RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 77 
12 May 2023 
(23-3357) Page: 1/27 
Dispute Settlement Body  
31 March 2023  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 31 MARCH 20231 
 Chair person : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely. The Chair  recalled a few technical 
instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegates. She said that i f a Member was unable 
to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform the 
Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would pro ceed to the next Agenda 
item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a 
technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the request that it b e read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting; (ii) the 
Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 
DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, that matter had 
been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each 
interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the present meeting,  she wished to inform 
delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, she continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoing ; (iii) the representative of the United 
States  said that , under "Other Business ", the United States  wished to make a statement regarding 
the dispute DS 597 on: "United States – Origin Marking Requirement ". 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ .........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..............  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2 PROPOSED NOMINATION S FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL 
AND NON -GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
3 DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
4 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; 
BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN 
REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; CO LOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE 
D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE 
EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA 
BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG , CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; 
ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; 
MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; 
MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; 
NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NI CARAGUA; 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 SEPARAT E CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO;  TUNISIA; 
TÜRKIYE; UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.23)  ................................ ................................ ............................  17 
5 STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE 
DISPUTE: "UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT" (HONG KONG, CHINA) 
(DS597)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  24 
6 ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .......................  26 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 37) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of th e US Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.212) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.175) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.59) 
 
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.51) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.46 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.46) 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairperson wis hed to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also remind ed 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the re petition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 37) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 37, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States provided a status report in 
this dispute on 20 March 2023, in accordance wi th 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 th e 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. 212) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 212, 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 20 March 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and said that it wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and  marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 75) 
1.10.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 175, 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 E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 23 March 2023, th e 
Commission referred to the Appeal Committee a draft decision renewing the authorisation of 
genetically modified cotton 281 -24-236 x 3006 -210-23. The vote resulted in "no opinion" . It was 
now for the Commission to decide on the adoption of the draft measu re. Furthermore , on 
31 March  2023, the Commission w ould present to the Standing Committee three draft decisions 
authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified  Maize2 and 3 decisions renewing the 
authoris ation for the placing on the market of genetically modified  soybeans.3  
 
2 GM maize MON 87429, MON 95379 and DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS -40278 -9 and its  
sub-combinations . 
3 GM soybeans MON 87701, MON 87701  × MON 89788  and 40 -3-2. WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The Unite d States continued to engage with the EU on 
these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the EU could 
address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States had described these 
problems in detail and noted i ts concerns with the EU's biotech approval procedures monthly in the 
DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations, including through their most recent 
consultations in October. The United States again requested that the EU move to issue final  approvals 
for all products that had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety 
Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee. 
The United States noted the European Union's continue d issuance of approvals on a rolling basis and 
appreciated that approach .  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential  
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 59) 
1.14.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 59, 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 20 March 2023, in a ccordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6  May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Kor ea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With that action, the United States had 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on opti ons to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute . 
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures in this 
dispute.  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada wishe d to recall its statement made under this 
Agenda item at the 2 7 January 2023 DSB meeting .  
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 51) 
1.19.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 51, which contained the 
status report by th e United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United Stat es had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 20 March 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 at the present meeting . It was disappointing that more than four 
years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement 
the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  therefore once again urge d the WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 5 - 
 
  United States to hono ur its obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity without further 
delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal  products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 46 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 46) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 46 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 46, 
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 provided a status report pursuant  to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia had taken  note of both complainants ' interests  expressed  at the 
previous meeting. Indonesia continued to reiterate that significant corrective actions, in relation to 
this dispute, ha d been carried out. Indonesia  also remain ed fully committed to implementing the 
rulings and recommendations of the DSB in this dispute. In this regard, measure 18 concerning 
self-sufficiency , regulated in relevant laws , had been entirely revoked. With regard to measures 1  
to 17, Indonesia had also made significant amendments to the relevant Minist ry Regulations through 
removal of the measures at issue, including : harvest period restriction, import realization 
requirements, six –month harvest requirement, reference price, and domestic purchas e requirement. 
Indonesia also wishe d to highlight that  the Commodity Balance mechanism serve d as a tool to 
support the government 's effort in providing comprehensive, detailed, and accurate data, aimed at 
transparently streamlining the permit approval proc ess. Th at mechanism was integrated with the 
national database system to provide business certainty without generating restriction s on trade. 
Further, the system integration provided by th at mechanism ha d been a major improvement in 
facilitat ing trade. To conclude, Indonesia look ed forward to continu ing working with New Zealand 
and the United States to solve these disputes . 
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance w ith the DSB's recommendations. As the United States had expressed 
before, it would still appreciate further clarity on: which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect the regi mes; and how 
Indonesia expected the new commodity balance mechanism to, in its words, simplify and streamline 
the permit process and provide for greater business certainty. The United States would also 
appreciate further clarity on whether Indonesia was pl anning on making any adjustments to the 
operation of its import licensing process to ensure that the significant delays in issuing permits for 
the first half of 2023 are not repeated. The United States remained willing to confer and work with 
Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and New Zealand  remain ed 
concerned about a number of measures. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional 
information provided in recent meetings. New Zealand  continue d to assess th at information and 
would revert with any additional questions on th ose and other matters. Like the United States, New 
Zealand would also appreciate understanding better the regulations that presently  underpin ned 
Indonesia 's import licensing regimes, as well as any regulations tha t would be  forthcoming. New 
Zealand look ed forward to further constructive engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding 
issues.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2  PROPOSED NOMINATION S FOR TH E INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/71 5)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/71 5 which contained 10 new 
nomination s proposed by Türkiye  for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. She proposed that the DSB 
approve the name s contained in document WT/DSB/W/71 5. 
2.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
3  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that under this Agenda item she wished to refer to informal discussions 
on DS reform, which she underst ood were currently  ongoing amongst delegations at the technical 
level. She then invite d the representative of Guatemala, who was conve ning those inf ormal 
discussions on DS reform , to make a statement.  
3.2.  The representative of Guatemala , Mr. Marco Tulio Molina,  made  the following statement:  
"At the outset, I would like to thank you, Madame Chairperson, for including this item 
on the Agenda of today 's meeting. Secondly, I would like to note that I am making this 
statement in my personal capacity and under my own responsibility. Many colleagues 
in the room have known me for many years. For those that do not, allow me to introduce 
myself: my name is Marco Molina. I am the Deputy Permanent Representative of 
Guatemala to the WTO, where I am also responsible for dispute settlement. In the 
context of this agenda item, the views expressed are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect the positions of the Government of Guatemala, unless I explicitly indicate it. On 
2 February 2023, a group of Members asked me to convene informal meetings with the 
objective o f having a substance -based discussion to find practical solutions to the 
concerns identified by Members, aiming at contributing to the fulfilment  of the mandate 
that we received from Ministers in June 2022 to – and I quote – "conduct discussions 
with the v iew to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all Members by 2024 ". End of quote.4 After some reflection and considering my own 
personal experience, I agreed to convene the informal meetings on Dispute Settlement 
reform under the following two conditions: first, that a critical mass of Members would 
support the discussions; and second, that the discussions would be based on the 
principles of transparency and inclusiveness. Between 6 and 12 February, to assess 
Members ' support for the informal process, I had over 40 bilateral meetings with 
delegates and regional coordinators representing more than 130 WTO Members. I 
invested a lot of time and energy in designing a process, and the purpose of these 
meetings was to seek the  views of delegates about such a process as well as my role in 
leading the discussions. In those meetings, I proposed that the informal process would 
be governed by the principles of transparency and inclusiveness; presented a tentative 
work calendar; and explained the format and the modalities of a potential informal 
process on Dispute Settlement Reform. I am grateful for the positive comments and 
constructive observations, particularly from small delegations. Based on those 
comments and observations, I ad justed both, the format, and the modalities of the 
informal process. Let me be clear, even if the process that the delegation of the United 
States undertook last year was useful, this process is not a continuation of the US -led 
process. This process of inf ormal discussions emerged, organically, and I am grateful 
and honoured by the support that crystalized around it. This process belongs to all WTO 
Members, and it is our responsibility, as representatives from our governments here in 
Geneva, to work constructively and to deliver results. We need to do things differently 
if we want different results. On 17 February, I convened the first informal open -ended 
meeting. I personally sent the invitation to all WTO Members both, through the Missions ' 
general e -mail addresses and to the available e -mail addresses of dispute settlement 
delegates. Room E was full on the morning of 17 February, evidence of the high interest 
that delegations attribute to the Dispute Settlement reform process. During the first 
open-ended meeting, I explained that the informal discussions on Dispute Settlemen t 
 
4 Paragraph 4 of the Outcome Document of the 12th Ministerial Conference ( WT/MIN(22)/24 and 
WT/L/1135 ) WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 7 - 
 
  reform would be open to all WTO Members; and that they would be inclusive and 
transparent vis-à-vis all WTO Members. I also indicated that we would follow a 
bottom -up, solution -oriented, non -attributed, and focused approach and that all 
decisions would b e taken in plenary sessions open to the participation of all WTO 
Members. And I proposed the work calendar. The informal discussion process is 
designed to ensure that all WTO Members receive all the information, including 
proposals and the reports that I p repare after the small -group meetings. Members also 
have ample opportunities to express their views and participate meaningfully in informal 
discussions. The process is also innovative: I created an online template for the 
submission of proposals, where Me mbers can identify their concerns, propose the 
respective solutions, and explain the rationale. The template facilitates the identification 
of the substantive issues and provides a common format, which, in turn, fosters more 
focused conversations. So far, Members have submitted 70 proposals. I have 
catalogued all these initial proposals in a table, which using a traffic -light system, is 
attributed the colour red. All proposals are distributed to all Members. Another 
innovation is that we start the informal discussions on the proposals in small groups. 
Each cluster of small -group meetings offers four options to accommodate the availability 
of delegates. The four groups discuss all the proposals on the table. To ensure active 
participation and useful exchanges , we have used Room C with a capacity of 19 
delegates around the table. I send the invitations to the small group meetings to all 
WTO Members, offering four different dates and times. Interested delegates need to 
sign-up for one of the four small group mee tings, by completing an online form that 
asks delegates for their name, delegation, email address and their availabilities. 
Completing the online form takes less than one minute and allows me to compose the 
small groups on a first -come -first-served basis. To ensure fairness and allow everyone 
to participate, each delegation can only participate in one of the four small group 
meetings.  This is particularly important for small delegations that cannot participate in 
more than one meeting, when compared with de legations that have the resources to 
attend two or more small meetings. So far, 45 delegates have expressed their interest 
and have participated in the small group meetings. I would like to highlight that the 
purpose of the small group meetings is to start  the substantive discussions on the merits 
of the proposals on the table. Experience shows that during the small group discussions, 
delegates engage in useful exchanges and acquire a better understanding of the views 
of colleagues. In turn, this allows del egates to come better prepared for the informal 
open-ended meetings and offer innovative solutions and alternatives. In sum, this 
sequence of meetings and the focus on substance makes the meeting more fruitful and 
efficient. It is also important to note th at nothing is agreed or will be decided in 
small  group meetings. Agreements on any of the ideas discussed can only be reached 
at the open -ended meetings. After the first cluster of small group discussions, the 
informal  open ended meeting serve as a platfor m to share alternatives and concerns. 
Based on the discussions at the open -ended meeting, I asked colleagues to coordinate 
follow -up sessions to further refine ideas and proposals that would be transferred to a 
"yellow " table. I would like to take this opp ortunity to sincerely thank my colleagues 
from Australia, Brazil, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Chinese Taipei, for volunteering 
to coordinate the follow -up sessions after the first cluster of open -ended informal 
meetings. The follow -up sessions started this week and are also open to all Members. 
Coming back to the yellow table, I would like to note that the proposals contained 
therein are the result of a collective exercise and remain work in progress. The ideas 
are not attributed to any Member because t he discussions are very dynamic, and the 
proposals are in constant evolution. Non -attribution promotes a more collaborative 
environment, where we can advance towards the common objective of finding solutions. 
I would like to stress that the outcome of the follow -up sessions has the status of 
"proposals " and, by no means, are agreed or pre -agreed arrangements. Certainly, we 
need to start somewhere and everything needs and shall be discussed at the plenary 
sessions where delegates will have another opportunit y to express their views and 
observations, before agreeing to any potential solution. Now, let me brief you about the 
calendar of meetings, timeframes, and expectations of this process. All WTO Members 
received a calendar of meetings that started on 8 Marc h and will take place until the 
first week of July. The expectation is to include agreed solutions in a "green " table, 
before the summer break. All solutions to be included in the green table will serve as 
the basis to start a drafting exercise, when we co me back after the Summer break. I 
will ask delegates to volunteer to contribute to the drafting process, that will take place WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 8 - 
 
  on the basis of the agreed solutions, terms, and conditions included in the green table. 
The drafting exercise should be concluded  before the end -of-year closure of the WTO. 
Having agreed on the solutions, principles, terms and conditions, the elaboration of legal 
texts should not take long. All the draft texts would be discussed and agreed in plenary 
sessions, open to all WTO Member s. I am aware that some delegations, particularly 
those with capacity constraints, find that the calendar is too dense. I agree. I also come 
from a small delegation with capacity constraints and convening the informal meetings 
on Dispute Settlement Reform is an additional duty to my responsibilities at the 
Permanent Mission. Furthermore, I hold many more bilateral meetings that are not 
visible in the calendar of meetings. I am making every human possible effort to keep 
small delegations briefed when they ar e not in a position to participate in a meeting; 
and I try to respond as soon as possible to requests from all Members. As a result, I 
have more than 20 meetings with delegations weekly, in addition to those reflected in 
the calendar. Having said that, it is important to note that the number of meetings 
proposed in the calendar is not my personal preference, but a response to an evident 
fact: we do not have much time, if we want to deliver a result and ensure that we have 
a fully and well -functioning disput e settlement system accessible to all Members by 
2024. The Dispute Settlement Reform is unique in many ways. We all are pursuing the 
same objective, but we all have different views on how to achieve the reform. This is 
normal, this is an international orga nization. To reconcile our different interests and 
opinions, we need the collaboration, commitment, flexibility, and hard work of all 
delegations. The solution will not magically appear, nor will it be found at the last 
minute. And let me be absolutely cle ar: The plan, as delineated, is indeed very 
ambitious. If you consider the importance, complexity, and quantity of issues that we 
are discussing, I am not even sure whether the meetings that I have proposed will 
suffice to achieve the objective. The substa ntive progress that we make now, during 
the initial discussions, together with the flexibility that Members will need to show to 
reconcile different interests and concerns will mark the pace and influence our ability to 
deliver results. Rest assured, that whenever I find it feasible, I try to accommodate the 
requests of delegations or try to find alternatives to address the different concerns about 
process. But remember, form follows substance. This process, although very well 
structured, remains "informal ". And we need to start the conversations somewhere and 
somehow, and sooner rather than later. Before concluding my report, I would like to 
take the opportunity to thank my dispute settlement colleagues for their engagement 
in the informal conversations; th eir commitment and hard work; and, above all, for their 
openness and constructive and creative thinking. There is too much at stake. The 
dispute settlement system is of utmost importance to this Organization and its 
Members. I can anticipate that this will  be a bumpy ride, but I am confident that if we 
continue working in a cooperative and constructive manner, we will arrive safely and 
happily to our destination. " 
3.3.  The representative of India said that the current informal discussions ha d a context and a 
background. They were the continuation in the third phase of the US -initiated and US -led informal 
discussions on DSU reform. The discussions in this phase were based on the list of 12 issues that 
the U nited States had crystallized at the end of phase two. Ind ia had actively participated in the first 
two phases of th at process and had expressed a strong preference to have the third phase of the 
process formalized and multilaterali zed under the leadership of the DSB Chair, with clear and 
transparent reporting to the Membership. However, in the interest of expediency and practicality, 
India had  accepted the continuation of an informal process. It was understood that the informality 
of the process was at its core. It was that informality which enabled India to continue to participate 
in a process , which was not Member -driven or consensus -based in various aspects.  It was in t hat 
context that India urge d that reporting on this process, wh ile welcome, should clearly maintain the 
informality that was present in the rest of the system. Formalized  reporting, as Members  had seen 
at the present meeting , had systemic implications for processes and functions of WTO bodies in 
other negotiating trac ks. India requested that further reporting be done strictly in the informal mode 
and not be listed and minuted  as a DSB Agenda item. India believe d that there were several ways 
to ensure a balance of informality and transparency, such as through informal t ransparency meetings 
called by the volunteer convener. India noted that the various aspects of the process had been  
described by the volunteer convener. India believe d that this was not the correct forum to discuss 
this and that that discussion should take place in an informal mode.  However, India wished  to place 
on record that a discussion around reporting was a lively subject of debate at the plenary meetings. 
There were several countries that expressed  unease with this matter being placed  as a separate WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 9 - 
 
  item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  There had been  suggestions that this  matter  may be 
placed  in various other categories. The re were also suggestions that reports on this matter  should 
be done in an informal mode. India was made to understand by the volunteer convener that the 
timeline of the reporting was likely to be at least after two or three months , until the discussions 
had taken some sort of shape and form. The discussion on placing  this matter as an item on the 
DSB Agenda  was a crucial issue , which was discussed at a breakaway meeting and was not brought 
back to the plenary. India hoped that these issues w ould be taken into account in the informal 
process  and would  remain informal to be resolved at the delegate and technical level. India hoped 
that these considerations w ould be balanced as Members worked towards fulfilling the mandate of 
MC12. Members  were all united  in their desire to ensure that the mandate was fulfilled. However, i n 
fulfilling th at mandate, Members  should have  a system which was equitable and accessible, not just 
in theory, but in a meaningful way, when it c ame to the delegations on the ground.  
3.4.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , commend ed the Chair  
of the DSB  for inclusion of this Agenda  item as well as for the efforts of the entire Membership to 
find a consensual outcome on DSU reform. The African Group  support ed improving the proceedings 
of ongoing discussions and Members  should , to the extent possible, ensure that they clarify how the 
informal discussion s should  feed into the deliberative functions of the DSB , on one hand , and ensure 
inclusiveness, transparency , and the participation of all delegations , on the other hand.  It was crucial 
to emphasize the importance of formalizing and multilateralizing the DSU reform discussions to fulfil  
the mandate in para graph  4 of the Outcome Document. Having this Agenda item  would ensure that 
all relevant issues were brought to the table and discussed comprehensively. This w ould not only 
enhance the transparency and inclusiveness of the process , but also foster a more collaborative and 
constructive approach towards reforming th e mechanism. It was also essential to ensure that any 
future proceedings of the informal process follow a clear mandate from the DSB. Additionally, the 
reporting mechanism, frequency of meetings, and configurations should be approved by the DSB to 
ensure t hat the process remain ed transparent and inclusive. Furthermore, the DSB had to  set the 
parameters and frequency of the reporting mechanism. The DSB should also consider reporting on 
the outcome of the discussions under this Agenda item to the G eneral Council in subsequent 
meetings.  The African Group  reiterate d its support and constructive engagement in this process 
going forward. The African Group  encourage d that the Member -driven nature of this process was 
safeguarded, as transparency in every aspect of t his stage w ould encourage trust building, stimulate 
participation , and guarantee inclusiveness. This was key to any consensus building. The African 
Group , therefore , encourage d that the various meetings in small groups and plenary formats be 
opened for rem ote participation of Members so as to fulfil the requirement of transparency and 
inclusiveness in the WTO by enabling wider participation of small developing country members. 
Finally, the African Group  reiterate d its commitment to arriving at a multilaterally accepted outcome . 
It was therefore pertinent  to have clarity on the format for the integration of this process into the 
DSB, having regard to Members ' rights and obligations in both process and substance.  
3.5.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation  took note of 
Mr. Molina's report regarding ongoing informal discussions that touch ed upon certain aspects of 
dispute settlement reform. Certain points raised by India and Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, 
resonate d with the Russian Federation . The current  discussion s had not been formali zed and 
therefore , being an informal process with a  limited number of participants , was not in a position to 
produce consensus -based result. The Russian Federat ion had consistently support ed the idea to start 
discussions on dispute settlement reform in a formal mode, as agreed by WTO Members at MC12. 
That was the only process that could bring Members  to a meaningful result supported by every 
Member. Such formal process could serve as a guarantee of transparency and inclusivity. Russia 
called upon all Members to launch such a process , as agreed at MC12 , in order to urgently restore  a 
fully functioning dispu te settlement system.  
3.6.  The representative of Indonesia  said that during MC12, Ministers ha d already committed to 
achiev ing a fully operational , well-functioning and accessible WTO dispute settlement system by 
2024. For Indonesia, t his mean t two things: firs t, solving the ongoing Appellate Body impasse 
through Appellate Body appointment s, now supported by  three quarters  of WTO Members; and 
second, continuation of the discussion  to address challenges and concerns regarding  the dispute 
settlement system through  the informal DS reform discussion . From the very beginning, since the 
early discussion s, Indonesia, along with other interested Members , had participated and engaged in 
good faith. The discussion  demonstrated  what was important to Members and why it matter ed. That 
include d the importance of having a two -tier dispute settlement system, a view shared by many 
Members. Now that Members had  entered another phase of the discussion , while Indonesia 's WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 10 - 
 
  intention was to have the discussion  formalized, Indonesia  saw the value in having  informal 
discussion  led by a facilitator , and to have regular report ing to the DSB, in a format to be decided 
by Members. This would strike the right balance between an informal and formal setting. With that 
in mind, Indonesia  believed that it was important that even though the current discussion s were 
informal in nature, Members  shall continue to uphold the M ember -driven, transparent , and 
consensu s-based  nature of the discussion s. Indonesia remain ed committed to participat ing actively 
in the ongoing discussion s 
3.7.  The representative of Cambodia , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked Guatemala for 
the statement. Before turning  to this Agenda item, the LDC Group wished  to note that the LDC 
submissi on on reform , JOB/GC/ 223/Rev.1 , was request ing that annotated agendas be provided for 
all meetings.  The LDC Group hoped that for any meetings, where new items and proposals  were 
before the DSB, annotated agendas  be provided.  That would help LDCs and other small delegations 
prepare and participate effectively in the meetings.  The LDC Group  underst ood that this Agenda 
item: "Discussions Concerning D S Reform ", was related to the discussions  mandated under 
paragraph  4 of the MC12 Outcome Document , as agreed by all Ministers . While the LDC Group 
appreciate d that some delegations may have been holding consultations, which was permitted in the 
WTO and was common practice, it was important that such discussions were also properly covered 
in the DSB , to be  in line with the mandate of paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document , and 
there was a deadline by next year for having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all members in place.  
3.8.  In that regard, the LDC Group  drew Member 's attention to the LDC Group's  submissions on 
reform submitted  in 2019 (JOB/GC/223 ) and 2022 (JOB/GC/223 /Rev.1 ) contain ing specific views on 
restoring  the Appellate Body and the two -tier dispute settlement structure , which was a cardinal 
part of the WTO foun dational pillars. The submission urged Members to: (i) resolve the impasse on 
the Appellate Body through the nomination of its members at the earliest possible  time; (ii) in any  
further discussions on Appellate Body reform , avoid creating rules and procedures that impose 
administrative burdens and additional complexity that would affect potential LDC parties or third 
parties in disputes; and (iii) at the request of an LDC Member involved in a WTO dispute, and 
pursuant to Artic le 27.2 of the DSU, ensure that the Secretariat was able to provide legal advice and 
assistance to that LDC Member during each stage of a dispute settlement proceeding, including 
additional flexibilities and resources for LDCs. The LDC Group's contribution  was with respect to their 
current status as LDCs, but they were  looking to future graduation where they would  participate in 
the development and maintenance of a two -tier system for dispute settlement, agreed under a 
multilateral consensus -based approach.  The system had to  be operationally accessible to all 
Members, with necessary support for LDCs and developing countries . The LDG Group  also felt that 
the issue under the next Agenda item was important to include in the discussions  contemplated 
under paragr aph 4 of the MC 12 Outcome Document.   
3.9.  The representative of Panama  said that Panama support ed any efforts that would contribute to 
fulfilling the mandate in paragraph 4 of the Outcome  Document. Panama  support ed the inclusion of 
this item  on the Agenda of the present meeting.  Speaking a s Head of Delegation, and in his own 
personal capacity, the representative  of Panama  thank ed Mr. Molina for his report and for his efforts 
for very skilfully coordinating the informal process.  Panama  had full confidence in his ability to lead 
these discussions among Members in a transparent and inclusive manner, with a view to formulati ng 
concrete proposals that the participants in this informal process c ould submit in the relevant 
multilateral processes when they were initiated. Members  needed to be clear as to what this process 
was and was not. It was an effort  undertaken  by Members in their individual capacity, in which they 
had invited everyone to participate. It was not an infor mal process such as the one often s een in 
WTO bodies, where Members request ed the Chair to hold consultations as part of their official duties. 
This distinction meant that this process was not the same as t he processes in other WTO bodies and 
was not as fo rmal as even official informal processes.  It was independent from any body, the idea 
being for Members to jointly formulate proposals that c ould be used as input for eventual multilateral 
processes , which it was  hoped would be initiated soon. The report un der this Agenda item was 
appropriate, insofar as any Member would report on events outside the WTO that were relevant to 
Members' work at the WTO. Panama w ould continue to participate actively in this process.  
3.10.   The representative of Bangladesh  said that his delegation wished to be associated with the 
statement  made  by Cambodia on behalf of the LDC Group.  Bangladesh recalled that i n paragraph 4 
of the MC12 Outcome Document, Ministers recognize d the importance and urgency of addressing 
challenges and concern s regarding the dispute settlement system , including the Appellate Body , and WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 11 - 
 
  commit ted to conduct ing discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. The commitment in paragraph 4 of the MC12 
outcome document was clearly to conduct discussions to have a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system, and not precisely dispute settlement  reform.  Bangladesh  did not see any 
document reference or the name of any reques ting delegation  requesting the inclusion of this item  
on the Agenda of the present meeting , which was titled: "Discussion Concerning DS Reform ". 
Bangladesh  wished to know how  this item  had been placed on the Agenda. The inclusive nature of 
conducting focused discussions was clearly articulated by the Ministers. Therefore, it was pertinent 
to ask who should guide the discussions: the DSB Chair or an appointed facilitator ; or a volunteer  
in their  private  effort s, as des cribed by Panama.  Bangladesh respected  Members' informal 
discussions and their inputs  as well as  the necessity of those inputs. However,  Bangladesh was of 
the view that such discussions had to  be conducted through multilateral processes. Suggestions and 
inputs from individual Member s or group s of Members should  be the basis for such discussions. 
Bangladesh  therefore wished to understand how and when such discussions w ould be integrated in 
the multilateral process.  Bangladesh  strongly believe d that process a nd substance were equally 
important in t his context. It was  also vital that LDCs ' voices had to  be heard and accommodated in 
the decision -making process.  The LDC Group 's submission  (JOB/GC/223/Rev.1 ) provide d specific 
views on restoring the Appellate Body and the two -tier dispute settlement structure. Bangladesh  
consider ed this to be a cardinal part of the WTO foundational pillars.  Bangladesh  also request ed to 
resolve the Appellate Body  impasse  through the nomination of its members at the earliest possible 
time. In Bangladesh's  understanding, this  was a key step for a fully functional dispute settlement  
system.  The delegation of Bangladesh st ood ready to engage in constrictive discussion s on thi s 
matter.  
3.11.   The representative of Honduras  said that , for Honduras, having a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system was of paramount importance. In this regard, Honduras welcome d the report 
submitted by the representative of Guatemala,  Mr. Molina, who, in his personal capacity, ha d 
brought Members together and guided them in a process that was transparent, inclusive and, above 
all, open to all Members. Honduras  also welcome d the commitment and availability shown by the 
Members that were participating con structively in the process. As a small delegation, it was a 
challenge to participate fully in th at process, yet resolving this matter promptly was of interest to 
each and every Member of the WTO.  
3.12.   The representative of Argentina  said that Argentina wished t o thank the facilitator for his 
report, work , and dedication. Argentina was  also grateful to all Members for their efforts in this 
regard. Argentina ha d participated constructively in the informal discussions on dispute settlement 
system reform, and ha d given its views and made comments on the topics proposed for discussion. 
Argentina was  ready to continue this collective exercise. Argentina consider ed that the work and 
discussions should be focused, first and foremost, on what was necessary  to resolve the existing 
problems, after which they should address the system's shortcomings and the improvements that 
might add value to it. Argentina w ould continue t o constructively engage in these discussions with 
a view to ensuring a fully functioning system as soon as possible.  
3.13.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand welcome d the report on the process 
on dispute settlement reform that was underway. Reform of the dispute settlement system to ensure 
a fully and well -functioning system accessible to all Members remain ed a priority for New Zealand. 
New Zealand  also wished to join Members in thanking Mr. Molina  for his efforts in shepherding 
Members in th is process, all of which ha d been done in his personal capacity and  had required a 
large amount of organi zational work. New Zealand welcome d the inclusive and transparent spirit in 
which meetings ha d been organi zed, and look ed forward to the continued cons tructive and pragmatic 
engagement of all Members in the work ahead.  
3.14.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished  to thank Mr . Molina for the information he 
had shared with Members at the present  meeting . Overall, Brazil had  been pleased with the level of 
engagement shown by delegations  and with the depth of the debate that ha d taken  place so far. 
The process ha d enabled substantive, frank, in -depth discussions, while at the same time ensuring 
that all Members c ould participa te and safeguarding transparency. Members should  not forget that, 
at MC12, as some delegations had mentioned at the present  meeting , Ministers  had recognized "the 
importance and urgency " of addressing challenges and concerns with respect to the dispute 
settlement system, and committed "to conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". This was Members'  
ultimate goal, and no small task.  Brazil look ed forward to continued engagement with all Members WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 12 - 
 
  as they prepa red the ground for text -based negotiations that m ight take them to the goal established 
by their Ministers.  
3.15.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore welcome d Mr. Molina 's report on the 
ongoing informal discussions on DS reform. Th ose discussions were part of Members ' collective 
effort s to work towards the MC12 mandate to have a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system by 2024. Singapore  sincerely thank ed Mr. Molina for his tireless efforts to shepherd this 
process and ensure that it was inclusive and transparent by organizing meetings that were open to 
all Members and providing regular updates through a variety of means, which included keeping his 
door open for consultations at all times. Singapore  looked forward to the continued constructive 
engagement of every Member in this important process.  
3.16.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway w ished  to join other  delegations  in thanking 
Mr. Molina  for his personal  efforts in organizing and structuring the informal meetings on dispute 
settlement reform, which  no doubt require d great personal sacrifice on his part. Norway  welcome d 
the inclusive and transparent spirit with which meetings ha d been organi zed, including the high 
degree of flexibility for delegations , and look ed forward to the continu ed constructive and pragmatic 
engagement of all Members in the work ahead. Norway  also welcome d the report at the present  
meeting on the progress of the ongoing informal process. To ensure a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was a top priority for Norway and all Members 
had to  do their utmost to deliver on the commitments made at MC12.  
3.17.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland welcome d and support ed the launch 
of a new phase of informal discussions on dispute settlement reform, led by the facilitator, 
Mr. Molina.  Having a fully operational dispute settlement system by 2024, as  set out  in the Outcome 
Document of MC12  was of the highest priority. The discussions on dispute settlement reform ha d 
become more intensive over the previous  months and weeks, and it was indeed a challenge for 
smaller delegations, including Switzerland . However, Members ha d many issues and proposals to 
discuss, and  very little time left. Switzerland wished to  thank Mr. Molina for his efforts and his time . 
He had set up an efficient, transparent , and solution -oriented process and ha d demonstrated great 
flexibility to enable Members'  participation. The topics were numerous and the discussions were 
dense  – Switzerland  welcome d the work in small groups that were a prerequisite to any multilateral 
discussions. Switzerland  hoped that the good and constructive discussions that ha d taken place so 
far would continue and lead Members  closer to their shared goal.  
3.18.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that  the United Kingdom thank ed the 
representativ e of Guatemala for his update on discussions concerning dispute settlement reform and 
for his tremendous personal efforts in coordinating meetings to discuss th at important work. The 
United Kingdom strongly support ed those ongoing discussions. They were inclusive and transparent, 
with open discussions which Members ha d constructively and enthusiastically participated in. This 
work and the ambitious timetable was vital if Members were  to deliver against the objective set by 
Ministers at MC12 to achieve a ful ly and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024.  The United Kingdom  welcome d Members ' continued engagement in this process 
and thank ed Mr. Molina . 
3.19.   The representative of Türkiye  said that  Türkiye appreciate d the opportunity to share its 
reflections over the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform, including those referred in 
the report by the facilitator. Türkiye  thank ed Mr. Molina  for his much -appreciated efforts. Like others, 
Türkiye was of the view that the informal meetings ha d provided a platform where various proposals 
had been discussed with all of their possible implications on the overall functioning of the dispute 
settlement , to which Türkiye attache d utmost importance as  a common asset of the WTO 
Membership and a building block of the multilateral trading system. Türkiye believe d that the third 
stage , which they had  been living through , would be one where Members w ould be dealing  with 
more concrete proposals in the DS reform efforts so that they could proceed swiftly to the next 
phase. As Members were aware,  the DS reform was aimed to be finalized in the course of the WTO 
Ministerial Conference to be held in February 2024 , and Türkiye e valuate d that substantial progress 
was required to be made within a certain schedule. As one of the active participants of th at process, 
the primary goal of Türkiye was to ensure that the two -tier multilateral dispute settlement system 
and the binding natu re of the Appellate Body 's decisions could be maintained. Otherwise, a 
fundamental problem on the fulfilment of the DS reform promises would be created and this negative 
effect would definitely have implications for the proper functioning of the rule s-based multilateral 
dispute resolution system.  Türkiye also note d that it anticipate d that the impediments encountered WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 13 - 
 
  in the appointment of the Appellate Body members w ould soon be resolved and the Appellate Body 
would be able to conduct its substantive functi ons as a key component of the dispute settlement 
system. Türkiye also expect ed that the informal meetings w ould soon be formalized under the 
leadership of the DSB or any other standing body to be agreed upon mutually , and that this reporting 
process concer ning DS reform w ould be on the agenda of upcoming meetings.  
3.20.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada w ished  to sincerely thank Mr . Molina  for his 
personal efforts to organize and structure the informal meetings on dispute settlement reform. 
Canada note d that all WTO Members were able to attend and participate in the meetings held as 
part of th ose discussions. The ambitious pace of the meeti ngs was directly proportional to the 
urgency of the task at hand. Members had to  do everything in their power to deliver the goods in 
terms of the goal that Ministers had set at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference. Canada  consider ed 
that the process ha d been set up in a clear, transparent , and inclusive way. Canada appreciate d the 
additional efforts made by Mr . Molina to provide WTO Members with regular updates through a 
variety of means. Canada  welcome d the level of commitment shown by WTO Members in th at 
process. Having a fully operational and well -functioning dispute settlement system that was 
accessible to all was of the utmost importance. Members  had to  make progress in th at direction. 
This was truly in the interest of all Members.  
3.21.   The representative of Colombia  thanked Mr. Molina  for his  report. Colombia wished  to express 
its keen support for this informal discussion process and the reports delivered in this forum. Colombia 
also wishe d to express its keen support for the leadership provided by Mr. Molina , who ha d shown 
unwavering commitment to organizing and structuring informal meetings on WTO dispute settlement 
system reform. The process and work undertaken by Mr. Molina  had been clear, transparent and 
inclusive for all WTO Members that ha d wante d to participate and that ha d taken the time to do so. 
It should be noted that when they had been unable to keep up with the packed meeting schedule, 
Mr. Molina ha d always been available, whatever the time of day, to explain what had happened at a 
meeting and to listen to what  delegations were  unable to say because they had not been present. 
From a substantive viewpoint, the technical progress made and shared ideas ha d also been very 
positive.  Reports on progress made in this forum were valuable and enhance d transparency. Th e 
process should move ahead as much as it possibly c ould, and Members  should maintain it, promote 
it and strengthen it in the run -up to the Ministerial. Having a functional dispute settlement system 
accessible to all was vital for th e WTO , and for this reason Colombia  fully support ed the ongoing 
process. The alternative  – i.e. maintaining the status quo  – was worse: a state of limbo, uncertainty , 
and "might makes right".  The process belong ed to all Members , regardless of how it started, and it 
was in the interests of everyone to see it through to the end. Colombia was  committed to working 
tirelessly with all Members to ensure that this objective was met in time and in an effective manner.  
3.22.   The representative  of China  said that, l ike others, China wished to express its sincere 
appreciation to Mr. Molina  for his comprehensive report at th e present  meeting and, more 
importantly , the tremendous efforts he had made starting from the commencement of phase 3 
discuss ions, including exploring ways to make the process transparent and inclusive. China  
underst ood the concerns raised by some Members, in particular the intense schedule which ma de it 
challenging  for small developing Members to effectively follow the discussi ons, and China was  willing 
to work with Members to finetun e the already -good organization of the discussion , bearing in mind 
the urgency of the task ahead of them as well as the fast -approaching deadline. In spite of the 
various challenges and difficulties  Members were  encountering, China was  glad to witness that all 
Members were seriously engaging with each other and conducting frank and solution -oriented 
discussions. It was China's  sincere hope that th at positive momentum and collaborative atmosphere 
could be maintained, and Members could continue focusing on core issues with open and pragmatic 
spirits, so that the options for addressing various concerns could be narrowed down before the 
summer break , as expected. China w ould work constructively with all Members with a view to having 
a fully and well -functioning dispute settlem ent system accessible to all Members by 2024.  
3.23.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China w ished  to express its 
appreciation towards  constructive discussions undertaken under the informal process, as part of the 
efforts to meet Ministers' mandate set out in the MC12 Outcome Document , to have a well and  fully 
functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. While Hong Kong, China  
agree d that the informal process should be institutionali zed at an appropriate junct ure, and it would 
better be sooner than later, Hong Kong, China  welcome d any form of constructive discussion prior 
to that and leading to that.  Hong Kong, China  noted that, while it remain ed an informal process, all 
the meetings and sessions convened thus far were open to all Members, and Hong Kong, China WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 14 - 
 
  appreciate d the opportunities to have candid exchanges with other Members on the different issues. 
On a personal level, the representative of Hong, China  wished  to express her heartfelt appreciation 
for the tireless efforts, professionalism and devotion of Mr. Molina  in the process.  
3.24.   The representative of Peru said that Peru appreciate d the factual report made by the 
representative of Guatemala, Mr. Molina , and wish ed to place on record its support and appreciation 
for his tremendous efforts in coordinating and conducting the informal discussions which were being 
carried out with the sole objective of advancing towards the fulfilment of the mandate that Members 
had given themselves to have a fully operational dispute settlement system that function ed properly 
and was accessible to all by 2024. If Members  really want ed to fulfil the mandate, then they needed 
to sit down and talk in a transparent, inclusive, constructive, and solut ion-oriented manner, which 
was how Peru believe d the informal discussions were being conducted.  Peru participate d in good 
faith in th ose efforts because the issue at hand was not just any issue, it was a matter of the highest 
priority for many Members, including Peru. Along th ose lines, Peru reiterate d its support and 
confidence in this informal process and its willingness to continue participating in th ose meetings.  
3.25.   The representative of Australia  said that Australia welcome d the ongoing inform al dispute 
settlement reform discussions. Australia  joined other Members in thanking Mr . Molina for agreeing 
to take forward this important work, and for his report at the present meeting . Australia ha d found 
the current phase to be open, inclusive, transp arent and Member -driven, noting that these 
discussions were open to all Members. Australia  acknowledge d the concerns raised about the 
timetable and agree d that it was ambitious, but Members had to remember that they had  a clear 
mandate to deliver a fully  functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. Their priority should be 
to work together to narrow the issues for discussion and get ready  for text -based negotiations later 
in 2023 . Australia  believe d that  the current process w ould help them achieve th ose aims. 
3.26.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan appreciate d Mr. Molina's  comprehensive report, 
his tireless efforts and tremendous contribution to the process.  Japan absolutely shared a sense of 
urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system, and for that purpose Japan strongly welcomed 
and supported the process, which enabled Members to make frank, deep, and comprehensive 
discussions on reform. Japan was prepared to  contribute constructively to the discussion with the 
view to moving the process forward.  In that transparent, inclusive, and well -designed process,  Japan 
wished  to work actively and constructively with all WTO Members.  
3.27.   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 E uropean Union  agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. 
The European Union  support ed a reform that would preser ve the core features of the dispute 
settlement system. The European Union  treated very seriously the commitment made at MC12 "to 
conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024 ". It was with that objective in mind, and in a constructive spirit, 
that the European Union had been engaging in the discussions on dispute settlement reform for 
almost a year. The European Union  welcome d the recent change of gear in th ose discussions, which 
currently  relate d to specific reform topics , and thank ed Mr. Molina  for the explanation provided at 
the present  meeting and  all his tireless work  on this matter . The European Union  was keen to see 
discussions continue in a focused and result -oriented manner, with a view to having a well and fully 
functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. Members had  an ambitious schedule in place, but 
they had to  be ambitious if they were to deliver on the MC12 commitment. Indeed, th ose discussions 
had to  pave the way for agreement on dispute settlement reform at MC13. Finally, the European  
Union  wished to underscore that th ose discussions, pursuant to the MC12 outcome document, were 
open to all Members and the European Union  indeed appreciate d the efforts to ensure that the 
process was transparent and inclusive. The European Union  value d the broad participation in 
meetings which contribute d to the quality of the exchanges and enhance d the understanding of the 
positions of Members on particular issues. The European Union  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.  
3.28.   The representative of Moldova  said that  her delegation  wished to join others who thank ed Mr. 
Molina  for the report made in  his personal capacity and transparency  as well as his open-minded, 
constructive and trustful approach towards resolving the DS issue during the ongoing meetings. 
Moldova ha d been closely following this issue since the initiation of the informal discussion s in 202 2 WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 15 - 
 
  led by the U nited States. Moldova supported the new phase of the discussions and the process led 
by Mr. Molina  on DS  reform , which  was currently ongoing. Moldova was  ready to engage and 
support ed constructive, inclusive and open discussions in various formats , having in mind the 
urgency for a multilateral, formal outcome for a fully  functioning DSB before or during MC13 , which 
was fast approaching.  
3.29.   The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailan d welcome d the facilitator 's report  at the 
present  meeting . Thailand  believe d that  reporting to the DSB or other appropriate WTO bodies would 
help foster a better understanding and enhanc e transparency of the process. Thailand remain ed 
committed to partici pating in the ongoing reform discussion s which, in Thailand's  view, were being 
conducted in a transparent, inclusive , constructive , and very friendly manner. Thailand wished  to 
sincerely thank Mr. Molina , the facilitator , for his tireless efforts and all the hours that he  had been 
sacrificing for making all of th at possible. Mr. Molina  had Thailand's full trust and support. Thailand 
looked forward to continuing these efforts to fulfil the MC12 mandate together wi th all Mem bers. 
3.30.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea echo ed others in welcom ing the report by Mr. 
Molina  of Guatemala, and express ed its sincere appreciation for his personal efforts and the 
additional burden he h ad taken on in organizing the informal meeting s in his personal capacity. 
Korea note d that th e process was open and transparent to all Members and thank ed all Members for 
their participation and proactive engagement. Korea recognize d that due to the swift pace of 
meetings, there w ould be capacity cons traints for Members, including Korea . However, considering 
the full calendar of WTO meetings, this was a somewhat common feature among Members where 
they had  to make a choice in where to participate. Members had  also benefited from Mr. Molina 's 
immaculate and accurate reports from small group meetings and conducting of bilateral meetings 
when they found it difficult to participate in person. Korea  believe d that it was imperative to deliver 
on the mandate of para graph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Docume nt, with MC13 swiftly approaching. 
Korea fully appreciate d the inclusive and transparent spirit of t he meetings and look ed forward to 
continued engagement of all parties . Korea w ould also contribute constructively to th e process.  
3.31.   The representative of the  United States  thanked the delegate from Guatemala, speaking in 
his personal capacity, for his report at the present  meeting . The United States intend ed to lead in 
all areas where it could  contribute, including on dispute settlement reform, but achieving 
fundamental reform c ould only happen through a collective, Member -driven process.  Here Members 
were fortunate to have a capable facilitator who ha d volunteered his time and energy to coordinate 
an inclusive Member -driven process. As the U S Minister  had said the previous  week, the United 
States was  not here to dictate.  But the United States  was determined to pursue an interest -based, 
inclusive process  that b rought  in all WTO Members as they worked towards fundamental reform. 
The United States  welcome d the Member -driven nature of the current approach.  The United States 
had been clear from the beginning that the success of dispute settlement reform effor ts depend ed 
on understanding each other 's interests in dispute settlement.  The discussions ha d been guided by 
the interests of Members, with all Members invited to share their interests.  Members were truly 
driving these discussions with the assistance of a  facilitator. The United States  welcome d the 
inclusive and transparent nature of the current approach.  Each Member was invited to every 
meeting, with steps taken to keep all Members apprised of developments, even if they c ould not 
attend each meeting.  The United States  appreciate d the efforts taken.  
3.32.    When the United States heard Members raise concerns like those heard from some 
delegations at the present meeting, the United States wanted to understand  better. The United 
States understood that the concern wa s not a complaint about openness, because everyone was 
invited; the United States understood it was not a complaint about participation, because a majority 
had participated, including Members of all development levels; and the United States understood it 
was not a complaint about inclusiveness because the process included all Members. On the other 
hand, the United States understood the complaint that constraints on time made it difficult for any 
delegate to attend all the meetings; the complaint that diffic ult and complex substantive issues were 
being discussed; and  that constraints on resources continued to pose a high hurdle for certain 
Members across a range of WTO areas. The United States' request was that Members continue to 
help all Members understand what needed to be done to meet their interests in meaningful 
participation. The constructive participation of developing country Members, including India, and 
LDCs, had been critical to the success of the process over the previous year. To the extent that 
Members had presented options for a different kind of process, Members could have that 
conversation in the appropriate setting. But the United States' priority remained to continue the 
current process, and the United States looked forward to further work w ith all delegations. In closing, WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 16 - 
 
  the United States wanted to be clear: it was committed to working with Members on achieving 
fundamental reform, so that the WTO dispute settlement system served the interests of all Members, 
and the United States recognized  the engagement of all willing Members to date . 
3.33.   The representative of Chile said that Chile also welcome d the report on the informal 
discussions concerning DS reform and was particularly grateful to Mr. Molina from  Guatemala for all 
the work and effort he had  invested. It was in Chile's interest to have a fully functioning dispute 
settlement mechanism, and it was Chile's  understanding that the vast majority of Members believe d 
that this should be a priority in the sh ort term, especially considering the mandate given at the most 
recent Ministerial Conference. For th at reason, Chile believe d that Members'  efforts should be 
focused on these objectives.  
3.34.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that Chinese Taipei wished to join other Members 
in sincerely thanking Mr. Molina  for his hard work and comprehensive report. Chinese Taipei  wished  
to express its solid support  for the ongoing informal discussions with regard to DS reform. Chinese 
Taipei was  impressed by  the remarka ble commitment and constructive approaches, demonstrated 
by all participants, throughout  these discussions. Chinese Taipei  looked forward to continuing to 
work closely with Members on this critical topic to have a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members. Notably, Chinese Taipei  appreciate d the transparent 
and inclusive discussion process, which  aimed to strike a balance between efficiency and due process 
in such critical yet urgent discussions.   
3.35.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that, a s stated by Panama,  all efforts which 
enabled  Members  to meet the MC12 mandate were welcome. Th e Dominican Republic therefore 
wished to  thank Mr. Molina  for his report and his enormous efforts and professional work. The 
Dominican Republic  underst ood that although this wa s an informal process, it was constructive and 
open to everyone. The Dominican R epublic  hoped that this c ould lead to a fully  functioning DSB , as 
mandated  by Ministers at MC12.  Members could  count on the Dominican Republic's  support.  
3.36.   The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine wished  to thank Mr. Molina  for his work, 
personal contribution, organization, availability , and openness throughout the process and 
discussions. Ukraine was also thankful to the Members for the work done related to reform and 
sincerely hope d that Members w ould continue th at work as their highest priority. Ukraine continue d 
to be a strong supporter of the multilateral trading system and would  put forward  every effort to 
maintain th at position  and be engaged in the process. Th at work should be based on agreed and  
mutual  solutions . The outcome c ould only be fruitful under circumstances of direct, joint work of 
Members,  reflecting  their common desire and shared aim.  
3.37.   The DSB took note of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 17 - 
 
  4  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; 
CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; 
CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; 
DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; 
ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; 
GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; 
ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; 
MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; 
MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW 
ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; 
PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; 
RWANDA ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA 
LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; 
TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; U NITED KINGDOM ; U RUGUAY ; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 23) 
4.1.  The Chairperson  said that this it em was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations. She drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
4.2.  The representa tive of Guatemala , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.23, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 12 September 2022 , to launch the selection proces ses for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 127 Members, Guatemala wished to 
state the following.  The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a 
common interest  in the functioning of the  Appellate Body  and, more generally, in the functioning  of 
dispute settlement system. The joint proposal  sought to: (i) start seven selection p rocesses; (ii)  to 
establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of candidacies; 
and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 60  days after the 
deadline for nominations of candidat es. The proponents invited and urged all Members to support 
this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems.  
4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, before beginning, the United States would 
like to reca ll that the United States and other Members had jointly issued document WT/GC/244, 
"The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of 
Belarus",  which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of international l aw, 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 the heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their a rmed forces, and Leaders. Turning to the intervention under this 
statement, 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 
dispute settlement system. A well -functioning dispute settlement system supported WTO Members 
in the resolution of their disputes in an efficient and transparent m anner, and in doing so limited the 
needless complexity and interpretive overreach that had characterized dispute settlement in recent 
years. The first step towards reform was to better understand the interests of all Members in WTO 
dispute settlement. The United States had been engaging with Members to advance that goal and 
looked forward to continued engagement. The United States appreciated the deeply substantive and 
informative discussions over the previous several months. Those informal discussions, whi ch were 
guided by an interest -based approach, reflected a significant departure from the stale conversations 
of previous years. The United States was pleased that delegations trusted in the merits of interest -
based problem solving and took those opportunit ies to speak with one another, rather than at one 
another. Those dialogues enabled delegations to gain a better understanding of each other's 
perspectives on the value of dispute settlement and how that value might be maximized across the 
WTO Membership. T he United States acknowledged that considerable work remained and that 
achieving dispute settlement reform – that is, fundamental reform to meet the needs of all WTO 
Members to the greatest extent possible – would not be easy. But the United States continu ed to 
believe that working collectively towards that goal provided the greatest chance of achieving durable, WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 18 - 
 
  lasting reform. The United States was committed to working towards an improved system and looked 
forward to engaging further with those Members who  also saw value in an improved and reformed 
dispute settlement system that was accessible to all .  
4.4.  The representative of Cambodia , speaking  on behalf of the LDC Group, thank ed Guatemala and 
the co -sponsors for their commitment. With respect to this submission on Appellate Body 
appointment s, the LDC Group was  pleased to inform  delegations  that although  the LDC Group was 
not a co -sponsor of proposal WT/DSB/W/609/R ev.23, a number of LDCs were co -sponsors.  The 
elements in the submission were structurally consistent with the LDC Group views found in its 
submissions  on reform  to the General Council, regarding the Appellate Body crisis.  Therefore, the 
LDC Group  urged Members to conside r this proposal in the context of all proposals put forward to 
address the impasse. The LDC Group also t ook note of the constructive sentiments  expressed  under 
the Agenda item at the 27 February 2023  DSB meeting .  
4.5.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia, as one of the co -sponsors  of the AB 
proposal , wished  to thank the delegation of Guatemala for its statement on behalf of the document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.23 co -sponsors. Cambodia remain ed a steadfast supporter of the multilateral 
trading system and firmly believe d that a WTO with an effective and fully functio ning dispute 
settlement system was indispensable for ensuring predictable, open, and fair trade.  Cambodia 
wishe d to urge all Members to work together in good faith and in a constructive manner , as 
mandated by Ministers at MC12 , including on  the appointment  of Appellate Body  members towards 
achieving a true multilateral solution.  
4.6.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , wished to thank the 
delegation of Guatemala for their statement regarding the proposal on Appellate Body mem ber 
appointments , of which the African Group were  co-sponsors. The African Group reiterate d its support 
for a fully functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members , in accordance 
with the mandate from their Ministers at MC12. The f act that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new 
appeals remain ed a concern. The African Group urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under 
the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose, so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system. This w ould maintain the security, credibility , and predictability of the multilateral trading 
system. The critical mass of Members asking for the launch of the selection process indicate d the 
importance Members attached to having a fully  functioning dispute settlement system for the 
multilateral trading system. Finally, the African Group stood  ready to engage constructively in the 
ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform in order to restore a fully functioning dispute 
settlement s ystem by 2024, as agreed at MC12. The African Group  called on all Members to approach 
those discussions with an open mind so as to find a lasting solution.  
4.7.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed the delegation of Guatemala 
for presen tation of the  AB proposal contained in  document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.23 and wished to 
be associated with  the statement made by Cambodia on behalf of the LDC Group.  Bangladesh  had 
emphasi zed under the previous  Agenda  item the importance of the immediate restora tion of the 
Appellate Body. Bangladesh, along with the listed  Members, was a co -sponsor of the AB proposal, 
which was  request ing the DSB to take a  decision to l aunch the selection process es to fill the vacanc ies 
in the Appellate Body.  Without the A ppellate Body, the dispute settlement  system was not fully  
functional.  If Members were truly respectful of the commitment by their Ministers, as provided in 
paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome  Document , they had to engage in discussions for Appellate Body  
appointment s as a top priority. Bangladesh st ood ready to continue constructive discussions in th at 
regard.  
4.8.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of the 127 co -sponsors. China referred  to its previous statements made on this urgent matter, 
and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. Like others, China  reiterate d its firm 
commitment to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, which ha d proven to 
not only facilitate prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members regardless  of their size 
and power, but also provide d security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. To fulfil 
such objectives, China  believe d that the most urgent  task was to immediat ely launch the selection 
process es and fill the vacancies for the Appellate Body. This was a treaty obligation of all WTO 
Members. No prerequisite should be attached to it. China would continue working constructively with 
all Members in the ongoing discussion s on DS reform with a view to having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system at the earliest  possible  date, as mandated by Ministers 
at MC12. China  called upon a ll Members to engage in th at exercise in good faith and with pragmatic, WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 19 - 
 
  outcome -oriented spirits. Before conclud ing, China also wished  to take this opportunity to encourage 
more Members to join the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement ( MPIA) as a contingent 
measure to safeguard Members'  right to appeal until the Appellate Body was restored.  
4.9.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for its statement and 
for presenting the proposal on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors. The fact that the appointment proposal 
was supported by the majority of WTO Members demonstrate d the importance of the functioning of 
the Appellate Body, through the selection process, that should b e undertaken  without delay. On that 
note, Indonesia also encourage d others to become co -sponsors of th e AB proposal. Indonesia wishe d 
to refer to its statement made at previous DSB meetings on this matter. With that in mind, Indonesia 
remain ed of the view that solving the Appellate Body impasse should be the utmost priority for all 
Members. It was part and parcel of their common effort to have a fully functioning and accessible 
dispute settlement system by 2024. Indeed, all Members share d the view that a we ll-functioning 
dispute settlement system was crucial in order to maintain predictability, certainty, and effectiveness 
of the multilateral trading system . 
4.10.   The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine  thank ed all the Members that ha d 
co-sponsored the AB proposal. Ukraine wished  to stress again that a fully  functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system was core for a rules -based multilateral trading system. Ukraine also wished  to 
make a short statement with regard to the current circumstances in Ukraine. The R ussian war against 
Ukraine was not only an existential threat for Ukraine but also for world trade and Ukraine would  
raise this issue until the complete de -occupation of its sovereign territory within its internationally 
recognized borders . This issue was important for all Members of the WTO because the Russian war 
against Ukraine ha d significantly affected not only Ukraine, but many other countries , through its 
impact  on the global economy, food chains, e nergy crisis, commodity prices , and climate. Ukraine 
was very grateful for all support in these terrifying times and urged Members  to continue to stand 
by Ukraine  with their steadfast support , in unity and strength , for as long as it t ook.  
4.11.   The representat ive of South Africa  said that South Africa  wished to be associate d with the 
statement made  by Guatemala regarding  the proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thank ed 
Guatemala for delivering the statement on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa  also support ed 
the statement made  by Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group. South Africa  reiterate d its previous 
statements regarding the urgency of this matter. When Members agreed to bind themselves to the 
Uruguay Round agreements, it was on the  understanding that their rights would be protected by a 
predictable, binding, rules -based order underpinned by a two -tiered dispute settlement system. The 
assurance that their trade relations would be subject to rules rather than  soft power  was a 
fundamen tal element of the bargain struck in Montevideo and the continued dysfunctionality of the 
Appellate Body undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperilled the 
multilateral trading system. A fully functioning Appellate Body was a top prio rity for reform of the 
WTO and it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. South Africa  
welcome d the commitment by Members undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all  Members by 2024. Th at commitment was reiterated 
during recent informal discussion s on WTO reform. South Africa w ould work actively and 
constructively with all Members to find a lasting solution to the present  impasse that w ould ensure 
an effective dispute  settlement system.  
4.12.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of the co-sponsors and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda item.  
To fill  the Appellate Body vacancies was Members'  collective and unequivocal obligation under the 
DSU. Brazil thus invite d Members who ha d a similar view and were not yet among the co -sponsors, 
to join and support this important proposal. As  previously indicated,  Brazil ha d a keen sense of 
urgency and priority, as set out in the MC12 O utcome Document . Brazil  also fel t the need to enable 
resolution of disputes as long as the present  impasse with the appointment of Appellate Body 
members persist ed. In th at regard, B razil welcome d Japan 's recent decision to join the MPI A, an 
initiative that had now gather ed 53 WTO Members. The Arrangement ha d delivered as envisaged in 
a solid, efficient and reliable fashion. Brazil was  ready to discuss the MPIA with any delegation tha t 
wishe d to learn more about the Arrangement and its functioning.   
4.13.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China recall ed its previous 
statements made under this Agenda  item, and wished to continue to join other Members to reiterate 
its concerns about the Appellate Body impasse, as well as its commitment to work constructively 
with all WTO Members to restore a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 as  WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 20 - 
 
  set out  in the MC12 Outcome Document. Hong Kong, China reiterate d the importance of having a 
two-tiered, binding dispute settlement system within the WTO . Hong Kong, China also wished to add 
that any discussion of, or any outcome from, any dispute settlement  reform shoul d seek to present 
improvements to the system, and not seek to fundamentally undermine it or essentially dismantle 
it.  
4.14.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia continue d to express its support for the joint 
proposal to launch the selection process es to appoint new  Appellate Body members, as set out  in 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.23. Malaysia  thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on behalf of the 
127 Members and support ed the statement made by Guatemala. Malaysia wished  to refer to its 
statements made  at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . Malaysia wishe d to reiterate 
its strong view that the dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body, was most critical 
and require d the urgent attention of all Members. WTO Members  had the responsibility to safeguard 
and preserve the dispute settlement system and Members should not further delay the 
commencement of the selection process es for the AB vacancies. Mala ysia wished  to urge all Members 
to work together towards having a ful ly and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all by 2024 as mandated by Ministers at MC12 . Malaysia  invite d Members to support this proposal 
and to proceed with the appointment of the A ppellate Body  members.  
4.15.   The representative of Singapo re said that  Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statement 
which Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements regarding the 
urgency and importance of this matter. Singapore was committed to participating constructively and 
with an open mind in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform. While the regrettable 
impasse in the appointment of Appellate Body members persist ed, Singapore  encourage d Members 
to join the MPIA as an interim solution that preserve d Members'  right to appeal, until they collectively 
found a durable and lasting solution. In th at regard, Singapore  warmly welcome d Japan 's recent 
decision to join the Arrangement. Singapore, to gether with other MPIA participants, st ood ready to 
engage with any delegation that wishe d to learn more about the Arrangement . 
4.16.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
the launch of the process for appoint ments to the Appellate Body, and referred to its previous 
statements on this issue. The United Kingdom continue d to be seized of the urgency of reaching a 
resolution to the current impasse: achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
was in the interests of all Members that value d an effective multilateral trading system.  The United 
Kingdom was actively participating in the ongoing Member -led discussions on dispute settlement 
reform. The United Kingdom  welcome d the intensity of phase 3 of those discussions. To resolve the 
current impasse, Members would  need to take a pragmatic and dedicated approach to finding 
solutions that c ould command the support of all WTO Members. The United Kingdom call ed on 
Members to continue to prioritise th at work. As Members  discuss ed those issues concerning how 
they ensure d that rules were respected, the United Kingdom  could not sit by and ignore the 
egregious violations of international law and the UN Charter committed by one WTO Member against 
another.  The United Kingdom unreservedly condemn ed Putin's outrageous and illegal war of 
aggression. What happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of the WTO  and matter ed to all 
Members . As well as the direct consequences of Russia 's actions here – impeding the abilit y of 
Ukraine to fully participate in the work of the WTO  and the global trading system – over the previous 
year the U nited Kingdom  and other Members ha d set out, in Committees across the WTO, the 
enormous global impact of Putin 's chosen war. The U nited Kin gdom  and the international community 
had made it clear to President Putin that his attack on the Ukrainian people had to  stop, and that he 
had to withdraw from Ukraine and restore regional and global stability. As the people in Ukraine 
continue d to face re lentless Russian bombardment, the United Kingdom s tood with Ukraine - and 
would  do so for as long as it t ook. 
4.17.   The representative of Peru said that Peru thank ed Guatemala for  the statement  made on 
behalf of the 127 co -sponsors of the proposal, including Peru. The situation of paralysis in which 
Members had  found themselves for more than three  years undermine d day by day the confidence 
and predictability in the international trade system , based on the unrestricted respect of the rules. 
This was because every time Members left  cases without a definitive solution they sent, 
unintentionally and for some, the message that they could  break the rules and that there w ould be 
no consequences. They detracted from the strength of the rules that they had worked so hard to 
adopt and turn ed them, for some, into mere guidelines. Under this  scenario, Members were all 
losers, but perhaps those who los t the most were the developing countries, because they were  
deprived of the possibility of addressing their differences on an equal footing with Members with WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 21 - 
 
  whom they had asymmetrical economic -trade relations. Members no longer ha d a guarantee of the 
preservation of rights and obligations assumed through th ose rules. For the duration of th e impasse 
and in order to preserve the security and predictability of the system, Peru had joined the MPIA, 
which allow ed them, under the text of the DSU, to safeguard their right to binding dispute settlement 
involving two levels of adjudication. Peru also t ook the opportunity to welcome Japan 's recent 
accession to this arrangement and invite d other Members to consider joining the MPIA as well.  
4.18.   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 Ukrainian people. President Putin 's plans to "annex " Ukrainian territory were devoid of legitimacy 
and w ould never be recognized. Th ose hostile acts ha d now continued for more than a year. Th ose 
acts were a flagrant violation of international law and of the rules -based international system. 
Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity had to be respected and the Ukrainian people had to  
be free 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 ha d no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. Canada support ed the 
statement made by Guatemala at the present  meeting  on behalf of the sponsors and thank ed 
Guatemala for taking the floor. Canada  invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the 
proposal to consider joining the 127  Members requesting the launch of the selection process. The 
critical mass of WTO Members t hat support ed the proposal was a clear testimony to the importance 
they all accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement 
system. Canada  recall ed the Membership 's objective, which was to have a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system that was accessible to all by 2024. Canada w ould continue to actively 
participate in solution -oriented discussions on the current situation. In short, Canada's  priority 
remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solut ion for all Members, including the  United States. 
Meanwhile, the MPIA was  the best way to safeguard their rights to binding dispute settlement that 
include d the possibility to appeal in disputes among Members . Canada w ished to take this 
opportunity to cong ratulate Japan on its decision to join the MPIA. Th at additional support sen t a 
positive signal about rules -based trade and a functioning dispute settlement system. Fifty -three WTO 
Members ha d now joined the MPIA. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider  joining the MPIA. 
Canada was available to discuss the details of the MPIA with interested Members.  
4.19.   The representative of Australia  said that  before making its intervention under  this Agenda  
item, Australia wished  to note that it continue d to condemn in the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, 
unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. As Australia  had said before, it continue d to raise 
this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of interna tional law, and the 
fundamental international norms on which organi zations such as the WTO were based. Australia  
continue d to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its 
troops. Turning to Agenda item 4, Australia wished to reiterate that its number one WTO reform 
priority was delivering a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members by 2024, as agreed by Ministers at MC12. A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement 
system was critica l to the ongoing vitality of the rules -based multilateral trading system. It help ed 
ensure that WTO rights and obligations c ould be enforced, regardless of individual Members ' size or 
power. Australia  welcome d ongoing discussions to develop meaningful refo rms to improve the 
dispute settlement system in a way that addresse d Members ' concerns. Australia  looked forward to 
continuing to work constructively with all Members, and call ed on all Members  to remain flexible and 
pragmatic in their approach as they sou ght to deliver on the MC12 mandate. As Members  worked to 
restore a fully functional dispute settlement system, Australia  encourage d all Members to join the 
MPIA as the best interim mechanism for ensuring Members ' rights under WTO Agreements c ould be 
enforc ed and protected. Australia  welcome d Japan joining the MPIA, and was ready to engage with 
any delegation interested in joining.  
4.20.   The representative of Moldova  said that Moldova thank ed Guatemala for presenting the joint 
AB proposal and for including this item on the Agenda  of the present meeting.  Moldova join ed other 
Members and reiterate d the urgent necessity of unblocking the Appellate Body selection process es 
in order to have a viabl e, two -tiered dispute settlement mechanism serving all Members of the WTO.  
Moldova also express ed its support for the ongoing discussions on  dispute settlement  reform , which 
would be  taking place over the coming months. Referring to Russia 's war against Uk raine, Moldova 
wished to be associated with other Members who had condemn ed the war and reiterate d its full 
support for and solidarity with the Ukrainian people who ha d been bravely opposing th at brutal 
aggression for more than one year. Unfortunately, Moldova was the second most affected country WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 22 - 
 
  by th e war from the social, economic, commercial and energy security -related perspective s. Like 
other Members, Moldova would continue to raise this issue  in this committee as well as in other 
committees of the WTO  since Russia 's actions were a blatant violation of international law and of the 
fundamental principles of the multilateral trading system created under the WTO. Moldova strongly 
condemn ed Russia 's war and call ed for an immediate and unconditional stop of th e aggression and 
withdrawal of Russia 's troops from Ukrainian territory immediately.  
4.21.   The representative of Korea  said that, like other Members , Korea reaffirm ed its consistent 
position on the U krainian war that the sovereignty, territorial integrity , and independence of Ukraine 
should be respected. Korea, as a responsible member of the international community, support ed 
various diplomatic and economic efforts of the international community to co ntribute to the end of 
the Ukrainian war and the restoration of peace, and w ould actively participate in those efforts. With 
regard to the item at hand, Korea thank ed Guatemala for its statement and reiterate d its support 
for the joint proposal. Korea also  referred  to its previous statements on this matter . The WTO dispute 
settlement system ha d been a central element in providing security and predictability to the 
multilateral trading system. In th at regard, Korea very much welcome d, and was fully prepared to 
engage in constructive participation , during the pertinent discussions on reform for a durable solution 
to enhance the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system, with the objective of 
accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  
4.22.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union  reiterated its resolute 
condemnation of th e Russian Federation's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violated the UN Charter and disregarded the rules -based international order. It undermined 
international security and stability and  should have  no place in the 21st century. The E uropean 
Union's support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of self -defence 
was unwavering. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression 
and withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia  had to cease actions endangering civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people.  The 
European Union ref erred to its previous statements on this issue and thank ed all Members who ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO 
no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent , and impartial res olution of trade 
disputes. A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial.  That was evidenced by the 
large number of Members co -sponsoring the present proposal. The European Union  believe d that 
restoring a fully functioning dispute settlemen t system and appointing members of the Appellate 
Body was a priority. Th at task was a shared responsibility of WTO Members. In order to achieve th at 
objective, the E uropean 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, including the 
right to appeal review before a standing adjudicative body. As mentioned under  the previous Agenda 
item, the European Union  treated very seriously the comm itment, made at MC12, of having a fully 
functioning system by 2024 and the European Union was  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 functioni ng dispute settlement system was having on the international trading 
order. In that context, the MPIA 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 join  the 
MPIA as long as a solution to this impasse ha d not been found.   
4.23.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand thank ed Guatemala for the statement mad e 
on behalf of the co -sponsors which Thailand  fully support ed. Thailand  referred to its previous 
statements made on this Agenda item.  Restoring a fully functioning two -tiered binding dispute 
settlement system  remain ed Thailand's top priority. While welcoming the reform discussion, Thailand 
did not see the ongoing discussion s standing in  the way of initiating the selection process to fill the 
Appellate Body  vacancies immediately. Thailand reiterate d its commitment to working constr uctively 
with other Members to find a meaningful solution and fulfil the MC12 mandate in a timely manner.  
4.24.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Guatemala and the co -sponsors for 
their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body 
members. Russia reiterated its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. 
He also said that he had  to address certain political declarations made by some WTO Members at 
this meeting. First, Members should keep to the Agenda of the meeting, circulated on 29 March 2023 WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 23 - 
 
  in document WT/DSB/W/716 and adopted, as amended, at the present meeting. The political 
discussions suggested by some WTO Members did not concern any of the issues listed in the agenda. 
Second, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate expressed in different provisions of the DSU. None 
of the political issues raised by some WTO Members was within t he competence of the DSB. Third, 
and ultimately, the WTO was not a political organization and Members shall refrain from trying to 
address the issues in the DSB that were not in the competence of the organization. Russia considered 
that some of the root ca uses of the crisis of the multilateral trading system that Members were  
facing were the actions that blocked the Appellate Body appointments as well as the attempts to 
politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the present meeting. Russia encouraged WTO 
Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and not create new ones, unless any 
WTO Member had an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral trading system further .  
4.25.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway thank ed Guatemala for presenting this joint 
AB proposal, which  Norway fully support ed. A fully functioning dispute settlement system was critical 
to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system and for the credibility of the WTO as a rules -
based organizat ion. Norway referred to its  previous  statements under this Agenda item. Norway  did, 
however, wish  to welcome Japan 's decision to join the MPIA. The Arrangement was open to WTO 
Members to join for as long as the Appellate Body remain ed unable to function fu lly. As the work of 
the DSB directly concern ed the upholding of the rules -based international order, Norway  also f ound 
it pertinent to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's 
egregious military attack on Ukraine. Rus sia's war of aggression against Ukraine constitute d a gross 
violation of international law, the rules -based system which also underpin ned the WTO,  and the work 
of the DSB.  
4.26.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland joi ned other delegations in 
condemning Russia 's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest  possible  terms. Such 
aggression blatantly violate d international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and 
the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland call ed upon Russia to take military 
de-escalation measures, end hostilities , and immediately withdraw its troops from  Ukrainian 
territory. Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international law, in particular international 
humanitarian law. Regarding Agenda item 4, Switzerland wished  to refer t o its statements made on 
this matter at previous DSB meetings. Switzerl and urge d all Members to commit to ensuring a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as set out in the MC12  Outcome Document. 
Switzerland w ould continue to participate constructively in the newly initiated  phase of informal 
discussions and ho ped that concrete solutions c ould be discussed in the coming weeks and months. 
Switzerland also wished to welcome Japan to the MPIA. The MPIA was a pragmatic and effective way 
to preserve Members ' rights until the current  Appellate Body impasse was resolve d. Switzerland  
encourage d all Members to join the MPIA. Switzerland's  priority remain ed, of course, to find a 
multilateral solution that w ould ensure that the dispute settlement system was fully operational.  
4.27.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were egregious and unlawful  – the act of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law, as was the targeting of civilians. In relation to Agenda item 4, New Zealand 
reiterate d its support for the proposal co -sponsored alongside 126 other WTO Members and refer red 
to its previous statements. New Ze aland  urged all Members to engage in discussions constructively 
and pragmatically in order to address this situation as a priority in line with the direction of their 
Ministers. New Zealand also t ook this opportunity to congratulate Japan for its recent no tification to 
join the MPIA, and invite d those Members who ha d not yet joined  the MPIA  to consider doing so. 
The MPIA provide d 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.  
4.28.   The representative of Iceland  said that a fully functional dispute settlement system was 
directly connected to the upholding of the rules -based international order which ha d been seriously 
undermined by the unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. Iceland condemn ed in 
the strongest possible terms Russia 's actions , which violate d international law  and the UN Charter . 
and undermine d international order and laws that the WTO  was based on. Turning  to item 4 of t he 
Agenda, as one of the many co -sponsors of the AB proposal, Iceland was concerned with the 
longstanding lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body. Iceland  welcome d 
Members ' efforts to address discussions on dispute settlement reform and hope d that they w ould be 
resolved with a lasting solution ending the current impasse. Until then,  Iceland  encourage d Members 
to join the MPIA and welcome d Japan 's decision to do so. The MPIA c ould ensure  Members ' access WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 24 - 
 
  to a binding, two -tier and independent dispute settlement system while they worked to restore a 
fully functional dispute settlement system.  
4.29.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan would first touch upon the situation in Ukraine. 
Japan strongly condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine and missile attacks against civilian 
infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urged Russia once again to stop its 
aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine, withi n its internationally recognized 
borders, immediately. Japan would also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of imposing strong 
sanctions on Russia and supporting Ukraine within the international community. Turning to Agenda 
item 4,  Japan refer red to its statements made at previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB 
proposal. Japan ha d set as the utmost priority to achieve a reform that w ould contribute to a 
long-lasting solution to the structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement sy stem. In 
relation to this, Japan welcome d the new step in the informal DS reform discussions currently led 
by Members. With a view to having a fully and well -functioning DS system by 2024, as agreed at 
MC12, Japan wished  to work actively and constructively  with all WTO Members. Japan noted MPIA 
members welcoming Japan to the MPIA and appreciated the ir warm words. As Members were aware , 
Japan had notified its participation in the MPIA in document JOB/DSB/1/ADD.12/Suppl.9, and ha d 
become a member of the MPIA as of 10 March  2023. Japan's  position remain ed unchanged, namely, 
to achieve a long-lasting solution to the DS system. However, Japan hoped that  the MPIA, as an 
interim response until such solution was achieved, w ould enhance the predictability of the WTO DS 
system and contribute to the maintenance of the rules -based multilateral trading system.   
4.30.   The representative of Panama  said that Panama wished to echo the statements made  
concerning  the importance of having fully functional DS system with binding decisions, and to echo 
the concerns expressed about  the current  state of dispute settlement, including the lack of the 
Appellate Body. This matter required an urgent solution. Finally, Panam a thanked Guatemala for 
delivering the statement on behalf of the co -sponsors, and, as a co -sponsor, it supported the AB 
proposal.  
4.31.   The representative of Guatemala , speaking  on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors, regret ted that 
for the sixty -fourth occasion, Members had  not been able to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body. Thus, they continue d to fail fulfilling their duties as Members of th e 
WTO. As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly state d, "vacancies shall be filled as they aris e". Ongoing 
conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body 
from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their obligation under the DSU to 
fill the vacancies as they ar ose. The co-sponsors  noted with deep concern that by failing to launch 
the selection processes at this meeting , the Appellate Body w ould continue to be unable to perform 
its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members.  
4.32.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delega tions for their statements. As in the past, the DSB w ould 
take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected in the 
minutes of the meeting. Once again, she took the opportunity to recall Members ' commitment at 
MC12 to  conduct discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by  2024. With th ose words, she propose d that the DSB take note 
of the statements made under this Agenda item . 
4.33.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
5  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE 
DISPUTE: "UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT " (HONG KONG, CHINA) 
(DS597)  
5.1.  The representative of the United States , speaking under "Other Business", said that the United 
States had previously described the serious consequences of the flawed interpretation of Article XXI 
of the GATT 1994 in the US – Origin Marking Requirement  panel report. As the United States had 
previously explained to the DSB, and as it demonstrated throughout the course of the dispute, the 
challenged actions with respect to Hong Kong, China, were based on well -grounded determinations 
implicating US essential security interests relating to democracy and human rights. At the January 
DSB meeting, Hong Kong, China,  dismissed the circumstances that gave rise to the challenged 
actions as "political issues or domestic affairs" that should not be brought into the WTO. It was not 
the United States that brough t these circumstances to the WTO – it was Hong Kong, China, by WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 25 - 
 
  bringing this dispute on a US security measure. And,  to be clear, the United States did not agree 
that the circumstances in Hong Kong, China, merely involved "political issues or domestic affai rs." 
The US actions at issue, and its presentation of those actions, were grounded in facts and were 
taken to protect US essential security interests. More recent developments confirmed the basis for 
the deep concerns the United States had raised regarding  actions to erode rights and freedoms in 
Hong Kong, China, in direct contravention of obligations under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the 
Sino-British Joint Declaration. Unfortunately, those developments further demonstrated the serious 
errors in the panel's  approach. For example, Hong Kong, China, authorities had continued to arrest 
and prosecute people for peaceful political expression critical of the local and central governments. 
As recently as March 2023, three former members of a group that had organize d annual candlelight 
vigils to mark the 1989 crackdown were found guilty of not complying with a request for information 
under the National Security Law and sentenced to four and a half months in jail.5 In the prior year, 
in 2022, no organization applied to hold a public event to commemorate the June 4 anniversary of 
the 1989 crackdown. Indeed, in May 2022, the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong announced that no 
Catholic Churches in the city would hold memorial masses for the victims, citing concerns that thos e 
religious services could violate the National Security Law.6 Hong Kong authorities had arrested and 
prosecuted religious leaders for their activities and nonviolent political expression related to the 
prodemocracy movement. For example, in October 2022,  Protestant pastor Garry Pang was found 
guilty of sedition for clapping and criticizing a judge during a hearing related to the banned vigil, 
and of acting with seditious intent for uploading videos to YouTube in which he commented on 
proceedings in Hong K ong's courts. Pastor Pang was sentenced to one year in jail for the two 
offenses.7 Hong Kong, China, authorities had also arrested and prosecuted individuals for publishing 
books that they claimed included "seditious content," and in March 2023 reportedly  arrested 
individuals for possessing one of the books.8 Those events – among others – reflected the ongoing 
damage to democracy and human rights in Hong Kong, China, by the People's Republic of China. 
And they further demonstrated the error in the panel's  finding that the pattern of human rights 
abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, did not "meet the requisite level of gravity 
to constitute an emergency in international relations under Article XXI(b)(iii)."9 The WTO did not 
have the competence or the authority to assess the foreign affairs relationships of a Member. Nor 
did it have the competence or authority to pass judgment on the value that the United States – and 
some other Members – placed on freedom and  human rights, or the actions they took in seeking to 
secure those essential interests. The United States reiterated that Members needed to clarify and 
adopt a shared understanding of the essential security exception, and that the United States 
intended to  raise this critical issue as part of Members’ discussions on fundamental WTO reform . 
5.2.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the U nited States  for its statement on DS597, 
but this was not an expected occurrence , because at the previous DSB  meeting on 27 February  2023, 
the United States  had expressed its views on the procedural impropriety for a Member to bring 
substantive issues under "Other Business ". The representative of Hong Kong, China  recalled  
verbatim what the US  had said at previous  meeting : "[u]nder the rules of procedure for this meeting, 
Rule 25 provides that "[d]iscussions on substantive issues under 'Other Business ' shall be avoided, 
and the [DSB] shall limit itself to taking note of the announcement by the sponsoring delegation " 
and any reaction by another delegation "directly concerned ". Therefore, toeing the U S line at the 
previous  meeting, the US comments at this meeting would appear to constitute , but a belated 
response to Hong Kong, China 's arguments presented at prior meet ings. On the points raised by the 
 
5 Hong Kong court sentences 3 Tiananmen vigil organisers to jail ( 11 March  2023), available at 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/11/hong -kong-court-sentences -3-tiananmen -vigil-organisers -to-jail; 
Hong Kong activists behind Tianan men vigil jailed for months ( 11 March  2023), available at 
https://apnews.com/article/1989 -crackdown -tiananmen -activist -hong-kong-court-
6d8b471d28fb6a8bb45c01b93adc0730 . 
6 Police in Hong Kong warn over vigil as Tiananmen 'erased ' (3 June  2022), available at 
https://www.aljazeer a.com/news/2022/6/3/police -hong-kong-warn-over-vigil-as-tiananmen -erased ; Hong 
Kong Catholic church cancels Tiananmen memorial Mass ( 24 May  2022), available at 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/24/hong -kong-catholic -church -tiananmen . 
7 Hong Kongers who clapped in court jailed on sedition charges ( 27 October  2022), available at 
https://apnews.com/article/hong -kong-government -and-politics -5268cf581cd78da5bd8d766d5c249c05 . 
8 Five in Hong Kong found guilty of sedition for 'ant i-government' children's books ( 7 September  
2022), available at https://www.reuters.com/world/asia -pacific/five -hong-kong-found -guilty -sedition -anti-
government -childrens -books -2022-09-07; Hong Kong: two arrested for possessing 'seditious ' children 's book 
(17 March  2023), available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/17/hong -kong-two-arrested -
for-possessing -seditious -childrens -book. 
9 Panel Report,  US – Origin Marking Requirement , para. 7.353.  WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 26 - 
 
  United States in its statement just now, Hong Kong, China wished to refer to the statement made 
under Agenda  item 12 at the DSB meeting on 27 January 2023.10 Having said that, since the US ha d 
just put forth their argument s, political considerations, and version of what Hong Kong was like, at 
length, Hong Kong, China wished  to point out that after having heard the U S points , including their 
arguments regarding their version of Hong Kong 's circumstances, the panel in DS597 h ad found that 
the origin marking requirement arbitrarily imposed on Hong Kong products by the United States was 
inconsistent with the WTO rules  – specifically  the most -favoured -nation treatment obligation. The 
panel ha d also examined in detail and ruled on the US claims on the "self-judging " nature of the 
security exceptions clauses under Article XXI of the GATT 1994. The panel ha d ruled in the negative. 
Without  going further into the panel 's rulings in DS597 , which were clear to all Members, Hong Kong, 
China wished to  point out that full and due process ha d been observed before the issuance of the 
panel report , and, despite the US insistence on its view on the e ntirely self -judging nature of 
Article  XXI of the GATT 1994, in DS597, among the 13 third parties to the case, none of the Members 
had expressed agreement with the US on this point. Hong Kong, China  would go no further on this 
case at this time  and would r eserve its position in giving further response to or following up on the 
US statement.  
5.3.  The representative of China  said that China w ished  to remind Members that "Other Business " 
was not an appropriate venue for substantive discussions, as stated by Hong Ko ng, China.  Second, 
China wished  to refer to its previous statements made under several Agenda items of the DSB 
meeting in January  2023. Considering the system ic importance of this issue, China wished  to raise 
two points . First, China wished to reiterate that , as panel s had ruled in several cases , the security 
exception was not entirely self -judging and should not serve as the basis or a safe harbour  for 
protectionism and unilateralism. Second, China  reject ed in the strongest term s the US allegation s, 
unilateral judgement , and interference with other Members ' internal affairs. China wished  to remind 
the United States that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism was a forum to resolve trade disputes 
based on the WTO rules, rather than a place to discuss political issues. China  referred to its previous 
statements  on this matter and had provided a detailed explanation on its positions.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
6.1.  The outgoing  Chairperson  said that b efore proceeding with the election of the next Chairperson 
of the DSB, she wished  to make a short statement. She said that s ince she had  taken over from 
Ambassador Chambovey , as Chair of the DSB , in February 2022, she had  presided over the 
proceedings of 1 6 DSB meetings: both regular and special. She said that i t had been both a privilege 
and a pleasure to oversee, on a monthly basis, the operations of one of the regular Bodies of the 
WTO.  She wished to  sincerely thank all DSB delegations for their cooperat ion over the p ast 12 
months. There ha d been some difficult issues to resolve in the course of the proceedings, but 
fortunately, together with delegations , it was possible  to find solutions  to the issues at hand.  It had 
been a pleasure to work with all DSB participants on various matters within a spirit of collective 
cooperation among  Members. She thanked all delegations  for the support that they had given her 
over the p revious  year. She wished to take  this opportunity to note that it was regrettable that , thus 
far, no consensus ha d been reached to launch new selection processes to appoint new Appellate 
Body members , and as a result th is matter continue d to remain on the DSB Agenda. She sincerely 
hoped that going forward, Members w ould be able to find a solution to this matter.  However, it was 
encouraging that informal discussions on DS reform were ongoing and , at the present  meeting , 
delegations had heard the first report on progress on this matter.  Finally,  she thank ed the Secretariat 
for its assistance over the p revious  year – she had  been struck by their professionalism and 
dedication to duty , which  she had  observed characteri zed the work of the WTO Secretariat staff with 
whom she had  worked. Turning to the election of the next Chairperson of the DSB, she recalled that , 
at its meeting on 6 and 7 March  2023, the General Council  had taken note of a consensus on a slate 
of names for Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies including the D SB. On the basis of the 
understanding reached by the General Council, she propose d that the D SB elect, by acclamation , 
Ambassador Petter Ølberg of Norway  as Chairperson  of the DSB.  
6.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement and so agreed .  
 
10 See item 7 in document WT/ DSB/M/475.  WT/DSB/M/47 7 
 
- 27 - 
 
  6.3.  The incoming  Chairperson  thank ed the outgoing Chair , on behalf of all Members , for her able 
leadership of the DSB over the past year. Her extensive experience and distinguished career in law 
and diplomacy ha d certainly contributed to leading this body in a professional and constructive 
manner, not least in the run up to MC12. He wished her  every success in her new role as Chair of 
the General Council and look ed very much forward to working closely with her in that capacity. He 
thank ed all Members for the trust they had  bestowed on him . He intend ed to engage with all 
Members  and work in an open and constructive spirit to ensure the proper functioning of the DSB, 
which  include d Members'  common goal and efforts to  restore a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system and also how Members would  take further  the discussion on dispute settlement reform in 
the DSB.  
6.4.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that  Bangladesh thanked the outgoing Chair and wished 
her all the best in her GC role, and welcomed the incoming Chair . Bangladesh said that the new 
Chair of the DSB  could count on Bangladesh's full support and wished him all the best.  
6.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished  to thank the 
outgoing Chair for her work  and warmly welcome the new Chair. The European Union wished him  
well in this important and challenging role. Given the current challenges facing the dispute 
settlement system, it was all the more important that the  DSB continue d to properly exercise its 
functions as envisaged by the DSU. The European Union  trusted in the new Chair 's commitment to 
ensure that he could  count on the full support of the European Union.  
6.6.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia  thank ed the outgoing Chair  for her leadership 
in the DSB over the previous  year and welcome d the new Chair  of the DSB.  
6.7.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia wished  to thank the outgoing Chair for her 
leadership, dedication, and enthusiasm in t hese challenging times as Chair of the DSB, and sincerely 
wished her every success in her next role as  Chair of the General Council.  Cambodia  also warmly 
welcomed the new Chair.  
6.8.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the outgoing Chair for he r leadership and 
contributions to the DSB and  her smooth conduct of the DSB  meetings.  Japan also welcome d the 
new Chair  of the DSB, and said that Japan  would closely work with him towards MC13 . 
6.9.  The representative of China  said that China w ished  to thank the outgoing Chair for her  capable 
leadership and tireless efforts made during her term as the Chair of the DSB . China would  continue 
to support her in her new role as the Chair of the General Council and hopefully Members  could 
provide positive news to her before MC13. China  also welcome d the new Chair  of the DSB.  China 
said that it would  constructively work with him on dispute settlement -related issues and  that he 
could  count on China's  full support and collaboration.  
6.10.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea t hanked the outgoing Chair  for the  dedication and 
serenity she had  shown in these challenging times as Chair of the DSB . Korea  sincerely wish ed her 
every success in her next role as Chair of the General Council, especially in the road up to MC13. 
Korea  also warmly welcome d the new Chair.  With his extensive experience in multilateral fora, Korea  
expect ed him to guide th e DSB in a professional and constructive manner.  Korea look ed forward to 
working closely with him and said that  he could  count o n Korea 's full support during his tenure as 
Chair.  
6.11.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished  to thank 
the outgoing Chair  for her work as the DSB Chair through challenging times. Russia congratulate d 
her on her new role as the Chair of the General Council and wishe d her the very best of luck in her 
new capacity. Russia also welcome d the incoming Chair  of the DSB  and said that it stood ready to 
work together in 2023.  
6.12.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________