been demanding, reflecting the 
collective priority Members place d in restoring a fully and well -functioni ng system by 2024 in line 
with the direction of their Ministers. As stated at the July  General Council  meeting , New Zealand 
welcome d the open and inclusive way in which discussions continue d to be organi zed. The process 
had generated a number of useful ide as for improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility 
of the dispute settlement system. New Zealand looked forward to the continued constructive 
engagement of all Members, particularly as they worked to further narrow the outstanding issues 
and undertake the collective drafting exercise after the summer break. As New Zealand had noted 
at the General Council, the informality of the process ha d helped to generate good progress. New 
Zealand  saw value in allowing th at informal process enough time to  make further progress before 
bringing th ose issues into a formal process.  
5.16.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to thank Mr Marco Molina for his report 
on the informal process  that he ha d convened and  for all the work that he  had put into this process. 
Mexico support ed the process convened by Mr Molina . The process  was transparent, inclusive and 
now multilateral since all Members could  participate in it. Mexico supported  the programme for the 
next semester, which was very ambitiou s. Mexico  was committed to continue working constructively 
in order to find a multilateral solution , in accordance with the MC12 mandates,  namely , to have  a 
dispute system fully function al and accessible to all Members by 2024.  
5.17.   The representative of Indone sia said that , first of all, Indonesia wished to thank Mr Marco 
Molina  for his report and for his efforts in facilitating the informal discussion on dispute settlement 
reform for almost half a year now. Indonesia ha d actively participated in the discussion  to find a 
viable solution that would uphold the principles of a rules -based multilateral trading system. 
Indonesia 's participation was with a view that its core interest for security and predictability of the 
system should be safeguarded, in particular through the existence of a two -tier dispute settlement 
system. Moreover, the interests that were being discussed should  be brought together as a whole 
package  to the Minister s, not as a mini package of "agreeable issue s" and leaving the unaddressed 
issues in limbo. As a frequent user of the system, Indonesia also ha d a lot of stakes in the 
discussion s. However, Indonesia 's participation was not without challeng es. And on that note, 
Indonesia wished  to recall the African Group communication  that resonate d with Indonesia , being a  
small delegation of a developing Member. Now, Members were embarking toward s a new "station " 
to quote the GC Chair, in discussing text -based negotiation. Th at "station " was an important point WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 21 - 
  that m ight shape the future dispute settlement mechanism that was different than what they had  
right now and m ight implicate the functioning of the multilateral trading system. Therefore, it was 
critical that, moving forward, the following three aspects were ensured: (i) Members  work was to be 
formalized and undertaken under a multilateral process ; (ii) Concern s and reservation s raised by 
Members sh ould be respected according to the understanding that nothing was agreed until 
everything was agreed ; and (iii)  Meetings sh ould be conducted in a manner that was inclusive, 
transparent, and enable d the full, effective and equal participation of all Members. In  that regard, 
Indonesia reiterate d its request to provide  virtual participation  during the negotiation s. To conclude, 
Indonesia continue d to engage constructively in the discussion s so as to have a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system acces sible to all Members by 2024.  
5.18.   The representative of China  said that China wished to thank  Mr Marco Molina  for his report. 
Like for many other  delegations , the restoration of a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
mechanism accessible to all Member s by 2024 was China 's first priority, and MC13 was an important 
opportunity to achieve that. To that end, China  congratulate d the significant progress Members  had 
collectively achieved thus far, which  had paved a good foundation for future text -based discussions. 
China thank ed all Members for their frank, deep and pragmatic engagements, and , in particular , it 
appreciate d Mr Molina 's tireless coordination and unique contribution without which Members  could 
not have gotten  thus far. China welcome d the communication by  the African Group . China fully 
underst ood and deeply sympathize d with the resource constraints that smaller Members face d due 
to the intensive meetings and discussions required to fulfill their mandat e. However, China was of 
the view that the current informal process contain ed all the features it wished to have. It was true 
that Members needed to formalize the process at some pointing in time. However,  before that, more 
time should be given to informal discussions so that Members could frankly, creatively and jointly 
explore the compromised solutions that were acceptable to all. Of course, time was of the essence, 
and Members  had to accelerate their work so that swift shifting to the formal setting could be 
achieved. In th at regard, China support ed the plan outlined by Mr Molina  and commend ed his 
commitment to continue facilitating the discussions in a transparent and inclusive manner. That 
being said, t here were still quite a few serious challenges ahead of them, in particular on some 
fundamental issues which were of paramount importance to the interests of vast majority of 
Members. China  looked forward to achieving more clarity on those fundamental issu es and the 
possible paths forward after the summer break so that trust among Members could be further 
enhanced and more confidence could be gathered for the equally -important text -drafting exercise. 
While  everyone deserve d a relaxing break, the month of August provide d them with a good 
opportunity to reflect on what ha d happened during the past months and to refresh their thinking 
and explore the potential landing zones on the difficult issues , which ha d to be resolved in the coming 
months if Members were determined to deliver. China looked forward to the painful , but exciting 
discussions after the summer break and was committed to continuing their focused, constructive 
and pragmatic engagement on the road ahead.  
5.19.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan appreciate d the comprehensive report  by 
Mr Marco Molina  on the informal DS process. Japan  also thank ed him for his contribution and 
patience.  Japan commend ed the substantive progress that Members ha d made under the current 
Member -driven informal process. Members should seek a process in terms of how they could move 
forward with the substance. In th at regard, Japan support ed the continuation of the informal process  
so that Members could discuss the issues in a frank and positive environment. The African Grou p 
papers  (WT/GC/W/892 and JOB/DSB/5) call ed for Members to make the process "multilateral " and 
suggest ed that the drafting process sh ould also be multilateral, transparent and inclusive. Japan 
believe d that the current informal process was already multilat eral and was open, transparent and 
inclusive to all Members. The current process with having informal discussions among the Members 
and reporting to the DSB was well designed and struck  a balance between efficiency/flexibility and 
transparency/accountabili ty. The process w ould be formalized in the future, but now it was not the 
right time to formalize the process since there were still pending  issues, which were fundamental 
and sensitive. Japan looked forward to constructive discussions further in th at informal process. To 
achieve the commitment agreed at MC12, Japan continue d to work actively and constructively with 
all WTO Members.  
5.20.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea welcome d the report by Mr Marco  Molina  and 
express ed its sincere appreciation for his personal efforts and additional burden in organizing the 
informal discussions. Korea thank ed the African Group for their proposal and while Korea noted that 
formalization could happen  at an appro priate stage, Korea define d the current process as duly 
reflecting the very nature of this important agenda, striking the balance between transparency, WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 22 - 
  practicality and efficiency.  Korea also noted that this process was already open and inclusive to all 
Members and that Members were able to address their interests and concerns at any time as they 
wished. Although Korea  recognize d that the pace of discussions was swift, Korea  also noted that the 
facilitator w ould soon distribute a roadmap to enhance accessibility of Members.  Korea  also 
recognize d that Mr Molina  had been providing comprehensive reports , which accurately reflect ed 
substantial discussions. Korea look ed forward to continued engagement of all the parties on 
remaining issues in the discussions as well as  the drafting exercise after the summer break , and 
would contribute constructively to this process.  
5.21.   The representative of India said that India wished to refer to its statements made on this 
matter at the  DSB meetings held on 30 May and 31 March  2023. India said that a t the start of the 
third phase in February  2023, Members had been  asked to give the informal process a chance, and 
India had done so. India had participated actively and in good faith  in the informal process.  However, 
India's concerns ha d only deepened as this informal conversati on had progressed. Concerns raised 
about the systemic impact and precedential implications of this informal process ha d been 
overlooked. There ha d been formal reporting of this process by a volunteer coordinator, not only to 
the DSB, but also to the GC.  India's repeated emphasis on process was based on the experience 
that problematic processes were unlikely to yield equitable outcomes on substance . It was not 
surprising that the traditional requests  of developing countries regarding  the DSU reform process 
were largely absent from the current conversations. There was a long history of developing countries 
actively engaging  in DSU reform conversations , particularly in light of the Doha mandate on 
DS reforms. The fact that developing countries ' concerns were largely absent in this ongoing informal 
process was not because of lack of interest or capacity or the pace or the constraints, but because 
of procedural barriers. It was b ecause th at process was being conducted in a manner which ma de it 
impracticable for developi ng countries to participate effectively in the midst of a "rush to 
convergence ". Convergences were being reached in meetings that c ould only effectively be attended 
consistently by a small group of 10 -12 countries that were "heavy users " of the system. It was not 
enough for countries to be invited to meetings that they could not attend, and then be briefed 
unofficially on how th ose meetings ha d progressed. Th is was not a multilateral, transparent  and 
inclusive process . Their effective participation ha d to be enabled. Instead, India found  that countries 
that had raised concerns at plenaries were counselled on the need to respect emerging 
convergences, and be mindful of the MC13 deadline. They were discouraged from making  new 
proposals  - in spite  of the fact that many developing countries ha d only recently started participating 
in the process. Developing countries that d id participate  in the process  had found that their 
formulations were missing from the tables, or that ne w unattributed ideas were being proposed.  
That situation was likely to be carried into the drafting phase. India had heard the proposal , in the 
informal process,  that only delegations that c ould expect to attend the majority of the meetings 
should voluntee r as drafters. Others should be "contributors " or "plenary participants ". Such 
differentiation at the outset place d the drafting squarely in the hands of resource and personnel rich 
delegations. MC13 outcomes which were proposed wholly or even substantiall y on the basis of 
supposed convergences of this informal process would  be problematic. India express ed its support 
for the Africa n Group's paper, and reiterat ed its position that th ose discussion s should be conducted 
at the DSB, under the guidance of the D SB Chair man. Going forward any inclusive process should 
have further rounds of proposal submissions, regular transparency meetings, virtual participation, 
multiple facilitators or co -facilitators, and Member -control over drafting. Members should use the 
upcoming weeks  to seriously reflect on changes that would increase their probability of a successful 
outcome at MC13.  
5.22.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada,  once again , thank ed Mr Marco Molina for his 
work to advance the discussions on the reform of the dispute  settlement system, and for the 
dedication he had shown in this task. Mr Molina had spared no effort to ensure that that process was 
inclusive and transparent. All Members had had the opportunity to express their interests and put 
forward their proposals f or solutions. All Members had had access to all the documents concerning 
the process. All Members had been invited to the discussions and had had an opportunity to actively 
contribute by asking questions or making comments. The contributions of all Members  that had 
chosen to engage in this process had been duly taken into account in their work. Members had come 
a long way together. Formalizing the process in the future could prove useful, but Members were 
not there yet. The most reasonable and pragmatic app roach to ensure that they met their  objectives 
by 2024 was to stay on course. This was the only way to safeguard the momentum that Members 
had successfully created and that they had to endeavour to maintain.  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 23 - 
  5.23.   The representative of South Africa  said that Sou th Africa thank ed Mr Marco Molina  for his 
report. South Africa  also thank ed Cameroon for the statement  made on behalf of the African Group  
and wished to be associate d with th at statement , which represent ed the views of 44 Africa n Group 
Members. WTO reform and its importance to the African Group and South Africa was well known 
and their view was that WTO reform had to  also ensure a fully and well -functioning two -tier dispute 
settlement mechanism accessible to all Members by 2024  as agreed to by their Ministers . A fully 
functioning two -tier dispute settlement mechanism was a top priority for WTO reform , and it was 
crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. While noting the progress in the 
informal discussi ons, which South Africa had  actively and constructively participated in, as 
discussions advance d towards the drafting phase, the process need ed to be formalized and 
multilaterali sed under the DSB , as suggested  by the African Group . The informal process had been 
useful to explore solutions. However, it was South Africa 's considered view that if discussions were 
deemed to be ripe enough to progress towards text -based solutions, that these be undertaken in a 
formal and multilateral setting that facilitate d inclusive and full participation of all Members under 
the authority of the D SB. There were limitations in the current informal process, including in relation 
to translation,  as indicated by Cameroon that hamper ed effective participation of all and the concerns 
raised were real and had to  be addressed to ensure progress. The development of a clear roadmap 
was also key and would  ensure transparency, enable planning and full and effective participation of 
all Members . It was this inclusive process and approach that would  enable Members  to achieve their 
shared objective of  ensuring a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism by 2024. South Africa 
was also concerned about  calls for an early harvest or mini package,  especially if it d id not address 
Members ' issues. Any outcome had to  be balanced and should take into account the interests of all. 
South Africa would continue to engage constructively in any process that aim ed at finding a lasting 
solution as long as it adhere d to the multilateral principles.  
5.24.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mr Marco Molina  for his report 
and the Africa n Group for its communication. Given that Members ha d repeatedly emphasi zed that 
their top priority was to meet the MC12 mandate to have a "fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ", the onus was on Members  to try all means 
necessary to make genuine progress on this front. Members had been doing so in the informal 
discussions shepherded by Mr Molina , which ha d been conducted in a  transparent and inclusive 
manner, with meetings open to all Members and the provision of regular updates. Singapore thank ed 
Mr Molina  for his dedication, tireless efforts  and welcome d the roadmap he ha d just outlined. The 
urgency of the matter and the short runway to MC13 call ed for maintaining a brisk pace of work. 
Changing the format of the discussions now would jeopardi ze the momentum that ha d been 
generated. Singapore therefore urge d Members to be pragmatic and flexible to maximi ze progress 
in the remaining time. Singapore  looked forward to the continued constructive engagement of every 
Member in this important process, after the summer break.  
5.25.   The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangadesh thank ed Mr Marco Molina for his report.  
Bangladesh had raised some points for clarification at the 31 March 2023  DSB meeting  about the 
informal discussions on DS reform process.  Bangladesh  value d the informal exchange of thou ghts 
amongst delegates. Like many delegations, Bangladesh believe d that the current informal process  
should be viewed as an effort of some informed delegates to formulate some ideas and options to 
assist future discussions. However, to be relevant and mean ingful, such discussions had to  be 
conducted through a multilaterally guided process established  by a WTO body or its Chairperson. 
Submissions from Members through that guided or established process should be the basis for 
discussion to make progress. Thes e discussions should respect the institutional norms and practices 
of the WTO. The established practices and procedures of this Organization must be  followed. 
Reporting to the DSB and the GC meetings could not make any specifically non -mandated process 
multilateral. Bangladesh strongly believe d that the process and the substance were equally 
important in this context. On the substance, Members heard at the present meeting  that many issues 
were ripe. A convergence was only possible, be it informal, under a m ultilateral process through a 
relevant WTO body. In addition, as Members all kn ew, the MC12 Outcome Document in paragraph 
4 had clearly directed delegations to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. The same paragraph 
require d that such discussions also include the Appellate Body issues. Bangladesh  did not know when 
a discussion on Appellate Body, even if in this informal process would ripe n at all.  It was also 
Bangladesh 's view to be expressed under the next Agenda item that without the A ppellate Body, the 
DS system was not fully functional. Excluding the Appellate Body  seem ed inconsistent with the 
Ministers ' commitment. Bangladesh strongly believe d that any reform in  the WTO should not lead to 
altering Members ' rights and obligations. On the other hand, Members had to  conduct reform WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 24 - 
  discussions as directed by Ministers to address challenges and concerns, including their own, relating 
to the DS syste m. Therefore, Bangladesh  sought some clarifications  on the following issue s. 
First, with regard to  the DS reform , Bangladesh  wished to know when Members would begin 
discussions conducted through a multilaterally guided process established  by a WTO body or its 
Chairperson . Second, Bangladesh also wished to know h ow Members  could best use some ideas and 
options already discussed by some delegates in the informal process on DS reform.  Bangladesh 
looked forward to engaging constructively in th e discussions.   
5.26.   The representative of Türkiye said that , first, Türkiye  wished to thank Mr Marco Molina for his 
report, personal efforts and leadership. In the context of the DS reform process, the primary goal of 
Türkiye was to enable the Appellate Body to became operational in order to preserve the two -tier 
multilateral dispute settlement system . Unless that fundamental goal was materialized, the 
DS reform promises could not be fulfilled satisfactorily. Therefore, Türkiye  believed  that mere 
submission s of reform proposals even if they gain ed support of the substantial majority of the WTO 
Members, would not be meaningful without reaching a consensus on the resolution of the Appellate 
Body appointment deadlock. Accordingly, Türkiye was of the view that the DS reform efforts should 
be concentrated on the re –vitalization of the appeal stage of the dispute settlement mechanism and 
proposals to be presented for the facilitation of the appointment of the Appellate Body members 
should be wo rked out carefully. Hopefully, with the support of the WTO Members, the conditions , 
which would ensure the Appellate Body to be operational.  Otherwise, a fundamental problem on the 
fulfillment of the DS reform promises would continue to be a stalemate for  the overall  functioning of 
the DS mechanism, definitely with  implications on the proper functioning of the rule s-based 
multilateral trading system.  Since the beginning of the informal negotiations on DS reform, 
delegations had met under an intense schedule  of meetings to have substance -based and highly 
technical discussions with a view to reconcile divergent views. While Türkiye f ound the ongoing work 
highly valuable in identifying key elements of reform, it had witnessed that there was still no solid 
groun d for successful conclusion. On the basis of the fact that no proposal was supported by 
consensus and that some contentious proposals were still on the table, it was obvious that making 
significant progress was necessary for the achievement of an effective  dispute settlement 
mechanism. Türkiye also note d that the DS reform was aimed to be finalized in the course of the 
upcoming WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in February 2024. Whilst Türkiye was supportive 
for the successful conclusion of the current informal discussions on the DS reform, it was clear that  
substantial progress was required to be made for any such outcome.  
5.27.   The representative of Honduras  said that having a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system was a priority for Honduras and Honduras wished to thank Mr Marco Molina  for 
his repo rt made at the present meeting.  Over the past few months , in his personal capacity, he ha d 
convened and led this process in a very transparent and inclusive manner. The proce ss was open to 
all Members  and Honduras paid tribute to the commitment of Members who ha d participated 
constructively in this proces s. For Honduras,  as a small delegation, participating in those discussions 
was a challenge but the issue at stake was of gre at interest to each and every Member in this 
Organisation.  
5.28.   The representative of  the European Union  said that t he European Union appreciate d the 
opportunity to address, in the DSB, the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform. For the 
European Union  a well and fully functioning dispute settlement system in the WTO was a key priority. 
The EU agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The E U 
support ed a reform that preserve d the core features of the dispute settlement system. The EU  
treated very seriously the commitment made at MC12 "to conduct discussions with the view to 
having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessi ble to all Members by 2024 ". 
It was with that objective in mind, and in a constructive spirit, that the EU had been engaging in the 
discussions on dispute settlement reform for more than a year now. The EU  thank ed Mr Marco Molina 
for the explanations provi ded at the present  meeting . While the work was challenging, the EU fully 
support ed the ambitious schedule for the discussions, as set out by Mr Molina.  If Members were  to 
have a fully functioning dispute settlement system "by 2024 ", those discussions had to pave the way 
for agreement on dispute settlement reform at MC13. Finally , the EU wished to underscore that 
those discussions, pursuant to the MC12 Outcome Document, were open to all Members, and the 
EU indeed appreciate d the efforts to ensure that the process was transparent and inclusive. The EU 
value d the broad participation in the meetings , which had contribute d to the quality of the exchanges 
and enhances the understanding of the positions of Members on particular iss ues. The EU also 
welcome d the reporting to the DSB, as was the case at the present meeting , which enhance d the 
transparency and accountability of the process.  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 25 - 
  5.29.   The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine was grateful to all Members for their 
constructiv e contribution s and discussions o n dispute settlement issues. Ukraine reiterate d that th at 
work should be based on mutual and agreed solutions. The outcome could  only be efficient under 
the circumstances of collective  work of all Members and their common goal. 
5.30.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mr Marco Molina for his update on 
the current informal discussions on DS reform among st technical experts . Malaysia  also wish ed to 
express its appreciation for the work done thus far by the fa cilitator. Malaysia hoped that that this 
work would contribute towards fulfilling the Minister 's mandate at the MC12. Malaysia wished  to 
reiterate its support towards  finding solutions with a view to restore the fully functioning dispute 
settlement system,  in particular the two -tier dispute settlement system, which had to  be ensured to 
remain as the central  pillar of this institution. Work ha d been intense and Malaysia  expect ed that it 
would continue to be intense after the summer  break. Malaysia wished to highlight the constraint 
that some Members, in particular small delegations like Malaysia, were facing and would continue to 
face. Malaysia  foresaw that there would be conflicting schedules with other multilateral negotiations , 
particularly leading up to MC13. As such, some Members  might not be able to attend the plenary 
sessions of the DS reform discussions. Therefore,  Malaysia would request that the challenges faced 
by small delegations  also be taken into consideration when sche duling th ose meetings  and that the 
possibility of virtual participation  be considered.  That would ensure that all Members would be 
represented at th ese plenary sessions during which  decisions were taken.  
5.31.   The representative of Cambodia  said that  Cambodia wished to thank  Mr Marco  Molina  for his 
report  and update on the informal dispute settlement reform discussion. Cambodia  welcome d his 
effort s in this regard. Cambodia  took note of the determination to embrace and uphold inclusivity 
and transparenc y of this informal process. However, Cambodia  wished  to support the call to 
formali ze this informal process and bring all WTO Members on board to enable Members  active and 
full participation. Cambodia was committed  to engage constructively with other Members on this  
important  matter in order to fulfil the MC12 mandate.   
5.32.   The representative of Egypt  said that , at the outset , Egypt wished  to thank Mr Marco Molina 
for his report  made at the present meeting . Egypt  fully support ed the African Group communication  
contained in WT /GC/W/892. Egypt believe d that time ha d come to commence an effective, open and 
inclusive formal multilateral drafting exercise for the DS reform under the oversight of the Dispute 
Settlement Body . While Egypt recogni zed the development achieved and the important contribution 
made under the informal process, Egypt  believe d that it was time for this process to be formali zed 
under the auspices of and back -to-back with the DSB meetings. The tight scheduling and fast pace 
of the informal process often clashe d with other important WTO meetings. Moreover, the informal 
meetings had only been held in -person without any flexibilit y to apply the virtual mo de. All th ose 
circumstances ha d made Egypt unable to attend  most of the informal processes  meetings and now 
the process was entering a new stage by starting the drafting phase after the summer break. 
Therefore, formali zing the proc ess sh ould ensure inclusivity, openness and transparency and w ould 
enable a wider participation in the process, including experts from capital as necessary. Egypt 
reiterate d its commitment to working  constructively towards achieving a fully and well -functi oning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024, in accordance with the MC12 mandate . 
Egypt also reiterate d that the drafting process should ensure inclusivity, transparency and equal 
participation for all. Egypt wished to stress the impo rtance of giving particular attention and priority 
to the issues raised by developing countries and LDC 's during the DS reform process. It was 
important to ensure that their demands were effectively addressed in the final outcome. Reforming 
the dispute set tlement mechanism and restoring the two -tier system with the right to automatic 
appeal  as well as ensuring accessibility and equal participation remain ed top priorities for the African 
Group. In conclusion, Egypt  wished  to take this  opportunity  to express its appreciation and to thank 
Mr Molina for his dedication and hard work in leading this informal process . Without Mr Molina 's 
tireless efforts  Members  would not be able to achieve progress or to advance in this informal process. 
Finally, Egypt wished to be associate d with the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of the African 
Group.  
5.33.   The representative of Chile said that , like many other  delegations , Chile a ttache d great 
importance to having a fully functional dispute settlement system. Chile wis hed to thank Mr Marco 
Molina for his report  and recogni zed the considerable efforts that he  had undertaken  in this regard.  
Chile took  note of the progress mentioned in the report. This informal process ha d been carried out 
in a very open, transparent and i nclusive manner. Chile understood that there  was still a lot of  very 
important work to be don e to b ring together the different points of view in a very pragmatic and WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 26 - 
  practical way. A number of important topics ha d been dealt with within the informal framew ork and 
Members  had been able to take the greatest advantage to reach this stage. Members  had to explore  
all the potential of this process before they move d to a more formal arrangement.  
5.34.   The representative of Peru said that Peru also wished to thank Mr Marco Molina and 
acknowledge d his work . Peru support ed the road map that he had put forward  for after the summer 
break so that Members could  achieve their common objective as soon as possible to comply with the 
mandat e agreed by Members  at MC12 . Peru also wished to refer to the issue of the frequency of 
meeting s. Members  needed to look for a balance between Members ' availability, in particular 
Members with small Missions and  the need to have a fully and well -functioning system , which was a 
priority  as well. Peru believe d that Members should have a demanding timeline in the coming months 
because if they really want ed to achieve an outcome, they needed that timeline. Peru had also been 
given the opportunity to k now what had been s tated in meetings that it had not been able to attend. 
Peru believed the informal process was multilateral, transparent and inclusive. It enable d frank 
discussions that took into account the interests of all Members. As other Members ha d stated, Peru 
also believed that it was important that the process  be formali zed soon, but  that w ould have to 
happen in due course, taking into account whether the process was ripe so that Members  did not 
lose the work  done over the past few months. Peru w ould continue to participate constructively in 
the future  work.  
5.35.   The representative of Moldova  said that Moldova  thank ed Mr Marco Molin a for his report and 
for leading the  DS discussions. Moldova full y support ed the format and pace of th ose ongoing 
discussions on DS reform, which were open, multilateral, inclusive and result s-oriented. Indeed, the 
pace of th ose discussions was challenging for small delegations, including Moldova 's, and Moldova  
was thankful for th e regular updates received from Mr Molina on the progress made in th ose 
discussions. Members should also take into account that the time for finding a solution for the 
Appellate Body before the upcoming Ministerial Conference remain ed quite limited and as many 
Members had already mentioned, they all ha d a shared objective to ensure a fully functional DS 
system  by 2024. Therefore, Members  should be flexible, determined, pragmatic, and should show 
concrete efforts towards finding a pragmatic solution , which would help them to find a solution by 
2024. Moldova fully support ed the necessity of integrating those discussions in a more formal way 
within the relevant WTO body when it would be feasible . 
5.36.   The representative of Guatemala , Mr Marco Molina,  thank ed delegations for their  comments 
and expressions of support as well also the concerns raised at the present meeting . As he had 
indicated in his statement, he would continue his conversations with the individual delegations to 
see how  he could  assist them in ensuring that they ha d an opportunity to fully participate in this 
process . He was happy to see that many small delegations from developing countries were very 
active in this informal process. Normally , he had had between 40 -60 delegates present at every 
meeting  of which a great majority of them participate d very actively, even those developing 
countries that ha d no experience on dispute settlement or they ha d not participated in th ose 
procedures  and he thought  that there was a good environment in the informal conversations. 
Members were explaining and sharing experiences to assist those Members to understand the issues, 
and he thought this was important because the idea of this process was precisely to open an 
opportunity to  everybody to participate and to see their interest and concerns  reflected . He caution ed 
against introducing too many variables that would change the way Members  conduct ed their 
conversations, because if they realized later in the process that it had not b een wise to do that, then 
they could not go back and they would have waste d very valuable time which was necessary to 
achieve the objective of concluding these conversations by the Ministerial Conference. If Members  
were to push themselves to a degree of formali zation that would render that process more inflexible , 
he believed that what was going to happen was what happen ed in other negotiations in which  a 
small group of Members met outside that process and they start ed taking decisions by themselves 
and fo rcing solutions that were not workable for everybody, and then it bec ame a political 
negotiation. What he was trying to convey here was that perhaps an informal process was the best 
way to open the opportunity for everybody to participate and to make their views heard  and avoid 
this situation that others would  go to smaller settings and  politicize the conversations. He reiterated  
that he would continue consulting with Members to see what else they could do to addres s the 
concerns and issues raised at the present meeting . 
5.37.   The Chairman  thanked delegations  for this long and rich discussion on this very important 
matter  to all Members  as they  were approaching  MC13 and had to deliver on the ir mandate . The 
Chair man said th at he would not attempt to sum up the whole discussion , but he would only note  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 27 - 
  that the discussion had shown that there was broad appreciation for the work being done by  Mr 
Marco  Molina  and also for his efforts to make the process  transparent, multilateral and inclusive. 
Real concerns  were raised by a  number of Members , in particular by  the African  Group , about  the 
limited resources and scheduling  of meetings etc.  He said that t hose concerns  should be taken into 
account.  There was a broad convergence that Members , at some point , had to formali ze this informal  
process . However, there was no  convergence on how and when this should  be done.  Therefore,  
Members should  continue to discuss this matter  further  and he, as Chair of the DSB,  would also 
reflect on what should be done after the summer break  in this regard.  
5.38.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; 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 ; PAKIS TAN; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; 
SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; 
TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; U NITED KINGDOM ; U RUGUAY ; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 25) 
6.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting  at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations . He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 25 and he invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Guatemala  said that, at the outset,  he wished to announce that  
Lao People 's Democratic Republic  had decided to co -sponsor the proposal that Members would 
discuss under this Agenda item. The revised version of document WT/DSB/W/609 that would includ e 
Lao PDR as a co -sponsor would be circulated accordingly. He thanked Lao PDR  for its interest in the 
proposal and welcomed it to the group of co -sponsors. Speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the 
joint proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.25, he said that t he delegations in 
question had agreed to submit the joint proposal, dated 17 May 2023 to launch the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body  members. On behalf of those 1 30 Members, 
Guatemala wished to state the following. This Agenda it em 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 seve n 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 nomination s of candidates. The co -sponsors 
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 would li ke 
to recall 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 condemned Russia 's actions as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and 
fundamental principles of international peace and security. The United States reiterated its support 
for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time. The United States paid tribute to t he heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and Leaders. Turning to this Agenda item, the United States 
said that Members were aware of the longstanding US concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those 
concerns remained unaddressed, and the United  States did not support the proposed decision. The 
United States believed that fundamental reform was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 28 - 
  dispute settlement system. A well -functioning dispute settlement system supported WTO Members 
in the resolution of  their disputes in an efficient and transparent manner, and in doing so limited the 
needless complexity and interpretive overreach that had characterized dispute settlement in recent 
years. As WTO Members continued working to better understand each other 's interests in WTO 
dispute settlement, the next task of reform was to ensure that any future system met the interests 
of all Members to the greatest extent possible. The United States had been working with Members 
to advance that goal and looked forward to continued engagement. The United States acknowledged 
that considerable work remained and that achieving fundamental dispute settlement reform would 
not be easy. But the United States continued to believe that working collectively towards that goal 
provided  the greatest chance of achieving durable, lasting reform. The United States was committed 
to working towards an improved system. The United States looked forward to engaging further with 
those Members that also saw value in an improved and reformed disput e settlement system that 
was accessible to all . 
6.4.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh wished to thank Guatemala for 
presenting the proposal o n Appellate Body appointment s contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/R ev.25 for the restoration of the Appellate Body . Bangladesh, as a co -sponsor of 
the proposal on Appellate Body appointment s, requested that  the DSB take a decision to launch the 
selection processes immediately to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. To ensure  the security 
and predict ability of this multilateral trading system, Members had to launch the process for 
Appellate Body appointments as a top priority and without further delay. Bangladesh request ed 
Members to engage in discussions on Appellate Body appointments immediately. Th is urgency was 
also expressed by the Ministers at MC12. Bangladesh was ready to continue constructive discussions 
in this regard.  
6.5.  The representative of Cambodia  said that, a t the outset, Cambodia warmly welcome d Lao PDR 's 
decision to become  the 130th co-sponsor of the joint proposal  contained in  WT/DSB/W/609/R ev.25. 
Cambodia wished to be associated  with the statement made  by Guatemala on behalf of 
130-co-sponsors  and the  ASEAN statement to be delivered by Indonesia. Cambodia  called upon 
more Members to  join th e AB proposal.  Cambodia  wished  to refer to its previous statements made 
under  this Agenda item and reiterate d its firm commitment and support for the well-functioning of 
an independent and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system accessible to all Members , including 
the LDCs vis-à-vis to reali ze the MC12 mandate on this matter.  
6.6.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine was ready to collaborat e in the process of 
improving the functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism and its two -stage dispute review as 
a strong adherent  of the international trade system. Ukraine also wished to  make its regular 
statement regarding the Russian  aggression. Russia continue d terrorizing Ukrainian civilians by 
attacking critical infrastructure and residential areas. For example, in the past month, Russia had 
attacked the grain terminals of the Odesa region por ts causing a fire and significantly ruining it. 
Moreover, Russian  strikes had severely damaged the infrastructure of the Odesa Port, which was 
crucial for the Black Sea Grain Initiative. On 17 July  2023, Russia ha d withdrawn from this Initiative 
endangerin g global food security and blackmailing the whole world, as it would lead to threat of food 
shortages and immediate rising prices worldwide, especially hurting those most vulnerable, primarily 
in Asia and Africa.  A war of this scale could not affect only o ne country – the impact was indeed 
global and it  was more than just about the economy and trade. Ukraine urged Members to stay 
strong and consolidated in the ir support for Ukraine, to continue to collaborate in unity for Ukraine 
and to support, in particul ar, countries the most affected by the R ussian war and the global crisis it  
had caused.  
6.7.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil  thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of so many co -sponsors and wished to refer to its previous statements made under this 
Agenda item.  Brazil warmly welcome d Lao PDR as a new co-sponsor of the proposal. For Brazil, 
having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was a high 
priority . Brazil continue d to engage constructively in informal discussions on DS reform, which it 
hoped would contribute to that outcome, within the deadline set by Ministers at MC12. Brazil recall ed 
that, while the impasse with the appointment of Appellate Body members persist ed, WTO Members 
could  ensure the resolution of their disputes by joining the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement  (the MPIA ). The Arrangement ha d prove n to be a tested, effective and viable way for 
Members to avail themselves of their right to res olve disputes under the DSU. Brazil was ready to 
discuss the MPIA with any delegation who wishe d to learn more about the Arrangement and its 
functioning.  WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 29 - 
  6.8.  The representative of China  said that China welcome d Lao PDR 's decision to join this proposal, 
and support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on behalf of 130 co -sponsors. Like others, China 
reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, 
which ha d not only facilitated prompt and fair resoluti on of disputes between Members, but also 
provided security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. To ensure that such objectives 
continue d to be fulfilled, China believe d that the most urgent task was to immediately launch the 
selection pro cesses and fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. This was a treaty obligation of all 
WTO Members. No prerequisite should be attached to it. China would continue its constructive 
engagement in the ongoing discussion o n DS reform, and call ed upon all Members to engage in that 
exercise in good faith and with pragmatic  and outcome -oriented spirit. Before concluding, China 
wished to take this opportunity to encourage more Members to join the MPIA as a contingent 
measure to safeguard their right to appeal until the Appellate Body was restored. China stood ready 
to discuss with , and provide further information for , any interested Members  on this matter.  
6.9.  The representative of Malaysia  said that  Malaysia wishe d to warmly welcome  its ASEAN  
member,  Lao PDR,  as the latest co-sponsor of the revised joint proposal to launch the selection 
process es for the vacancies of the Appellate Body members contained in WT/DSB/W/ 609/Rev.25. 
Malaysia also thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal and support ed the statement  made by 
Guatemala.  Malaysia also wished to be associated with th e statement to be made  by Indonesia on 
behalf of ASEAN . With this latest addition  of Lao PDR,  the number of co -sponsors amoun ted now to  
130 Members . Malaysia urged other Members who ha d yet to join this proposal to do so . Malaysia  
also wished to refer to  its statement  made  at the previous DSB meeting s under this Agenda item . 
6.10.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that Russia attache d considerable 
importance to the preservation of the WTO with enforceable rules and commitments, and thereby 
reiterate d its support for launching the appointment process of the  Appellate Body  members  
immediately. The Russian Federat ion welcome d Lao People 's Democratic Republic to the group of 
co-sponsors  of the proposal  on restoration of the well and fully functioning, two-tiered dispute 
settlement system. Currently, this proposal  was supported by 130 Members, including Russia. That 
explicitly show ed the Members particular interest in having the Appellate Body . The Russian 
Federation consider ed that the role of one particular Member in undermining the system should be 
frankly and unequivocally identified. Therefore, Russia urged more Members to join this proposal. 
Concerning certain political statements made by certain Members, unfortunately Russia was forced 
to stress the following : nothing in the DSU or other WTO agreements permit ted to raise political 
issues falling outside th e mandate and the functions of the Organization mandated solely to deal 
with trade relations of  its Members . Moreover, the issues these Members referr ed to did not pertain 
to any item contained on  the adopted Agenda of  the present meeting , and such issues were not 
appropriate for the discussions  in the course of the meeting  In this regard , the Russian Federation 
kindly remind ed the Chairman that Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure  for the GC/DSB meetings  gave 
the Chairman  the right to call the speaker to orde r if the remarks  of the speak er were not relevant . 
Thus, Russia call ed to apply this rule more frequently  in order to expedite the conduct of business 
since it  was more important to restore the lack of respect for the meaning and purpose of dispute 
settlem ent system . 
6.11.   The representative of South Africa , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  wished  to thank  
Guatemala for its statement regarding the proposal on Appellate Body  appointments of which the 
African Group were co-sponsors. The African Group  welcome d the Lao PDR as a new co-sponsor. 
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 their M inisters at MC12. 
The fact that the  Appellate Body could not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The African Group 
urged the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they 
arose, so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system. This would maintain the security, 
credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading system. The critical mass of Members asking 
for the launch of the selection process es indicate d the importance that Members  attach ed to having 
a fully functioning dispute set tlement system. The African Group  stood ready to engage 
constructively in the ongoing discussions on D S reform in order to restore a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system by 2024 , as agreed at MC12.   
6.12.   The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associate d with the 
statement made  by Guatemala on the proposal for Appellate Body  appointments and thank ed 
Guatemala for its statement  made  on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa  also support ed the 
statement made  on behalf of the Africa n Group. South Africa  reiterate d its previous statements WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 30 - 
  regarding the urgency of this matter. When Members agreed to bind themselves to the Uruguay 
Round Agreements, this was on the understanding that their rights would be protected b y 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 struck in Montevideo and t he continued dysfunctionality of the 
Appellate Body  undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperil ed the 
multilateral 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  
welcome d the commitment undertaken  by Members  during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system  acces sible to all Members by 2024. This commitment was reiterated 
during the recent informal discussions on WTO reform. S outh Africa  would  work actively and 
constructively with all Members to find a lasting solution to the current impasse that would  ensure 
an effective dispute settlement system.  
6.13.   The representative of Switzerland  said that, f irst, Switzerland  wished to point out that it firmly 
condemned the Russian military invasion against Ukraine. This aggression was a blatant violation of 
international law , in particular, the principle of territorial integrit y. Switzerland called upon Russia to 
de-escalate the situation, to seize hostilities and to immediately withdraw its troops from the 
Ukrainian territory. Switzerland called on all actors to respect intern ational law,  in particular 
humanitarian international  law. Regarding Agenda item 6, Switzerland wished to thank Guatemala 
and wished  to refer to the statements  made on this matter  at previous DSB meeting s. Switzerland  
asked all Members to continue to engag e constructively so that Members could have a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system by 202 4. Switzerland would continue to engage 
constructively and hoped that concrete solutions would be discussed in the coming weeks and 
months.  
6.14.   The represe ntative of Norway  said that Norway fully supported the joint proposal presented 
by Guatemala, to launch the process for appointments of Appellate Body  members , which was  now 
supported by 130 Members. Norway welcomed Lao PDR as a new co -sponsor. A fully functioning 
dispute settlement system was critical to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system and 
ensure  the credibility of the WTO as a rules -based organization was a top priority for Norway . Norway 
referred to i ts previous statements made under this Agenda item, and wished to use this opportunity 
to remind Members of the MPIA. The MPIA was open to WTO Members to join for as long as the 
Appellate Body remained unable to function . Since  the work of the DSB directly  concerned the 
upholding of the rules -based international order, Norway also found it pertinent to address the 
situation in Ukraine. Norway continued to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on 
Ukraine. Russia 's war of aggression against Ukra ine constituted a gross violation of international law 
and the rules -based system, which underpinned the work of the WTO and the DSB . 
6.15.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand joined other Members in 
condemning unequivocally the unprovoked an d unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Those 
actions were egregious and unlawful. The act of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law, as was the targeting of civilians. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory 
had deep impl ications for global peace, security, and economic stability. New Zealand continued to 
stand firmly alongside Ukrainian partners and against any steps by Russia that risked a further 
escalation in this conflict. In relation to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterated its support for the 
proposal now co -sponsored alongside 130 other WTO Members, and referred to its previous 
statements  on this matter.  New Zealand  joined others in welcoming Lao PDR as the latest Member 
to join the proposal as a co -sponsor. Reform of the dispute settlement system to ensure a fully and 
well-functioning system accessible to all Members remained a priority for New Zealand. As noted 
under the previous Agenda item, New Zealand continued to urge all Members to engage in the 
ongoing dis cussions constructively and pragmatically in order to advance this critical work in line 
with the direction of their Ministers. New Zealand also took this opportunity to invite those Members 
who had not yet joined the MPIA to consider doing so. The MPIA pr ovided an avenue to safeguard 
access to an appeal level of review while Members worked collectively towards reform in order to 
restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system . 
6.16.   The representative of Myanmar  said that Myanmar t hanked the representative of Guatemala  
for presenting the  proposal  on behalf of the many co -sponsor s. Myanmar continually support ed his 
constructive work. Myanmar warmly welcom ed its ASEAN member , Lao PDR,  as a co-sponsor of the 
proposal. Myanmar w ished to ask all Member s to work together and in a construct ive manner  as WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 31 - 
  requested  by Minister s at MC12 in order to have a fully-functioning  dispute settlement system  by 
2024. 
6.17.   The representative of the Philippines  said that the Philippines join ed Guatemala in presenting  
the AB proposal and thank ed Mr Marco Molina for announcing the decision of Lao PDR to join the 
proposal  as a new co -sponsor. The Philippines also supported  the statement to be made  by Indonesia 
on behalf of ASEAN  commending Lao PDR for joining as a co-sponsor of the proposal, bringing the 
number of co-sponsors to 130 Members . Like Lao PDR, the Philippines was not a frequent user of 
the WTO dispute settlement system , however, the Philippines  remain ed of the firm belief in the val ue 
of a stable and predictable rules -based multilateral trading system, which was to the benefit of 
smaller trading partners, both developing Members  and LDCs. The continuing growth in the number 
of Members sponsoring the AB proposal demonstrate d the stron g commitment and hope of the 
majority of  the Membership to address one of the biggest challenges currently faced by  the WTO . 
That foremost challenge was to resolve or restore confidence in the WTO and the multilateral trading 
system  by reviving the two -tier dispute  settlement system, thereby upholding the rule of law 
principles governing the international legal trading order.  
6.18.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statement , 
which Singapore strongly support ed. Singapore warmly welcome d its fellow ASEAN member , 
Lao PDR, as the latest co -sponsor of this proposal and wished to be a ssociate d with the ASEAN 
statement to be made  by Indonesia. Singapore wished to reiterat e its previous statements regarding 
the urgency and importance  of the proposal as well as Singapore 's commitment to participate 
constructively in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform, and its encouragement to 
Members to join the MPIA as an interim solution that would preserv e their right to appeal while the 
Appellate Body impasse persist ed. 
6.19.   The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam wished  to echo other Members who thank ed 
Guatemala and other co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment 
process of Appellate Body members . At the present  meeting , Viet Nam warmly welcome d its ASEAN  
fellow , Lao PDR,  as a new co-sponsor of the proposal. Viet Nam reiterate d its support for launching 
the appointment process as soon as possible and ho ped more Members would join the proposal.  
6.20.   The representative of Indonesia , speaking on behalf of ASEAN, said that , at the outset, ASEAN  
thank ed Guatemala for its statement on behalf of all co -sponsors. In that regard, with Lao PDR 
joining as the 130th co-sponsor of the A B proposal, now all ASEAN member States ha d become part 
of this important call to address the current Appellate Body impasse. Th at reflect ed a high degree 
of confidence that ASEAN place d in the existence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system in 
the WTO with the two -tier system at its core. Their trust in a rule s-based multilateral trading system 
was further strengthened  in the ASEAN Charter as well as the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 
2025.  The 2023  ASEAN chairmanship theme was "ASEAN Matters: Epicentrum of Growth ". And for 
ASEAN to grow the WTO matter ed, particularly its role in providing security and predictability  of a 
rules-based multilateral trading system. That key feature, unfortunately, ha d been impaired with 
the inability of the Appellate Body to hear new case s since 2019. Therefore, ASEAN believe d that 
solving the Appellate Body impasse should be the utmost priority of all Members, notwithstanding 
the ongoing dispute settlement reform discussion. With that in mind, all ASEAN member States 
wished  to reiterate their readiness and openness to engage with other Members, as well as their 
lasting commitment to have  a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024, as mandated by the Ministers.  
6.21.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia warmly welcome d Lao PDR  as a new 
co-sponsor  of the AB proposal, which clearly show ed how important it was, for ASEAN member 
States, to have a fully functioning dispute settlement system in the WTO with the two -tier system 
at its core. The Appellate Body ha d been the cornerstone of the dispute settlement mech anism of 
the WTO. It play ed a vital role in ensuring the effective and impartial resolution of trade disputes, 
promoting stability, predictability, and transparency in global trade. However, with the Appellate 
Body currently at an impasse, Members ' ability  to enforce and uphold the rules -based system was 
severely compromised. Indonesia firmly believe d that a functioning Appellate Body was essential to 
maintain the credibility of the WTO to the public. However, the current crisis hamper ed the timely 
resoluti on of disputes and pose d a risk to the relevance of the WTO. Members could not afford to let 
that crisis persist, as it undermine d the very foundation of their institution. Therefore, while 
reiterating its statements made at  the previous DSB  meetings, Indonesia believe d that, as set out  
in the DSU, vacancies should  be filled as they ar ose. This effort should be de linked  from the ongoing WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 32 - 
  discussion s on dispute settlement reform. Finally,  Indonesia encourage d more Members to join as 
co-sponsors  of this important proposal . 
6.22.   The representative of Australia  said that, f irstly, Australia wished to note that it condemn ed 
in the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Australia 
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organi zations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia  stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to Agenda item  6, Australia would  be brief, noting the remarks it made under the previous 
item. Australia simply wished  to emphasize that Members were  now in the second half of 2023 and 
time was running out to ach ieve their shared objective of having a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. As Members  worked towards their goal, 
Australia wished to encourage Members to join the MPIA, which serve d to highlight the valu e 
Members place d on a binding, enforceable dispute settlement system. Australia was open to 
discussing the MPIA with any interested delegation.  
6.23.   The representative of Moldova  said that Moldova thank ed Guatemala for presenting th e joint 
AB proposal and  welco med Lao PDR as a new co-sponsor . Moldova also wished to take th is 
opportunity to reiterate Moldova 's support for this proposal . Referring to the statements  related to 
the impact of the  ongoing war initiated by Russia against Ukraine, f irst, Moldova wished to thank 
Ukraine f or its updat e on this matter.  In that context, Moldova joined the previous speakers who  
support ed Ukraine. Moldova firmly condemn ed this war, including the recent Russi an barbaric 
attacks on the Odesa region, including on the port of Rani on the Danube River, which was in close 
proximity to Moldova and which was essential for transporting goods, particularly grains, in the 
Danube River . Russia 's attack on this port was not an issue that only jeopardi zed Ukraine, Ukraine 's 
supply , it was an attack with direct economic effects on Moldova and its neighbouring countries. The 
purpose was to disorganize river and railway transport from the neighbouring countries of Ukraine. 
In that context, Moldova wished to take this opportunity and to reiterate that Moldova would continue 
to support Ukraine by providing transit solidarity lanes as well as through creating transit corridors 
aimed to ensure a smooth trade of cereals. That being said, Moldova reiterate d its call on Russia to 
stop this war and withdraw immediately, completely and unconditionally all of its military forces from 
the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recogni zed borders.  
6.24.   The representative of Japan  said that, first, Japan wished to touch upon the situation in 
Ukraine. Japan strongly condemn ed Russi an aggression against Ukraine and its attacks against 
civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. On 17 July 2023, Russia unilaterally terminated it s 
participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Japan condemn ed Russia for the decision and strongly 
urged Russia to return to the international framework. Japan strongly urge d Russia once again to 
stop the aggression and withdraw its forces from the te rritory of Ukraine within its internationally 
recognized borders immediately. Japan would also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of 
imposing severe sanctions against Russia and providing robust support to Ukraine, in cooperation 
with the internati onal community. Turning to Agenda item 6, Japan refer red to its statements made 
at the previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan absolutely share d the sense of 
urgency for the reform of the dispute settlement system and ha d set as the utmo st priority to achieve 
a reform . For that purpose, Japan welcome d the discussions in the informal DS reform initiative 
currently led by Members . With a view to having a fully and well -functioning DS system by 2024, as 
agreed at MC12, Japan wished  to work a ctively and constructively with all WTO Members.  
6.25.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for Appellate Body appointments. The United Kingdom welcome d Lao PDR 's 
decision to join this proposal alongside all other ASEAN  members and continue d to encourage all 
remaining WTO Members to join and support. The United Kingdom  remain ed committed to reaching 
a resolution to the impasse. A fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system was in the 
interest of all Members who value d a predictable rules -based trading system. The United Kingdom 
continue d its active participation in the Member -led discussions on dispute settlement reform and 
was encouraged by the progress ma de during the informal process  and as Members move d towards 
drafting, the United Kingdom reiterate d its support for solutions that would command consensus 
between all WTO Members. As Members talked  about complying with and strengthening international 
law, Russia continued  to violat e international law through President Putin 's outrageous and illegal 
war against sovereign democratic Ukraine. This was not a political disagreement, but rather  it was  
a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d committ ed to uphold  under the UN Charter, 
as well as to the purpose and principles of this Organization.  Russia 's actions directly impede d the WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 33 - 
  ability of Ukraine to fully participate in the work of this institution and the global trading system. 
President Putin had to urgently stop his attack on the Ukrainian people , withdraw from Ukraine and 
restore regional and global stability. The United Kingdom st ood with Ukraine and would continue to 
do everything it could to support Ukraine in the face of this assault on it s sovereignty and territorial 
integrity.  
6.26.   The representative of Canada  said that, f irst of all, Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustified 
and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin. Canada wished  to express its solidarity with 
the people of Ukrai ne. President  Putin's plans to "annex" Ukrainian territory were devoid of 
legitimacy and would never be recognized. Those hostile acts had been ongoing for over a year. 
Those acts were a flagrant violation of international law and of the rules -based intern ational system. 
Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to 
be free to determine their own future. Canada urge d Russia to immediately cease all acts of hostility 
and provocation against Ukraine and to withdraw from the country its military and intermediary 
forces. Concerning the appointment of Appellate  Body members, for over three years, the 
Appellate  Body had no longer had a quorum and had been unable to hear new appeals. Canada 
suppor ted the statement made by Guatemala at the present meeting  on behalf of the sponsors and 
wished to  thank  Guatemala for its statement.  Canada welcomed Lao PDR as a new co -sponsor of 
the proposal and invited those WTO  Members that had not yet endorsed the proposal to consider 
joining the 130  Members that were calling for the selection process to be launched. The critical mass 
of WTO  Members that supported that proposal was a clear testim ony to the importance they all 
accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate  Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. 
Canada recalled  the Membership 's objective, which was to have a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system that was accessible to all by 2024. Canada would  continue to actively participate 
in solution -oriented discussions on the current situation. In short, Canada 's priority remain ed to find 
a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the United  States. Meanwhile, the 
Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) gave access to binding dispute 
settlement that include d the possibility to appeal in disputes among its participants. Fifty -three 
WTO Members had now joined the MPIA. Members had  witnessed the positive impact of that 
Arrangement in the context of several disputes. Canada  invite d all WTO  Members to consider joining 
the MPIA, and Canada was  available to discuss the details of the MPIA with interested Members.  
6.27.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that the grave concerns expressed in its 
statement under item 2 exactly reflect ed why a fully -functioning, two -tiered appeal mechanism was 
so important for a small delegation like Hong Kong, China, to pursue its legitimate rights and honour 
its obligations under the WTO covered agreements. It remain ed Hong Kong, China 's position that 
any issue of law in dispute s between two parties should b e independently and objectively adjudicated 
by a fully -functioning, two -tiered DS system. Hong Kong, China trusted that Members had recall ed 
that avoidance or prevention of power dynamics meddling in trade dispute resolution was one of the 
core values Memb ers share d, under the current DS system, and in moving along the informal DS 
reform process. Hong Kong, China wished  to reiterate its concern about the Appellate Body impasse 
and its commitment to work constructively with other Members in the informal DS p rocess underway, 
on the basis that there should be no erosion of Members ' legitimate rights and obligations. Last but 
not least, Hong Kong, China wished to thank Mr Marco Molina of Guatemala for his work in the 
informal DS reform process in his personal ca pacity, as well as his work in keeping this issue of 
Appellate Body  appointments alive. Hong Kong, China also wished to welcome Lao PDR in joining 
this proposal.  
6.28.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico welcome d Lao PDR as a new co -sponsor  and 
wished to thank Guatemala for presenting the proposal, which Mexico endorse d. There was a growing 
number of proponents which show ed that Members were committed to resolving this issue as soon 
as possible. As previously stated , Mexico  would continue to enga ge with Members in order to  have 
a dispute settlement system  which was fully and well -functioning and accessible  to all Members  by 
2024.  
6.29.   The representative of Brunei Darussalam  said that Brunei Darussalam  thank ed and support ed 
the statement made by Guatema la on behalf of the co-sponsors and wished to be associat ed with 
the ASEAN  statement made by Indonesia to warmly welcome Lao PDR,  their fellow ASEAN member 
State , as the latest co-sponsor of the AB proposal . Brunei Darussalam reiterate d the importance and 
urgency of restoring the two -tiered dispute settlement system by filling the vacancies in the 
Appellate Body. Since  Brunei Darussalam  had not made a statement  under  Agenda item 5, it wished 
to express its support  for the ongoing informa l discussions on the WTO dispute settlement reform WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 34 - 
  facilitated by Mr Marco Molina  and thank ed him for his regular updates and tireless dedication in 
coordinating the process in an effort to deliver the MC12 Ministerial Mandate to have  a fully  
functioning d ispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 . As highlighted by  other 
small delegations , Brunei Darussalam  appreciate d if virtual participation could  be considered  in this 
process  to allow effective participation by Members.  
6.30.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea echoed other delegations and  reaffirm ed its 
consistent position on Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected.  Korea, as a responsible member o f the international 
community, support ed various diplomatic and economic efforts of the international community to 
contribute to the end of the aggression and the restoration of peace, and would more actively 
participate in those efforts. As for the item a t hand, Korea thank ed Guatemala and the co-sponsors 
for their continuous support in favour  of launching the Appellate  Body selection process.  Korea also 
warmly welcome d Lao PDR as the latest co -sponsor. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint 
proposal a nd refer red to its previous statements on this issue.  The WTO dispute settlement system 
had enhanced the security and predictability of the rule s-based multilateral  trading system in 
response to the needs of WTO Members.  With that in mind, Korea welcome d Member s' continuous 
interests in ongoing discussion s on dispute settlement reform and very much appreciate d all the 
efforts to materialize the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document  in achiev ing a fully  and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.  
6.31.   The representative of Lao PDR  said that Lao PDR recogni zed that the WTO was facing  the 
institutional challenges that had to be addressed in a systematic, transparent and inclusive manner 
to ensure a well-functioning WTO in all its pillars , as well as promoting inclusive growth and 
development. Furthermore,  Lao PDR was of the view that the reforms had to  preserve the core 
values and fundamental principles  of the WTO  and consider the interests  of all Members, including 
developing countries and least developed countries. Lao PDR t hanked Guatemala  for its 
comprehensive statement , which it supported.  In that connection, Lao PDR was pleased to become 
the 130th Member  to co-sponsor Guatemala 's propo sal contained  in WT/DS B/W/609/Rev.25 , to 
urgently fill  the appointments  of Appellate Body members in order to restore a full, inclusive and 
transparent functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system by 2024. Including its oversight and 
monitoring system to be more inclusive, effective and transparent.  
6.32.   The representative of Türkiye  said that Türkiye  wished to thank Guatemala for presenting the 
AB proposal. Türkiye  warmly welcome d Lao PDR as the latest co -sponsor. Türkiye  had already stated 
its concern s related to the Appellate Body deadlock under  Agenda item 5  and, at this point, Türkiye  
only wished to refer to that statement.  
6.33.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made on this matter  and thank ed all Members that co -sponsored the proposal 
to launch the AB appointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer 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  AB 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. Th at task was a shared responsibility of WTO Members. In order to achieve th at objective, 
the European Union agree d that a meaningful reform was needed. The European Union  support ed a 
reform that preserve d the core features of the dispute settlement system. As mentioned under  the 
previous Agenda item, the European Union treated very seriously the commitment, made at MC12, 
of having a fully and well -functioning system by 2024 and it w as committed to continuing to work 
towards meeting that goal. In the meantime, the European Union was concerned with the impact 
that the absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system had on the international trading 
order. In that context, the M PIA ha d been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system among its participants and to support rules -based trade. The 
MPIA was open to any WTO Member, and the European Union  invite d any WTO Member to joi n as 
long a solution to th at impasse ha d not been found.  The 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 inter national order. It 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 -defence was 
unwavering. The European Unio n 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 WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 35 - 
  international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring fu ll 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people.  
6.34.   The representative of Pakistan  said that  Pakistan wished to welcome Lao PDR as the 
130th co-sponsor of the AB proposal, which Pakistan believe d represented  an important perspective 
with respect to the achieving the mandate of Paragraph  4 of MC12 Outcome  Document . 
6.35.   The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala, on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that , for the sixty -eighth occasion, M embers had not been able to launch the selection 
processes for AB vacancies . Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their duties as Members of the 
WTO. Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated  that "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". Ongoing 
conve rsations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body 
from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their obligation under the DSU to 
fill vacancies as they arise. Guatemala noted with deep concern t hat 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 . 
6.36.   The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their statements. He said that , 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.  
6.37.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
7  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE RESOLUTION OF 
DISPUTES INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES AND  INDIA  
7.1.  The Chairman  said that, as announced at the outset of the present meeting, he would now 
invite the representative of the United States to make a statement under "Other Business" to provide 
an update on  the resolution of disputes involving the United States and India.  
7.2.  The representative of the United States , speaking under "Other Business", said that the United 
States was pleased to speak  to the recent notifications to the DSB of mutually agreed solutions 
reached between the United States and India in six WTO disputes between the parties. The parties 
had notified mutually agreed solutions in the following proceedings: US – Carbon Steel (In dia) 
(DS436); India – Solar Cells (DS456); US – Renewable Energy (DS510); India – Export Related 
Measures  (DS541) ; US – Steel and Aluminium Products (India)  (DS547); and India — Additional 
Duties (US) (DS585). In June 2023, on the occasion of the Official State Visit by Indian Prime Minister 
Narendra Modi, President Biden and Prime Minister Modi had held successful meetings that served 
as a catalyst for the United States and India 's efforts to resolve outstanding issues, including with 
respect to W TO matters. Article 3.7 of the DSU provided: "The aim of the dispute settlement 
mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute. A solution mutually acceptable to the parties 
to a dispute and consistent with the covered agreements is clearly to be preferred." In the light of 
actions taken by the parties since those disputes had been filed, the outermost over 10 years ago, 
the United States and India had determined that it was appropriate to terminate those disputes at 
the present time. The United St ates thanked the various adjudicators, and Secretariat staff that had 
assisted them, for their efforts with the parties over many years. The settlement of those six disputes 
reinforced that the dispute settlement system had to help parties work together to  find a solution. 
More litigation did not mean more resolutions . 
7.3.  The representative of India said that India was pleased to address the Dispute Settlement Body 
at the present meeting and report on the recent notifications of mutually agreed solutions reach ed 
between India and the United States in  the mentioned six disputes. The principle of seeking a 
mutually acceptable solution remain ed central to the dispute resolution process. It underscore d the 
importance of seeking amicable resolutions rather than reso rting to prolonged litigation.  It also 
demonstrate d the strength of the multilateral system, and prove d that the multilateral system 
retain ed the space for a pragmatic approach reflecting evolving bilateral realities. India and the 
United States  had been able to build on the understanding between the Indian Minister of Commerce , 
Shri. Piyush Goel,  and the US Trade Representative Amb. Katherine Tai,  during the Third India-US 
Trade Policy Forum in January 2023, and facilitate d the successful conversations between Prime 
Minister Modi and President Biden, during the former 's State Visit to the U nited States in June  2023. 
In particular, India appreciate d the structure of the WTO 's current dispute resolution system, which WT/DSB/M/48 2 
- 36 - 
  had provided a robust structure for litigation, as well as the flexibility for a Member -driven alternate 
resolution. This system  contribute d to the overall stability and predictability of the global trading 
system.  
7.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________