RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/48 6 
20 February  2024 
(24-1240) Page: 1/35 
Dispute Settlement Body  
18 December  2023   
 
  
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 18 DECEMBER  20231 
Chairman: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . He reminded delegations that the 
technical instructions for the remote participation remained the same as was the case at the previous 
meetings ; (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of 
the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute . He said that, as Members would 
recall , that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the 
Chair's consultations with each interested party regarding that Agenda item . At the present meeting, 
he wished to inform delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to consult  
with each interested party on this matter and that those con sultations were ongoin g; and 
(iii) the Chairman  informed delegations that India had notified the DSB of its decision to appeal the 
panel report in the dispute on: "India – Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the Information and 
Communications Technology S ector" (DS582). He said that under the circumstances, pursuant to 
Article 16.4 of the DSU, the panel report c annot  be considered for adoption by the DSB  until after 
completion of the appeal. Accordingly, the item was removed from the proposed Agenda . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEIL LANCE 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 biotec h 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  ................................ ..............................  5 
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/48 6 
- 2 - 
 
 
2  COLOMBIA – ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BELGIUM, GERMANY 
AND THE NETHERLANDS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
A. Status Report by Colombia under Article 21.6 of the DSU regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of  the Arbitrators  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
3  UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS -BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES (DS285): UPDATE BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA  .........................  7 
4  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)(DS597)  10 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ...................  10 
5  STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE 
DISPUTE ON: "INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION 
AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR" (DS582)  ................................ .............  15 
6  INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ..... 17 
A. Joint request by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and 
India for a decision by the DSB  ................................ ................................ ..........................  17 
7  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  ................................ ................................ ... 18 
8  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; 
CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CON GO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF  KOREA; LAO PEOPLE'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; MYANMAR; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; 
NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO;  TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE  BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.26)  ..............  29 
 
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 45) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.220) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.183) 
 
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.67) 
 
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.59) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.54 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.54) 
 WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 3 - 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted  by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 required that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting afte r six months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about t heir compliance efforts . He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has alre ady been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 45) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 45, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 December 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States had 
addressed th e DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue . With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB  that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the most rec ent 
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. 220) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 220, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 7 December  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 83) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37 /Add. 183, 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 . WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 4 - 
 
 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  recall ed that the EU approval system was not 
covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The EU continue d to propose for vote 
authori zations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safety Authority 's risk 
assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe.  On 28 November 2023, the Commission had prese nted 
for votes to the Appeal Committee a draft decision authori zing the placing on the market of a GM 
maize and a decision renewing the authori zation for placing on the market of a GM oilseed rape2 for 
food and feed uses. The votes had resulted in "no opi nion". It was now for the Commission to decide 
on the adoption of the draft decision.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union ( "EU") for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States continue d 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 ha d described these 
problems in detail an d noted its concerns with the EU 's biotech approval procedures monthly in the 
DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations, the next of which it hoped to schedule 
in the first quarter of 2024. The United States  appreciate d that a number of ap provals and 
reapprovals had been  made in 2023, and look ed forward to the Commission 's continued progress in 
making decisions when the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee was unable to do so.  
Despite this progress, the United States again request ed that the EU move to issue final approvals 
for all products that ha d completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety 
Authority, including those products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee . 
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 67) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 67, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 7 December  2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed . Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)) . With that action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders . The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea once again urge d the United States to take 
prompt and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s 
in this dispute . 
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada thank ed the United States for its status report. 
More than five years ha d passed since the expiry of the reasonable period of time for implementation 
of the DSB 's recommendations arising from the Appellate Body Report in "US - Washing Machines ", 
which had found  that the "differential pricing method " (DPM) had been  "as such " inconsistent with 
the WTO Agreements.  Despite this, the United States continue d to apply the DPM "as such " in 
investigations of foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from f oreign exporters 
based on this non -compliant methodology.  Canada was deeply concerned by this failure.  Canada 
invite d the United States to put an end to this practice as soon as possible.  
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this mat ter at its next regular 
meeting . 
 
2 GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and sub combinations and oilseed 
rapes Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3  (renewal).  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 5 - 
 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 59) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/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 certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 7 December 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested pa rties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB . 
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . China was disappointed that more 
than five ye ars after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States still fail ed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. Therefore , China,  once again , 
urged the United States to hono ur its obligation by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal pr oducts : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 54 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 54) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 54 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 54, 
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 provided its status report in accordance 
with Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia continue d to reiterate its strong commitment to implement 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes, including with the emphasis on 
Measure 18 related to self –sufficiency. In this regard, such implementation ha d been performed 
following the enact ment of Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in lieu 
of Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation. In relation to Measure 1 -17, Indonesia had made major 
necessary adjustments to its import policies following the amendments to the relevant re gulations 
of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade. Indonesia firmly believe d that th ose 
amendments ha d resulted into the removal of measures at issue, including but not limited to 
restrictions on harvest periods, import realization require ments, six -month harvest requirement, 
reference price, and domestic purchase requirements. While taking into account the interests 
expressed by the complainants on Indonesia 's Commodity Balance mechanism, Indonesia was 
pleased to continue informing that th e Commodity Balance would serve as a tool to facilitate, ease, 
and expedite trade activities through the utilization of an integrated national database system 
without imposing additional burdens or restrictive effects on trade. Indonesia also wishe d to 
emphasize its readiness to continue discussions with New Zealand and the United States with a view 
to reach ing solutions to these disputes.  
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States continue d to have concerns 
with Indonesia 's complia nce with the DSB 's recommendations.  With respect to measures 1 -17, the 
United States had asked several times and would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations 
now comprise d Indonesia 's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulatio ns that would 
affect the regimes.  The United States  noted that measures 9 and 17 were, respectively, the 
horticultural products , and animal and animals products import licensing regimes as a whole.  As the 
United States had expressed before, it continue d to have concerns about Indonesia 's administration 
of these regimes. To enable the United States to understand and evaluate Indonesia 's claim of 
compliance with the DSB recommendations, the United States had requested that Ind onesia provide 
the regulations that comprise d Indonesia 's current import licensing regimes, in addition to any draft 
regulations that might affect the regimes. The United States had received a response from Indonesia 
listing the laws and regulations , which  it believe d brought the measures into compliance with the WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 6 - 
 
 
DSB recommendations.  The United States was currently reviewing and was not in a position to agree 
with Indonesia 's claim of compliance regarding Measure 18. The United States remain ed willing to 
work with Indonesia to fully 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. As outlined at previous meetings of the DSB, New Zealand remain ed concerned about 
a number of measures. New Zealand would still appreciate understanding better the regulations that 
now underpin ned Indonesia 's import licensing regimes as a result of the relevant legislative 
adjustments, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New Zealand 
continue d to have concerns about the administration of these regimes, including a lack of 
transparency regarding allocation criteria and applicable timeframes. New Zealand also remain ed 
interested in better understanding how the new commodity balance would in fact operate to simplify 
and facilitate trade in affected products. New Zealand look ed forward to further con structive 
engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  COLOMBIA – ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BELGIUM, GERMANY 
AND THE NETHERLANDS  
A. Status Report by Colombia under Article 21.6 of the DSU regarding the 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the Arbitrators  (WT/DS591/12)  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request  of 
Colombia, and he invited the representative of Colombia to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of Colombia  said that Colombia was pleased to inform the DSB that it ha d 
submitted its  status  report , pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU , regarding its  implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the A rbitrators  pursuant to  Article 25 of the DSU in the dispute: 
"Colombia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Frozen Fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands" 
(DS591) . The status report  contained  the conc lusions  of the panel  report,  which were included in 
the Arbitration Award.  The Arbitration proce eding s had been conducted under the MPI A Agreement , 
in accordance with Article 25 of the DSU . As Colombia had previously reported, at the 
27 November  2023 DSB meeting , Colombia had issued Ministerial Resolution No. 286 , which had 
terminated an administrative review conducte d by the investigative authority in Colombia, the Sub -
Directorate on Trade Practices. Colombia,  under the Ministerial Resolution, lo oked at different 
aspects of the initial determination to adjust the calculation of anti -dumping margins, confidentiality 
and the analysis of injury and causality . All anti -dumping duties had been  subsequently significantly 
reduced.  
2.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that t he European Union thank ed Colombia for 
its status report provided prior to the present meeting. The E uropean Union underscore d that, in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU,  the status report should have  also been provided ahead of 
previous DSB meetings, six months following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of 
time. With respect to the content of the status report, the European Union wa s unable to agree with 
Colombia 's statement that "Colombi a has fully implemented " the Arbitrators ' Award. After an ample 
period of time to implement within 10 months and 15 days, as agreed by the parties  to the dispute , 
and after further delay following the expiry of  the reasonable period of time , Colombia had 
maintained – and even in a certain case increased – the anti -dumping duties for the investigated  
companies  in a manner that appear ed to be inconsistent with the Anti -Dumping Agreement and with 
the Award of the Arbitrators. In particular, the European Union was concerned with the calculations 
used by Colombia with a view to finding dumping and maintaining the measures. Most strikingly , 
the investigating authority had calculated dumping margins by using simple averages which  was at 
odds with the Anti -Dumping A greement , which expressly require d the use of weighted averages.  All 
these calculations had occurred after Colombia had asked companies to provide information relating 
to the original investigation period that already existed on the record. The European Un ion reserve d 
its rights under the WTO Agreement, including the right of recourse to compliance proceedings 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, and  was now considering next steps. The EU recall ed and 
welcome d that this dispute could be resolved in an orderly manner and in accordance with DSU WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 7 - 
 
 
procedures. Both Colombia and the European Union were participants to the MPIA , which preserve d 
the essential principles and features of the WTO dispute settlement system and the rights and 
obliga tions of both parties under the WTO Agreement.  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS -BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES (DS285): UPDATE BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on t he Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Antigua and Barbuda, and he invited the representative of Antigua and Barbuda to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda  said that Antigua and Barbuda was very grateful 
for this opportunity to add ress the outstanding issues around DS285 under a substantive agenda 
item. At the outset, Antigua and Barbuda wished to make it clear that it value d its good relationship 
with the United States. The U nited States remain ed Antigua and Barbuda 's single most i mportant 
trading partner. Antigua and Barbuda  had an important stock of US investment which contribute d 
to its economic development, and it also benefit ted from US development assistance, bilaterally and 
through multilateral and regional agencies such as the World Bank and the Caribbean Development 
Bank respectively. Unfortunately, what could only be described as a blot on an otherwise excellent 
relationship  was this longstanding issue of compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB with regard to the DS285  dispute : "United States - Measures Affecting Cross -Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services ". This year mark ed twenty years since Anti gua and Barbuda had 
requested consultations with the U nited States regarding measures applied by central, regional and 
local authorities in the U nited States which had affected the cross -border supply of gambling and 
betting services which Antigua and Barb uda had considered to have the cumulative impact of 
preventing the supply of gambling and betting services from its territory to the U nited States on a 
cross-border basis. This year also mar ked 20 years since the DSB had established a panel. A year 
from no w would mark 20 years since the Panel had circulated its report to Members. They were also 
two years shy of two decades since the Appellate Body had circulated its report following the US 
appeal against the Panel report.  
3.3.  It was true that on 28 January 201 3, the DSB had authorized the suspension by Antigua and 
Barbuda of concessions and obligations to the U nited States in respect of certain intellectual property 
rights. This was a very interesting award, one which Antigua and Barbuda believe d took account of 
the vast disparity in size between the economy of the United States and that of Antigua and Barbuda. 
An award such as this ha d only rarely been given, but ha d never reached the implementation stage. 
Having exhausted all avenues to a settle ment, it appear ed that Antigua and Barbuda was left only 
with the nuclear option of IP suspension. However, taking such a punitive course would likely come 
at significant economic and political costs to Antigua and Barbuda , therefore its preference was also 
to settle this outstanding issue amicably and in a mutually satisfactory manner.  The U nited States 
was likely to suggest that it was in compliance with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in 
the DS285 dispute on the basis that it ha d amended its G ATS schedule as per Article XXI of the 
GATS. All were aware that such an assertion f ell short of what was required since a schedule c ould 
not be modified unless all  interested Members agree d. As an interested Member, Antigua and 
Barbuda ha d not yet finaliz ed any discussions or negotiations with the U nited States with respect to 
any modifications to the US GATS schedule. The issue of compensatory adjustment by the U nited 
States to Antigua and Barbuda was therefore outstanding and ha d also not been settled. T herefore, 
the U nited States was not in compliance. Of course, it was fascinating and certainly worth noting 
that for all other interested parties, the U nited States had finalized negotiations regarding the 
modification of its GATS schedule.  This matter was now twenty years old, and the lack of progress 
with respect to compliance was a very disappointing reality for Antigua and Barbuda. Meanwhile, for 
Antigua and Barbuda,  an industry that had once been the second largest employer, employing over 
5% of the population, now lie d in ruin. Thousands ha d been made jobless, and many thriving 
companies ha d collapsed, due to actions that this Body ha d ruled to be contrary to world trade rules.  
While the delegation of Antigua and Barbuda underst ood that trade disputes sometimes t ook a long 
time to be resolved, it was of the view that in the circumstances of this case, delay ha d been 
manifestly and egregiously long.  It should be clear  that further delay was not an option for Antigua 
and Barbuda, nor should it be an option for the D SB. Antigua and Barbuda believe d that delay, on 
the scale that Members  had seen in this case, constitute d an undermining of the very system they 
were tasked to preserve, and was a systemic threat to the healthy operation of the DSB. The DS285  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 8 - 
 
 
dispute  was regarded as a test case for those WTO Members seeking to determine whether the DSU 
could  deliver practical and timely benefits for small and vulnerable econom ies. For the DSB, Antigua 
and Barbuda believe d that this protracted delay was extremely worrisome. Antigua and Barbuda  
therefore call ed on the United States to explain why it was not yet in a position to honor the rulings 
and recommendations of the DSB, or  to reach an agreed settlement with Antigua and Barbuda. 
Further, Antigua and Barbuda call ed on the United States to explain to the DSB why it was not even 
currently engaged in discussions with Antigua and Barbuda with a view to reaching a settlement on 
DS285. Antigua and Barbuda once again ask ed the D ispute Settlement Body to keep this matter 
under surveillance. Antigua and Barbuda also ask ed the United States to make every effort to bring 
this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Antigua and Barbuda remain ed open to engaging with the 
United States in whatever format to settle the DS285  dispute  in a mutually satisfactory manner, and 
hoped that 2024  would  bring some effort on the part of the United States to bring this matter to a 
mutually agreeable resolution.  
3.4.  The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States took the opportunity to 
comment on the statement of Antigua and Barbuda a nd to set out the extensive efforts by the United 
States, over many years, to resolve the Gambling dispute.  The United States was disappointed that 
Antigua and Barbuda continue d to characterize the United States as not making any attempt to 
resolve the dis pute. Very much to the contrary, the United States ha d repeatedly tried to resolve 
this dispute in a way that would bring benefits to Antigua and Barbuda 's economy and to its citizens.  
Time and again Antigua and Barbuda  had rejected these efforts, favoring rhetoric over practical 
solutions. The United States took this opportunity to remind Members of the context for the current 
discussion.  In this dispute, Antigua and Barbuda had challenged US measures concerning the supply 
of gambling services on a cross -border basis, including the supply of services from Antigua -based 
websites.  Antigua and Barbuda claimed the US measures breached specific US market access 
commitments under the GATS. The dispute was unique in that the United  States  had never intended 
to take the relevant commitment.  Indeed, the Panel had expressly acknowledged that the United 
States did not intend to include gambling within the scope of its services commitments, 
acknowledging that "the legislation at issue in  this dispute predates by decades, not only the GATS 
itself, but even the notion of 'trade in services ' as embodied therein. "3 The Panel had therefore 
expressed "sympathy " for the United States in this regard.4 The US Schedule did not include the 
term "gambling. " Nevertheless, the United States had been  found in breach of its commitment to 
grant market access under the GATS Schedule entry of "other recreational services (except 
sporting). " Since adoption by the DSB of its recommendation, the United States  had made 
consistent, good -faith efforts to settle the dispute with Antigua and Barbuda.  As explained, the 
United States had never intended to include "gambling and betting services " in its schedule of 
commitments.  
3.5.  Accordingly, in 2007 the United States had initiated the procedure provided under Article XXI 
of the GATS to modify its Schedule.  Article XXI had been adopted for the very purpose of allowing 
Members to make modifications in their schedules while maintaining a balance of benefits among 
Members.  Pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS, the United States had prepared a generous package 
of services concessions as compensation for removing internet gambling from the US Schedule.  The 
United States had negotiated under GATS  Article  XXI with Antigua and Ba rbuda, Australia, Canada, 
Costa Rica, the E uropean Union, India, Japan, and Macao.  Antigua and Barbuda had been  and 
remain ed the only Member to block the United States from completing the Article XXI process.  Even 
beyond these compensation negotiations, th e United States ha d made numerous efforts to settle 
the dispute bilaterally with Antigua and Barbuda.  The United States had worked with Antigua and 
Barbuda for nearly a year in 2008 and thought that the parties had reached a settlement agreement, 
only to h ave Antigua and Barbuda subsequently repudiate it.  Then, in 2013, the United States 
brought forward actions by various US agencies as a basis for settlement discussions, and Antigua 
and Barbuda had wavered for months on whether the offer was acceptable.  Again in 2016, the United 
States presented a package of multiple types of material assistance and ways to facilitate trade 
between the countries.  Unfortunately, for each new settlement offer, Antigua and Barbuda had 
ultimately rebuked these good faith effort s to find a solution and responded by demanding tens of 
millions and then hundreds of millions of US dollars in cash payments.  There was no basis for such 
an exorbitant request in the arbitrator 's decision or the Dispute Settlement Understanding . The 
United States reiterate d that it had never intended to make a concession that would cover internet 
 
3 Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross Border Supply of Gambling and Betting 
Services , para. 6.136 (ado pted 20 April 2005).   
4 Idem. WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 9 - 
 
 
gambling in its GATS Schedule.  Nonetheless, in light of the DSB recommendations, it ha d sought to 
use the multilateral Article XXI of the GATS rules to withdraw t he concession with compensation to 
Members, and even beyond that, ha d made repeated efforts to settle this dispute.  The United States 
remain ed ready and willing to work with Antigua  and Barbuda  to settle this dispute and work together 
on other issues at th e WTO.  However, such efforts had to be rooted in a genuine willingness to find 
a solution.  
3.6.  The representative of  Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed Antigua and Barbuda for 
placing this item on the Agenda of the present meeting and for the statement on the status of 
compliance in the  DS285 dispute, which was pending for a long time. Compliance was not only 
important but vital for the credibility of the dispute settlement  system in the WTO. Ban gladesh urge d 
the relevant parties to respect the agreed principles, rules, and established procedures of this 
Organization and work together for an early resolution of the DS285  dispute.   
3.7.  The representative of  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the ACP  Group,  
said that t he ACP Group thank ed Antigua and Barbuda for its statement and update under this 
Agenda item with respect to the non -compliance of the United States with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB relate d to the DS285  dispute : "United States  - Measures Affecting Cross -Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services ". One could argue that  among international organizations, 
the WTO ha d the best dispute settlement system. Unfortunately, the WTO also did not have the best 
compliance system. It was in this context that the ACP Group remain ed disappointed that twenty 
years since this dispute had been initiated, it was yet to be fully resolved. This lack of resolution, in 
particular the non -compliance of the world 's largest economy, and for many decades, its largest 
trading nation, in a matter involving one of the smallest WTO Members,  undermine d the rules -based 
system of adjudication. For many years, the WTO 's dispute settlement system was heralded as the 
centerpiece of the Organization. Academics and others interested in the work of the WTO had even 
hailed the system as a "giant leap " in the fie ld of public international law. Indeed, Article 3 .2 of the 
DSU stated that the dispute settlement mechanism was a central element in providing security and 
predictability to the multilateral trading system . This perceived security and predictability was se en 
as especially important for developing countries, in particular small developing countries, as they 
sought shelter from the vagaries of power dynamics. Article 3 .3 of the DSU also state d that "The 
prompt settlement of situations in which a Member consid ers that any benefits accruing to it directly 
or indirectly under the covered agreements are being impaired by measures taken by another 
Member is essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance 
between the rights and obligations of Members. " That a dispute ha d taken twenty years to be fully 
resolved fell well short of the benefits to be derived from the prompt settlement of disputes. 
Essentially, when the most powerful shirk ed their responsibilities in upholding some of the basic 
tenets of multilateralism, the implications were systemic. This was one of t he reasons why the ACP 
Group remain ed concerned that the DS285  dispute  had not been fully settled. The ACP Group 
reiterate d its commitment to respect the rule of international law. The ACP Group  called on the 
United States to make every effort to fully res olve all outstanding matters with respect to the DS285  
dispute.  The ACP Group also reiterate d its support for Antigua and Barbuda 's request that this 
matter be kept under surveillance of the DSB. The ACP Group  trusted that an amicable and mutually 
satisfa ctory solution would  be found as soon as possible.  
3.8.  The representative of  South Africa  said that South Africa wished to thank Antigua and Barbuda 
for its update on the DS285  dispute  and wished to be associate d with the statement to be made by 
the Africa n Group  later in the course of the meeting.  South Africa was concerned that until no w the 
United States ha d not complied with the recommendations  and the ruling. This dispute  highlight ed, 
inter alia , a problem with the dispute sett lement system, namely the lack of compliance with panel 
and Appellate Body rulings and recommendations, which in particular affected smaller countries 
having little leverage with which they could  enforce rulings . This ha d the potential to gradually 
undermi ne many of the substantive obligations contained in the WTO Agreements. There was a lack 
of incentives for swift compliance. Failure to comply with the WTO rulings undermine d faith in the 
system, a system that depend ed on the perception that all players, r ich and poor, big and small, 
had rights as well as obligations and responsibilities. The issue of compliance was currently under 
discussion in the informal dispute settlement discussions and effective reform would require that 
Members  viewed  compliance as being  effective and ensure d that governments which forestall 
compliance fe lt the true cost of the delay. This decision represent ed the WTO's authority to address 
the concerns of developing countries while balancing the legitimate interests of developed nat ions. 
South Africa  urged the United States to fulfil its obligations , in accordance with the rulings and WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 10 - 
 
 
recommendations contained in the panel report  or to reach an agreed settlement with Antigua and 
Barbuda. South Africa believed it was quite encouraging to learn and hear at the present meeting 
that both parties were willing to further engage on the issue and trust ed that a mutually agreed 
solution would be reached.  
3.9.  The representative of  India said that India noted, with concern, the cu rrent status of the DS285 
dispute, in which compliance was still an issue, two decades after the initiation of proceedings. This 
was emblematic of the problems that confront ed developing countries in ensuring effective 
compliance under the DSU. Developing countries ha d historically put forth reform  proposals  in 
various areas to address the asymmetries  between developed and developing countries when it 
came  to compliance, including simplified cross retaliation and sequencing. In the currently ongoing 
informa l process on DS reform, India ha d again put forward two ideas on cross -retaliation and 
sequencing. India urged participating Members  to favourably consider th ose ideas. Finally, India 
urged the relevant parties in the DS285  dispute  to work towards an early  resolution of this long -
standing  dispute.  
3.10.  The representative of  Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that the African 
Group  thanked Antigua and Barbuda for its updates and their statement made at the present 
meeting . The African Group was disappointed that until now the United States ha d not complied with 
the recommendations and rulings contained in  the DS285  dispute.  The African Group  noted that 
Members  were currently constructively engaged in reform discussions to im prove compliance and to 
prevent the incidence of power dynamics. The African Group  believe d that Members should lead by 
example. The African Group , therefore , urged the United States to fulfill its obligations , in accordance 
with the ruling and recommendat ions contained in the panel report or reach an agreed settlement 
with Antigua and Barbuda.  
3.11.  The representative of China  said that p rompt compliance with recommendations or rulings of 
the DSB was essential in order to ensure resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members . This 
also matter ed not only from the point of view of the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system 
to prevent it from powe r-dynamic, but also from the point of view of the rules -based nature and 
creditability of the multilateral trading system. China  hoped that the parties to this dispute could 
make genuine efforts as indicated in their statements  in order to find a mutually satisfactory solution 
and address this long -standing dispute. In addition, China  realize d that Members  were discussing 
how to induce effective compliance in the DS reform discussions , and China was  committed to 
working with other Members  to find appropriate ways to further improve the compliance re cord. 
3.12.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)  (DS597)  
A. Statement by the United States  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States. He said that before he would invite the representative of the United States to 
speak, he wished to refer to Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meeting s regarding the need 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on the matter that had already been debated 
previously. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States wished to refer back to its 
previous statements regarding its position on essential security and its reason for placing this item 
on the DSB Agenda.  The United States would not repeat those points in detail.  As a consequence of 
Hong Kong, China 's decision to bring this matter to the DSB, the United States consider ed it 
appropriate to update the DSB on factual developments since the circulation of the panel report that 
reinforce d US concern with those findings.  At the present meeting , the Un ited States would again 
draw attention to the alarming and deteriorating circumstances regarding human rights and freedom 
of speech in Hong Kong, China.  The Hong Kong government ha d once again committed repressive 
actions, including transnational repressio n, using the National Security Law as a basis, reflecting the 
negative impact the China -imposed legislation ha d on freedom of expression and democratic 
participation. On 27 November 2023, the Hong Kong police had arrested a man at the Hong Kong 
internation al airport after receiving reports that he wore a shirt that contained the phrases "Liberate WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 11 - 
 
 
Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times " and "Hong Kong independence is the only way out ".5 On 
13 December 2023, the Hong Kong police had announced the arrest of four individuals in Hong Kong 
over links to activists Nathan Law and Ted Hui, who were among eight wanted people announced in 
July 2023. Police had arrested these four individuals for allegedly providing financial assistance to 
Law and Hui by subscribing to the ir online subscription platform.6 To remind the DSB, this was only 
one of hundreds of arrests that the Hong Kong government ha d made in the name of "national 
security. " As of the end of 30 November 2023, since the imposition of the National Security Law i n 
2020, 231 people ha d been arrested for alleged "national security " offenses; 133 people and 
organizations ha d been formally charged; and 92 people ha d been found guilty.7 Most prominent 
was the mass arrest and ongoing trial of 47 former lawmakers and pro -democracy activists for 
participating in or organizing an unofficial primary election in 2020.8 Facing up to life in prison if 
convicted, their 9 -month trial, which involved no jury and was presided over by three chief 
executive -appointe d judges, had its closing statements in November  2023.9 The prosecutor had 
argued that endangering national security need not involve the use of force or physical violence.10 
In July  2023, the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force had issued arrest 
warrants for eight democracy activists living in the United States, the U nited Kingdom , and Australia, 
and the government had offered a 1 million Hong Kong Dollar reward for information leading to their 
arrests.11 Most recently, on 14 Decemb er 2023, Hong Kong, China, had offered 1 million HK Dollar 
bounties and issued arrest warrants for five additional individuals.12 One of these individuals, Joey 
Sui, was a US citizen, others were based in the United States, and two others had been placed o n 
the list for expressing views through videos posted on a social media platform.13 
4.3.  As US Secretary of State Blinken ha d stated, these bounties display ed a blatant disregard for 
international norms, and for democracy and human rights, by which the Hong Kon g, China, 
government attempt ed to apply the Beijing -imposed National Security Law extraterritorially.14 The 
United States strongly oppose d any efforts to intimidate or silence individuals who chose to make 
the United States their home for exercising their human rights, and it reject ed China 's attempt to 
use these cash awards to threaten and harass those advocating for freedom and democracy.  The 
United States remain ed committed to defending the rights and freedoms of all people and ha d called 
on Hong Kong and China to act in accordance with their international commitments and legal 
obligations.15 The UK Foreign Secretary ha d expressed similar concerns with this attempt  to 
 
5 Hong Kong nat. security police charge man over wearing alleged seditious shirt at airport, Hong Kong 
Free Press ( 30 November 2023) available at https://hongkongfp.com/2023/11/29/hong -kong-national -
security -police -charge -man-over-wearing -alleged -seditious -shirt-at-airport .  
6 Hong Kong police expand dragnet on overseas pro -democracy activists (Reuters), 15 December 2023 
available at https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong -kong-police -issue-arrest -warrants -5-more-overseas -
activists -2023-12-14. 
7 https://hk.usconsu late.gov/bearing -witness .  
8 DS597 US Opening Statement, para. 26; 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report ( 31 March 2021); EU calls 
for "immediate release " of Hong Kong activists, AP News ( 6 January  2021) available at 
https://apnews.com/article/europe -democracy -hong-kong-arrests -china -
71296e353e67b68f7bba590bf7048122 . 
9 A Hong Kong  court hears final arguments in the subversion trial of pro -democracy activists, The 
Washington Post ( 29 November 2023) available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/29/hong -
kong-national -security -47-activists/d73eccca -8e7e-11ee-95e1-edd75d825df0_story.html  or 
https://apnews.com/article/hong -kong-national -security -47-activists -1f0e99abdeaadd5103c0ecec10bb4a4b .  
10 Id.  
11 Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for eight overseas democracy activists, The Guardian ( 3 July 2023) 
available at https: //www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/03/hong -kong-issues -arrest -warrants -for-eight-
overseas -democracy -activists .  
12 https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/03_police_message/pr/press -release -
detail.html?refno=P202312140002 ; Hong Ko ng police expand dragnet on overseas pro -democracy activists 
(Reuters), 15 December 2023 available at https://www.reuters.com/worl d/china/hong -kong-police -issue-
arrest -warrants -5-more-overseas -activists -2023-12-14.  
13 https://www.police.gov.hk/pprb/pr/attachment/P202 312140002/Annex.pdf . 
14 US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Press Statement: On Hong Kong Authorities ' Transnational 
Repression ( 15 December  2023), https://www.state.gov/on -hong-kong-authorities -transnational -repression ; 
see also US State Department Press Briefing ( 14 December 2023) available at 
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department -press -briefing -december -14-2023. 
15 US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Press Statement: On Hong Kong Authorities ' Transnational 
Repression ( 15 December  2023), https://www.state.gov/on -hong-kong-autho rities-transnational -repression  
("By announcing National Security Law charges and a list of cash awards that unjustly target overseas 
democracy advocates, including a US citizen and other individuals based in the United States, Hong Kong 
authorities display their disregard for international norms and human rights in Hong Kong and the deterioration WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 12 - 
 
 
intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the U nited Kingdom  as a threat to 
democracy and fundamental human rights.16 Concerns about transnational repression were shared 
by other Members, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Fr ance, Japan, New Zealand, and 
Norway.17 In August, the US State Department had issued a press statement condemning Hong 
Kong authorities for harassing family members in Hong Kong of these activists and others, noting 
this had been a form of transnational r epression to intimidate and silence individuals abroad and to 
coerce their return.18 China and Hong Kong, China, ha d repeatedly stated that their actions 
suppressing freedom of expression and democracy merely involve d "internal " or normal "political 
issues " within Hong Kong.  The United States disagree d that these issues d id not involve security 
interests, human rights, and international law.  The targeting of individuals outside of Hong Kong, 
China, including citizens of other Members, only further demonstra ted these were not minor and not 
mere domestic matters. As the United States ha d previously explained, these types of facts 
demonstrate d the pattern of human rights abuses and the erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, 
that had motivated the US measure a t issue in this dispute.  These facts also demonstrate d the error 
in the WTO panel finding that such a pattern did not "meet the requisite level of gravity to constitute 
an emergency in international relations under Article XXI(b)(iii). "19 Again, the United  States 
fundamentally disagree d with the panel 's approach, which suggest ed a state ought to defer 
consideration of its essential security interests until after a breakdown in relations with another 
Member.  A WTO Member could not be expected to wait until it was too late to act, or be required to 
sever all relations with another Member as a prerequisite for action it consider ed necessary to 
safeguard its essential security interests.  The United States reiterate d that, in order to prevent 
further undermining of the WTO, Members need ed to clarify and adopt a shared understanding of 
the essential security exception, which was a critical element in the international trading system and 
permit ted Members to take on trade commitments t o each other.  
4.4.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that t his was the seventh time that the DS597  
dispute  had been  put on the Agenda of a regular DSB meeting. Unfortunately, Rule 27 of the Rules 
and Procedures for DSB meetings was not able to save Me mbers from this monthly ordeal. Everyone 
in the room knew even before this Agenda item started that no new substantive point would be 
raised in the US statement. And, so this was  the case.  The United States had stated  that the DS597 
Panel had erred in deci ding that it had been appropriate to substitute its security judgment for the 
 
of that  city's once proud tradition of respecting the rule of law.  We strongly oppose any efforts to intimidate 
and silence in dividuals who choose to make the United States their home and will not waver in standing up for 
those who are targeted simply for exercising their human rights. The United States rejects the PRC’s attempt 
to use these cash awards to threaten and harass tho se advocating for freedom and democracy, and we urge 
Hong Kong authorities to respect the protected rights and freedoms enumerated in the Basic Law.  We 
encourage the international community to join us in condemning this act of transnational repression. The  
United States remains committed to defending the rights and freedoms of all people and calls on the PRC to act 
in a manner consistent with its international commitments and legal obligations. "); U.S. State Department 
Press Briefing ( 14 December 2023) available at  https://www.state.gov/briefings/department -press -briefing -
december -14-2023.  Statement by Senator Ben Cardin, Chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
Chair Cardin Stands with Pro -Democracy Activists Targeted by Hong Kong Government ( 15 December 2023), 
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/chair -cardin -stands -with-pro-democracy -activists -
targeted -by-hong-kong-government . 
16 UK Foreign Secretary’s statement , Hong Kong National Security Law arrest warrants  
(14 December  2023) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hong -kong-national -security -law-arrest -warrants -
foreign -secretarys -statement  ("The Hong Kong police have again targeted individuals for exercising their right 
to freedom of expression. I have instructed officials in Hong Kong, Beijing and London to raise this issue as a 
matter of urgency with the Hong Kong and Chi nese authorities. We will not tolerate any attempt by any foreign 
power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK. This is a threat to our democracy 
and fundamental human rights. We call on Beijing to repeal the National Security L aw and end its persecution 
of political activists. ").  
17 Joint Statement on the Strategic Dialogue on Cybersecurity of Civil Society Under Threat of 
Transnational Repression, 30 March 20 23 available at https://www.cisa.gov/news -events/news/joint -
statement -strategic -dialogue -cybersecurity -civil-society -under -threat -transnational -repression ; Defending 
democracy in an era of state threats,  speech by UK Security Minister ( 13 December 2022) available at 
https://www.gov.uk/gove rnment/speeches/defending -democracy -in-an-era-of-state-threats  ("[W]hat we call 
transnational repression  . . . is the activity of those who seek to stifle free expression in diaspora communities 
in the UK, those who try t o silence the debate that they, as anyone else in the United Kingdom, should be able 
to enjoy. We have seen the most recent example of this in the so -called overseas police stations that China has 
set up around the country, and indeed around the world. "). 
18 United States Department of State press statement  (25 August 2023) available at 
https://www.state.gov/hong -kong-authorities -ongoing -harassment -cam. 
19 US – Origin Marking Requirement , WT/DS597/R, para. 7.353.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 13 - 
 
 
US sovereign judgment of its own security interests. The United States had  stated  that  the Panel 
had also erred in finding that the situation in Hong Kong, China did not "meet the required level of 
gravity " to qualify as an "emergency in international relations ". As Hong Kong, China has pointed 
out before, none of the 13 third parties to the case had agreed with the U nited States that security 
exception under Article XXI of GATT  1994 was self-judging in entirety, as a matter of legal principle. 
As a matter of fact, all the relevant facts at the material time had already been put forward by the 
United States in arguing for its case in DS597, they had all been duly considered by th e panel, so 
the only reason for the U nited States to continue its one -sided, monthly chronicle of Hong Kong, 
China 's socio -political situation in the DSB was not to further its legal claim, but to continue its 
political slandering against Hong Kong, China.  As Hong Kong, China  had also pointed out before, if 
the U nited States was genuine in challenging the panel ruling in the DS597  dispute , the only proper 
way to do it was to let the appeal, lodged by the U nited States, in January 2023, be heard by a 
restore d Appellate Body, or a review or appellate body to be set up in a reformed DS system. There 
were also proposals under the DS reform informal discussion in relation to interpretation of WTO 
covered agreements. The U nited States, being the proponent or spear heading such proposals , was 
well aware of these developments. If not for the US  political agenda behind this Agenda item, there 
was no reason to single out the DS597 dispute when an appeal was pending and a reformed system 
in the making.  
4.5.  Hong Kong, China was  hesitant to fuel any malicious political maneuvering  in the WTO fora, 
especially as implementation of national security law was clearly the internal affair of any 
sovereignty. However, i n the face of non -stop political slandering by the U nited States, Hong Kong, 
China was left with no choice , but to speak up and let the truth be told.  Hong Kong residents enjoy ed 
the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Basic Law, and other relevant laws. The enactment of 
the National Security Law aim ed to, among other things, improve the legal system and enforcement 
mechanisms for safeguarding national security of the Hong Kong SAR, as well as maintaining 
prosperity and stability of the Hong Kong SAR. The National Security Law clearly stipulate d that 
human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong 
SAR, and that the rights and freedoms, which Hong Kong residents enjoy ed under the Basic Law 
and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International 
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong, including freedom of 
speech, press, publication, association, and assembly, shall be protected in accordance with the law.  
Endangering national security was a very serious offence, and the Hong Kong SAR Government, like 
any other government, would  fight against it with full force and pursue the liability of the person to 
any end. Fugitives should not have any delusion that they could evade legal liabilities by ab sconding. 
In Hong Kong, China's legal system, like many other legal systems, fugitives would be pursued for 
life unless they turn ed themselves in.  The Hong Kong SAR law enforcement agencies ha d been taking 
law enforcement actions based on evidence and stri ctly in accordance with the law in respect of the 
acts of the persons or entities concerned. The suggestion that persons or organizations  with certain 
backgrounds should be immune from legal sanctions for their illegal acts and activities was 
tantamount to  granting such persons or organizations  privileges to break the law and was totally 
contrary to the spirit of the rule of law.  
4.6.  The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong SAR, by virtue of Article 63 of the Basic Law, was 
solely responsible for criminal pro secutions, free from any interference. All prosecutorial decisions 
by the Department of Justice were based on admissible evidence, applicable laws and guidelines 
such as the Prosecution Code. Prosecutions would only be commenced if there was sufficient 
admissible evidence to support a reasonable prospect of conviction and if it was in the public interest 
to do so.  Any person, regardless of his or her identity, who made  any attempt to interfere with the 
judicial proceedings in the Hong Kong SAR in order to p rocure a defendant 's evasion of the criminal 
justice process, was blatantly perverting the course of justice and was a reprehensible act 
undermining the rule of law of the Hong Kong SAR.  The Judiciary of the Hong Kong SAR exercise d 
judicial power independently in accordance with the law, and everyone charged with a criminal 
offence ha d the right to a fair hearing. The courts decide d cases strictly in accordance with the 
evidence and all applicable laws. Cases would never be handled any differently owing to the 
profession, political beliefs or background of the entities involved. The prosecution ha d the burden 
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of an offence before a defendant may be 
convicted by the court.  The legal syst em in the Hong Kong SAR was robust and transparent. The 
Basic Law guarantee d that the common law system continue d to be practiced  in Hong Kong, the 
independence of the Judiciary, and that the exercise of judicial power shall be free from interference. 
In addition, the power of final adjudication was vested in the Hong Kong SAR Court of Final Appeal. WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 14 - 
 
 
Eminent jurists from other common law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia and 
Canada, were appointed as overseas non -permanent judges of Hong  Kong's Court of Final Appeal. 
This help ed maintain a high degree of confidence in the legal system of the Hong Kong SAR, and 
allowed Hong Kong to maintain strong links with other common law jurisdictions.  Yet, judges and 
prosecutors, in discharging their duties in relation to the National Security Law were among the 
various Hong Kong SAR personnel who were under sanctions or threat of sanctions by the U nited 
States, a typical way of US intimidation.  Hong Kong, China's Judiciary ha d in particular been 
conce rned about the U nited States and others ' attempt to exert improper pressure on its Judges and 
Judicial Officers. The Judiciary, independent from the Government, ha d clearly pointed out that any 
suggestion to impose sanctions was a flagrant and direct affro nt to the rule of law and judicial 
independence in Hong Kong, as well as to the Judges and Judicial Officers, who ha d constitutional 
duty to exercise judicial power independently and professionally in every case (including cases 
relating to national securi ty) strictly on the basis of the law and evidence, and nothing else. All 
Judges and Judicial Officers had to  abide by the Judicial Oath to administer justice in full accordance 
with the law, without fear or favour, self -interest or deceit.  
4.7.  Hong Kong, China  said that t he U nited States had spoken at length criticizing  the 
extraterritoriality of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Hong Kong, China wished to reiterate 
that the Hong Kong National Security Law fully align ed with the principles of international law, 
international practice and common practice adopted in various countries and regions. As elaborated 
in its previous interventions at previous DSB meetings , the national security law of various countries, 
including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the EU member States also 
had extraterritorial effect under the principles of "personality " and "protective jurisdictions ". 
Members must not forget that the black -clad riots in 2019 had severely damaged the social stability 
of Hong Kong, and it had been the successful implementation of the National Security Law that  had 
enabled the livelihood and economic activities of the Hong Kong community at large to swiftly resume 
as normal and the business e nvironment to be restored. However, many US politicians insist ed on 
turning a blind eye to all these facts, and clamor  for so -called "sanctions " against the Hong Kong 
SAR personnel who dutifully safeguard ed the National Security Law. This was nothing but p olitical 
grandstanding rife with ill intentions.  
4.8.  The representative of  the United States  said that it was , of course, not the United States that 
had brought these circumstances into the WTO.  It had been  Hong Kong, China 's choice to challenge 
a US national  security action and to encourage the WTO panel to review the US invocation of the 
essential security exception. It was, therefore, Hong Kong, China, that invite d WTO Members in the 
DSB to review its actions that ha d eroded protected rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, which 
undermine d its obligations under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Sino -British Joint Declaration. 
And the United States d id not agree that the circumstances in Hong Kong, China, merely involve d 
"internal" or "political issues. " The US actions at issue, and its presentation at the present meeting 
related to those actions, were grounded in the facts, including new actions taken by Hong Kong since 
the prior DSB meeting, including the arrests made on 27 November, and the developments reported 
on 13 and 14 – not to mention events taking place even more recently . Those facts include d the 
prosecutions of individuals, even for speech in foreign countries, warrants for individuals engaging 
in constitutionally -protected activities in the United States, and acts of transnational repression 
against individuals residing in the United States.  Those facts demonstrate d the pattern of human 
rights abuses and erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China.  And those facts form ed the basis for 
the challenged U S actions taken to protect its essential security interests. The United States ha d 
been clear from the beginning that issues of national security should not be brought into the WTO. 
Hong Kong, China, knew this when it chose to challenge US actions which had been  expressly "due 
to the determination that Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential 
treatment in relation to China. "20 
4.9.  The representative of China  said that  China was also deeply disappointed with the U S seventh 
request to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly debated item into the DSB Agenda. China wished to 
register its serious systemic concerns  about  this action, which it believe d was in contradiction with 
Rule 27 of the Rules o f Procedure for DSB meetings. Particularly in the context of WTO reform, China 
wonder ed how such behavior could reconcile with the US call for more efficient operation of and 
 
20 See US – Origin Marking Requirement,  WT/DS597/R, para. 2.1 ( "Measure at Issue ") (citing 
Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection [CBP  Dec. 20 -15], Country of Origin 
Marking of Products of Hong Kong, 85 Fed. Reg. 48,551 ( 11 August 2020)).  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 15 - 
 
 
more meaningful discussions in the WTO Bodies. Coming back to the dispute at issu e, as a third 
party to this dispute , China appreciate d the Panel 's impartial and objective rulings and 
recommendations. It was clear from the text, the context, the object and purpose and the 
negotiating history that the security exception under GATT 1994 was not entirely self -judging, as 
correctly found by this panel and six previous panels. Should the U nited States have concerns on 
the panel ruling, it should work with Members  in a more proactive and constructive manner to restore 
the appeal mechanism so that the US appeal could be heard. China  firmly believe d that the restored 
appeal mechanism was the proper place to correct the possible errors , if any , made by the panel 
rather than repeatedly putting the issue on the Agenda of DSB meeting s. Furthermore, China  
reject ed in the strongest terms the US false allegations and unilateral judgement and interference 
of other Members ' internal affairs. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism was a forum to resolve 
trade disputes rather than a place to discuss political  issues. Any member, regardless of its power 
and size, should  refrain from taking unilateral and protectionist measures in the name of "national 
security ", or using it as a vehicle to disregard the core principles of the WTO or to interfere with 
other Memb ers' internal affairs. China urge d the United States to faithfully honor its multilateral 
obligations, and avoid taking any further actions which  impair ed the rights of other WTO Members  
and undermine d the core principles of this Organization.  
4.10.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that it was sheer and blatant double standards 
on the part of the U nited States that "extraterritoriality " could be a central element of its national 
security law, but  not that of other jurisdictions ', including Hong Kong, China 's National Security Law. 
Hong Kong, China took  it as a very alarming sign that  a WTO Member would openly demand or 
command another WTO Member not to raise a DS claim that could  be legitimately rai sed under the 
WTO covered Agreements and jurisprudence and the WTO 's dispute settlement system, and openly 
threaten that otherwise the other Member would be subject to non -stop political slandering at the 
WTO fora, as was the case now. The US show ed itself not just as a bulldozer but as a bully; it says 
nothing other than a superpower gleefully flexing its muscles to threaten and crush a small economy 
on all fronts.  
4.11.  The representative of  the United States  said that t he United States for long ha d been clear 
that it had been  a mistake to begin adjudicating national security at the WTO.  The United States had  
warned at the time that this would open the door to future disputes that would further undermine 
the foundations of the WTO. The United States did not agree that adjudicators should hear and 
decide issues of essential security.  These were questions reserved for Members to decide.  But WTO 
adjudicators were charged to make such findings as would  assist the D SB in making 
recommendations provided for  in the WTO Agreement.  The Dispute Settlement Body was comprised 
of WTO Members, and so it was entirely appropriate to bring forward the facts to WTO Members 
concerning the pattern of human rights abuses and erosion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, that 
formed the basis for the challenged US actions. If Hong Kong, China, or other Members d id not wish 
Members in the D SB to hear and be aware of the facts related to essential security concerns, then 
they should not have brought this complaint to the D SB. 
4.12.  The D SB took note  of the statements.  
5  STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE 
DISPUTE ON: "INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION 
AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR " (DS582)  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union, and he invited the representative of the European Union to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of  the European Union  said that t he European Union first wished to than k 
the panelists for their thorough and comprehensive examination of the evidence and arguments 
submitted by the parties in the case India -ICT tariffs (DS582). The European Union also wished to  
thank the WTO Secretariat for its hard work on this matter. The European Union was conscious that 
the C OVID -19 pandemic had imposed additional challenges in the handling of this dispute for the 
Panel, the Secretariat and the parties. The European Union appreciate d the efforts to advance the 
proceedings efficiently and  in a manner consistent with the DSU, safeguarding the rights of parties 
and third parties at all times. The European Union welcome d the panel report in this dispute and 
noted the panel 's clear findings: first, the Panel ha d upheld the EU 's central claim a nd found  that 
India's excessive tariffs on the tariff lines in question were in excess of its WTO commitments; WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 16 - 
 
 
second, the Panel had rejected all of India 's defensive arguments: (i) the Panel had confirmed that 
India could not invoke the Information and Te chnology Agreement (ITA) to escape its tariffs 
commitments; (ii) the Panel had rejected India 's "technology evolution argument " according to 
which a tariff commitment taken at a certain moment cover ed only products that existed at that 
time; instead the Pa nel had confirmed that tariff commitments applied also to more recent products 
falling under the same tariff line; (iii) the Panel had confirmed that no mistake, as claimed by India, 
was committed when determining India 's tariff commitments, including when the tariff lines 
nomenclatures were updated; (iv) the Panel had refused to examine India 's request to rectify its 
tariff commitments, which should be negotiated among WTO Members. The European Union also 
noted the Panel 's clear recommendation that India bring its measures into conformity with its 
obligations under the GATT 1994. In this context, the European Union underline d that its companies 
had been negatively impacted by India 's excessive import duties on ICT product s since 2014, at a 
time of enormous development in the sector, including the roll -out of 4G and 5G  in India. 
Unfortunately, and despite numerous efforts by the European Union to find a solution with India to 
resolve this dispute, the European Union regret ted that, on 8 December 2023, India had notified the 
WTO Secretariat and the European Union of its decision to appeal the report of the panel. The 
European Union disagree d with all of India 's allegations of errors of law and legal interpretation in 
the pane l report. But the European Union  obviously accept ed that appeal was a right under the DSU. 
The European Union recogni zed India's right to appeal what it consider ed to be errors of law in the 
panel report. And India was not responsible for the absence of a functioning Appellate Body. 
However, the European Union deeply regret ted that India ha d not availed itself of the opportunities 
– offered repeatedly by the European Union – to have this appeal adjudicated upon through appeal 
arbitration. As Members  were all aware , a working alternative to the non -functioning Appellate Body 
existed. It serve d precisely to preserve the rights of both parties in disputes: particularly the right 
to have the dispute resolved through adjudication and the right to have the panel r eport reviewed 
on appeal. In those circumstances, India 's decision to appeal before a non -functioning Appellate 
Body effectively deprive d the E uropean Union of its right to have the dispute resolved through 
adjudication.  The DSB had extended twice the deadline for the panel report adoption, first until 
19 September 2023 and second until the present meeting. During this time, the E uropean Union 
had been engaging with India with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution , but th ose 
efforts ha d so far not yielded any outcome. The E uropean Union therefore had no choice but to put 
the panel report up for adoption, in order to preserve its rights under the WTO Agreement. The 
European Union  did remain open, however, to finding a soluti on mutually acceptable to both sides.  
This situation demonstrate d, once again, the grave consequences of the blockage of Appellate Body  
member  appointments. The European Union was concerned that – without a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system – the rules-based system was eroding. As Members  could see, the temptation to 
use the blockage of the system in order to maintain WTO -inconsistent and protectionist measures 
might sometimes just be too strong to resist. This was why the European Union wished to reiterate 
its call to intensify dispute settlement reform discussions, so that Members had a fully and well -
functioning system by 2024. In the meantime, the European Union invite d all Members to avail 
themselves of the existing opportunities, such as the MPIA if they truly wish ed to exercise their right 
to an appeal review.  
5.3.  The representative of  India said that India wished to  start by thanking the European Union for 
its statement. India also recogni zed and thank ed the panelists, the Secretariat and the parties for 
the smooth conduct of the proceedings of this panel, in  spite of the challenging circumstances of the 
pandemic. India note d through  the DSB Agenda that the European Union ha d requested  the adoption 
of the panel report in the DS582  dispute . In response, on 8 December 2023, India had filed a notice 
of appeal and the detailed appellant submissions, as required by the relevant provisions of Rule 20 
of the working procedure for appellate review. In India's submissions, it had made  detailed 
arguments on the errors of law and legal interpretations by the panel in its report. With respect to 
the European Union' s comments on  interim arbitration arrangements, India wished to draw  
Member's attention to its long-standing and principled p osition on the Appellate Body  crisis and the 
implications of interim arbitration arrangements. India reiterate d its position that such interim 
agreements undermine d the right of countries to appeal to a permanent standing body, which was 
fundamental to the  multilateral trading system. India noted that there ha d been several other 
countries that ha d appealed into the void during th at period. India hoped that the early restoration 
of the Appellate Body  would soon enable the review and correction of errors in the Panel Report in 
the DS582  dispute  and the expeditious resolution of this dispute. India reiterate d, as it had done so 
on several previous occasions, its willingness to engage in bilateral discussions w ith the European 
Union on a mutually acceptable way forward.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 17 - 
 
 
5.4.  The representative of  Canada  said that Canada wished to t ake this opportunity to address the 
systemic considerations pertaining to India 's appeal of this panel report.  Canada note d that, since 
11 December  2019, the Appellate Body ha d effectively been non -functioning.  Article 3.10 of the DSU 
provide d that, when a dispute ar ose, Members would  engage in dispute settlement procedures in 
good faith and in an effort to resolve the dispute. The inability  of the Appellate Body to carry out its 
appellate review responsibilities ha d undermined the established process under the DSU for dispute 
settlement.  But the obligation under Article 3.10  of the DSU  to make good faith efforts to resolve 
the dispute still stood . No Member should seek to take unfair advantage of the current impasse.  In 
the context of specific disputes, options exist ed to allow for completion of procedures as envisioned 
in the DSU . In particular, parties to the dispute might  agree to use procedures such as those set out 
in Annex 1 of the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) to supplement the 
appeal process.  Canada believe d that it was essential that all parties  to the dispute fulfill their good 
faith commitment under Article 3.10 of the DSU by making every effort to find an acceptable solution. 
In the long run, no Member would benefit from a situation where disputes remain ed unresolved. A 
Member acting in good f aith should find no comfort in an unfair - and short -term - advantage that 
arose because of the absence of a functioning Appellate Body.  In closing, Canada invite d India to 
consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard binding dispute settlement with acc ess to appellate 
review in disputes with other MPIA participants.   
5.5.  The representative of  Japan  said that Japan welcome d the panel's findings and 
recommendations in this case. The panel's findings would  substantially contribute to ensuring the 
stability and  predictability of the WTO tariff concessions, which led to the resilience in the rule of law 
in the field of international trade. At the same time, Japan note d and expresse d its disappointment 
at India 's decision to appeal the panel report to the currently non -functioning Appellate Body despite 
the panel's clear and reasoned assessment of the case, as India did with regard to the panel report 
in Japan 's dispute (DS584).  Japan consider ed that the only consequence of India 's decisions was to 
delay the implementation of the recommendations based on objective and reasonable findings by 
the panel. It was contrary to the bedrock principle of prompt compliance with recommendations and 
the prompt settlement of disputes, which was enshrined in t he DSU. Japan strongly hope d that India 
would  rescind its decisions and take appropriate steps to promptly comply with the panels' 
recommendations.   
5.6.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that , as the result of the blockage of the 
Appellate Body  appointments process , Members witnessed again another example of an appeal filed 
into the "void". The Russian Federation reiterate d its concern about the situation, where the number 
of appeals addressed to the Appellate Body was rising, while the problem of the Appellate Body 
appointments had not yet been fixed.  The consequence of this status quo  was that disputes were 
left unresolved. The Russian Federation wishe d to highlight that such a situation threaten ed the 
effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism and inevitably undermine d confidence in the 
WTO.  
5.7.  The representative of  China  said that China regret ted that there was another case that was 
appealed into the void which brought  the number of panel repo rts in limbo to 30. The dysfunctional 
two-tier dispute settlement system jeopardize d the rules -based nature of the multilateral trading 
system and erode d Members ' confidence in this Organization. China  therefore strongly urge d the 
early restoration of the two-tier system through Members  collective efforts in the DS reform context, 
and call ed for more Members , including the parties in this dispute, to join MPIA as an interim 
arrangement to maintain appeal rights during the absence of a functioning Appellate Body.  
5.8.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6  INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR  
A. Joint request by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu, and India for a decision by  the DSB (WT/DS588/14)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the joint communication from Chinese Taipei and India 
contained in document WT/DS588/14 and invited the representative of Chinese Taipei to speak.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 18 - 
 
 
6.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that t he Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and India had agreed to continue their discussions to reach a 
constructive outcome for this dispute, as outlined in the joint request circulated to WTO Members in 
document WT/DS588/14, which  preserve d the parties ' existing rights with respect to the panel report 
under the DSU to enable further consultation s. The DSB through the operative language in the draft 
decision would agree to consider the panel report, if proposed by a party for adopti on in the future, 
under the negative consensus decision rule, unless either party were to appeal the panel report first. 
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and India jointly request ed 
that the DSB provide additional time for  the adoption or appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute. 
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would appreciate the DSB 's 
support for the draft decision as set out in WT/DS588/14.  
6.3.  The representative of India said that India  thank ed the delegation of the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu for its statement. As mentioned, the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and India had  jointly requested that the 
DSB agree to provide additional time for the adoption or appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute, 
by adopting the draft decision circulated to the Members  in document WT/DS588/14. India welcome d 
the engagement on this issue on finding a way forward. This draft decision woul d facilitate the 
continued engagement and possible resolution of this issue, and India would appreciate the support 
of the DSB for the proposed draft decision.  
6.4.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States welcome d the efforts of 
Chinese Taipei and India to continue their engagement in this dispute.  The United States support ed 
efforts to continue dialogue with the aim of achieving a mutually agreed solution.  The United States 
took note of the draft decision circulat ed in document WT/DS588/14.  The United States  understood 
that the parties sought to preserve their existing rights with respect to the panel report under the 
DSU to enable time for further consultation. The DSB through the operative language in the draft 
decision would agree to consider the panel report, if proposed by a party for adoption in the future, 
under the negative consensus decision rule, unless either party were to appeal the panel report 
first. On that basis, the United States could support the p arties ' efforts and join a consensus to adopt 
the draft decision.  
6.5.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea welcome d the joint efforts of the parties to resolve 
their dispute in this case. As Korea believe d that the purpose of dispute settlement was 
fundamentally about supporting parties in resolv ing their dispute s.  Korea hoped that the adopted 
decision made at the present meeting  would facilitate once again the engagement of the two parties 
in finding a mutually agreed and swift resolution to the disput e. 
6.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6.7.  The Chairman  proposed that: "the DSB  agree that, upon a request by the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu or India, the DSB shall no later than 26 April 2024 
adopt the panel report in the dispute India – Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the Information 
and Com munications Technology Sector  (DS588) unless; (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to 
do so; or (ii) either party to the dispute notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to 
Article  16.4 of the DSU. Any such adoption or appeal of the panel report  will be deemed to have 
occurred within the 60 -day time -period specified in Article  16.4 of the DSU ". 
6.8.  The DSB so agreed . 
7  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  
7.1.  The Chairman  said that u nder this Agenda item  he wished to refer to informal discussions on 
DS reform,  which were currently ongoing amongst delegations at the technical level. As in the past, 
this item had been placed  on the Agenda of the present meeting in order to allow the representative 
of Guatemala, Mr. Marco Molina, who convene d these informal discus sions on DS reform to report 
on this matter for transparency. He then invite d the representative of Guatemala to make a report 
on discussions concerning DS reform.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 19 - 
 
 
7.2.  The representative of Guatemala , Mr. Marco Molina, made the following statement:  
"Thank you , Mr. Chairperson, good afternoon colleagues . At the 12th Ministerial 
Conference, Members committed to "conduct discussions with the view to having a fully 
and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". 
This mandate cont ains our guiding objective, and we are making every effort to deliver 
at the first available opportunity in 2024, namely, the next Ministerial Conference.  As 
this is my last report for the current year concerning the informal process on dispute 
settlement reform, now is a well -timed moment to assess the procedural developments 
and the substantive accomplishments thus far, as well as to delineate the necessary 
steps for completion of our work before the 13th Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi. 
Informal conv ersations among delegates started in April last year, and the informal 
process that I convene initiated on mid -February of the current year. For over more 
than twenty months, we have been identifying and understanding interests, concerns, 
conceptual approa ches, and specific solutions that reflect the diverse views and 
perspectives of all WTO Members. More specifically, during the last 10 months, our focus 
has been on identifying optimal solutions to the issues raised by Members. This 
endeavo ur has been facilitated by an interest -based approach in these discussions, 
providing developing and least developed countries with a unique opportunity to ensure 
the representation of their views in the outcome. Certainly, the informal process on DS 
reform  adopted an unconventional approach, necessary to strike the right balance 
between delivering a meaningful package of solutions within a short timeframe and the 
need to consider the views of all WTO Members. So far, I am pleased to note a high 
rate of part icipation from delegations representing Members across all levels of 
development, regions, levels of experience with the system and different legal systems. 
Acknowledging a potential marketing issue with the convened conversations, I would 
like to emphasiz e that the "informal " nature of this process does not diminish its 
importance, structure, or inclusiveness. On the contrary, it follows a solution -oriented, 
multilateral, open, transparent, inclusive, and bottom -up approach, attesting more 
efficient than a ny formal process in the organization thus far. In a remarkably brief 
timeframe, we have successfully developed a consolidated draft text, now in its third 
revision and nearing finalization. Notwithstanding this, having attentively listened to 
various view s expressed by delegates informally and at the DSB, I have aimed to 
enhance working methods. Consequently, I have constantly adapted the process to 
ensure full participation, particularly addressing capacity constraints. Measures include 
reducing meeting f requency, avoiding clashes with other negotiations, minimizing small 
group meetings, organizing plenaries open to all WTO Members, arranging briefing 
sessions for absentees, and ensuring interpretation and translation services.  
Anticipating clashes with ot her meetings in the coming year, remote participation will 
be introduced upon request for Geneva delegates with capacity constraints, starting 
with the first plenary session in January. This proactive approach demonstrates my 
commitment to facilitating und erstanding and ensuring the engagement of all 
delegations. I remain responsive to requests for assistance and will continue aiding 
delegations in any way possible.  In terms of substance, significant achievements have 
been made. We are nearing the finalizat ion of a comprehensive and meaningful reform 
package designed to benefit and address the interests and concerns of all WTO 
Members. The third revision of the consolidated draft text, spanning almost 50 pages, 
provides a clear statement of Members collectiv ely establishing their understandings 
and expectations regarding the operation of the system. As you may have seen, the 
focus is on providing incentives and disincentives to influence behaviours  of all 
participants in the system and ensure that such system  operates more efficiently to 
promptly resolve disputes.  Significantly, the concept of accessibility is thoroughly 
examined and considered from multiple angles in the package. Accessibility, no doubt, 
is at the core of the package. Furthermore, the text, p repared by delegates representing 
the WTO Membership, including developing and least developed country Members, 
reflects meticulous craftmanship, exceptional quality and a commitment to addressing 
the interests and concerns of all WTO Members . We are appro aching the conclusion of 
this process, though some issues still warrant further discussion and attention. 
Nonetheless, our discussions on these challenging questions have proven fruitful, and 
we are currently identifying potential solutions that can accomm odate the diverse 
perspectives expressed by Members. In the coming weeks, our focus will be on WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 20 - 
 
 
reviewing and refining the third version of the consolidated text. Additionally, we will 
continue discussions on the remaining issues, aiming to strike the right  balance for a 
solution suitable for all. As we step into January, the need to intensify our work becomes 
imperative. Our first cluster of plenary sessions is scheduled for the 10th to the 12th of 
January. The finish line is within reach. We must persevere , for every step brings us 
closer to achieving our common goal. Let 's not underestimate the significance of our 
collective effort. Success depends on all of us and each of us.  Before concluding this 
report, it would be remiss of me not to express my gratit ude to my dispute settlement 
colleagues for their unwavering dedication and complete engagement and to the WTO 
Secretariat for their invaluable logistical support, encompassing editorial assistance, 
translations, and simultaneous interpretations.  Allow me to conclude by extending my 
heartfelt wishes for a delightful and well -deserved holiday season, along with my sincere 
hopes for a prosperous and fulfilling upcoming new year.  Thank you. " 
7.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States w elcome d the engagement 
of all Members on dispute settlement reform. The United States had initiated in 2023  a series of 
informal, interest -based discussions with the goal of resetting the stale conversations of past years.  
This approach had empowered Membe rs to step back from long held and entrenched positions, and 
focus instead on working towards a dispute settlement system that would meet the needs of all WTO 
Members to the greatest extent possible. The United States was pleased that delegations trusted in 
the merits of interest -based problem solving and took these opportunities to speak with one another, 
rather than at another. This year, the discussions ha d been led by a volunteer facilitator.  The United 
States appreciat ed his considerable efforts, as he ha d thoughtfully guided the discussions and 
pursued an inclusive and transparent process that was grounded in the interests of all Members.  The 
United States strongly suppor ted his efforts. The meeting schedule and proces s had been particularly 
intense in recent months.  Delegations ha d demonstrated their commitment to the discussions and 
had largely engaged in a constructive and collaborative manner.  The result of this considerable effort 
was progress on several reform iss ues. As Members approach ed MC13, the United States strongly 
support ed steps to allow for the broadest possible participation among delegations.  The United 
States  had a strong interest in maintaining the constructive and collegial spirit that ha d been notab le 
in the informal discussions, while ensuring that delegations were able to participate effectively.  To 
that end, the United States  support ed considering alternative means of participation in the 
discussion. The United States  recognize d that several Membe rs were seeking to move the informal 
discussions to a WTO body. Certainly, the United States  agree d that discussions would  need to move 
to a WTO body at the appropriate time; this had to  occur for any decision to be taken by Members. 
The United States  was open to discussions on when that appropriate time might  be. However, its 
priority remain ed to continue the work.  The United States was committed to working with 
delegations to facilitate effective participation among Members, even in the context of an informal 
discussion. As they looked forward, Members had to recognize that considerable work remain ed and 
that achieving fundamental disput e settlement reform would  not be easy.  Rather, it would  be 
incumbent on all Members to engage on the issues with creativity if they were  to make further 
tangible progress.  
7.4.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his 
statement made in his personal capacity as the volunteer facilitator of the informal , delegate -led 
discussion process on DS reform. Bangladesh was  cognizant of the amount of time and energy 
invested by the group of delegates engaged in the process to fo rmulate ideas, options, and common 
understandings to assist future discussions. Bangladesh had raised some concerns and challenges 
during several of the previous DSB meetings regarding the so -called delegate -led informal 
discussions on DS reform. Banglades h had taken  part in the informal discussions. To get clarity on 
several issues, Bangladesh had  posed  questions to the volunteer facilitator. Unfortunately, most of 
these  questions ha d been unaddressed. Bangladesh was  not sure how its queries, views, concer ns, 
and reservations were being recorded and how th ose would be reflected in the consolidated draft 
text. It should also be noted that capital -based delegates and legal experts from some developing 
countries were willing to contribute through virtual meeti ngs, but the structure of the discussion did 
not support virtual participation. Bangladesh understood that any "reform " should not make the 
existing DS system more complex and onerous for developing countries and LDCs.  Bangladesh 
welcome d the communications by the African Group, by Indonesia and the joint submission by Egypt, 
India and South Africa.  The LDC group 's paper contained in document JOB/GC/223/Rev.1 adequately 
highlight ed the urgency that , as LDCs , their voices had to be heard an d that the reform discussions 
had to  be conducted through a multilaterally guided process with inclusivity, transparency, and full, WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 21 - 
 
 
effective and equal participation of all Members. Paragraph 3 of the MC12 Outcome Document 
assure d that any reform work, of course including the DS reform, "… shall be Member -driven, open, 
transparent, inclusive, and had to  address the interests of all Members, including development 
issues ". Inclusivity was only possible, as a primary condition, under a multilateral process thr ough 
a WTO body. Process and the substance were equally important in this context  and the established 
practices and procedures of this Organization could not  be overlooked.  In conclusion, Bangladesh 
suggest ed the following two points:  (i) DS reform was a m andate from the Ministerial Conference; 
therefore, as a relevant WTO Body the DSB had to initiate discussions on DS reform as soon as 
possible.  Members should be given adequate opportunity to contribute to the discussions.  The ideas 
and options already dis cussed and generated in the informal discussions might be accommodated 
for future discussions in the DSB; and (ii) a DS reform progress report  could be prepared to be  
agreed by Members, for MC13. The progress report should contain the problems of the curre nt DS 
system  identified by Members and the possible work -plan of the DSB to address those challenges 
by 2024 and beyond. Bangladesh look ed forward to working constructively with Members on this 
important topic.  
7.5.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada wished to , once again , thank Mr . Marco  Molina 
for his dedication and his work to advance the discussions on reform of the dispute settlement 
system. Mr . Molina ha d spared no effort in ensuring that this process was inclusive and transparent, 
includi ng by laying on simultaneous interpretation during the revision of the draft text and the most 
recent plenary discussions and having the draft text translated into the three official languages. That 
said, Canada recognize d the difficulties and challenges faced by certain delegations, particularly the 
smallest delegations from developing countries, including least developed countries. Canada  also 
wished to thank India, South Africa and Egypt for their most recent communication on this topic. 
Nonetheless, Can ada wished to  recall that, over the past months, all Members ha d had the  
opportunity to set out their interests and table their proposals for solutions. All Members had full 
access to the documents concerning the process, had been  invited to the discussio ns and had an 
opportunity to make active contributions by asking questions or putting forward comments, including 
in writing. The contributions of all those Members who chose to engage in this process ha d been 
duly taken into account in Members  work. Furth ermore, although special and differential treatment 
had not been addressed as a topic in itself, the needs, interests and concerns of developing countries, 
including least developed countries, ha d been taken into consideration in every area. In addition, 
the drafting process for the proposed text could not have been more directly Member -led, as each 
paragraph had been drafted by Members using the concepts that they had developed during the 
plenary session as a basis. Members  had made major progress in recen t months, but there were still 
a number of significant issues that remain ed unresolved. As a result, while it would indeed be 
necessary to formalize the process, continuing informal discussions remain ed the most reasonable 
and pragmatic way to achieve their goals by MC13 . This was the only way to avoid upsetting the 
momentum Members had managed to establish, and which ha d enabled them to make meaningful 
progress. Canada remain ed open to any ideas put forward in order to further fine -tune the informal 
process pending the time when Members were ready to submit a full text to the DSB. In this 
connection, Canada support ed Mr. Molina's proposal to make the meetings for Geneva -based 
delegates accessible online.  
7.6.  The representative of China  said that t he restoration of a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement mechanism accessible to all Members  by 2024 was the top priority for most Members  
and the WTO itself. It also serve d as a li tmus test for the success of MC13. To that end, China  
welcome d the encouraging progress achieved thus far as Members had  revision 3 of the consolidated 
text, which encompassed  a vast majority of the issues identified. China  thank ed all Members for 
their pr ofessional engagement and contribution, and particularly appreciate d the informal facilitator  
Marco 's tireless coordination and irreplaceable leadership to this endeavor. China also thank ed the 
Secretariat for their strong support. That being said, there were still a number of fundamental 
challenges ahead of Members , particularly the issue of the appeal review mechanism, the most 
difficult , but extremely important one , in the process. After the well -deserved holidays, within less 
than 2 months, Members had no choice but to maintain the current positive momentum and further 
accelerate their work. In order to deliver the reform outcome at MC13, on the one hand, Members  
needed to address the remaining issues based on the already -good draft text  – do not let perfect be 
the enemy of good. Members would have chances to address the discrepancies , if any , by taking 
advantage of the review mechanism contained therein. On the other hand, solutions to the appeal 
review mechanism ha d to be figured out in an expeditious manner. Bearing in mind that Members 
already ha d some good proposals on the table, what they should do next was to further gear their WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 22 - 
 
 
efforts towards the core concern s and int erests, identify the precise aspects and nexus of concern, 
and craft surgical tools to address them. At the end of the day, a holistic and well -calibrated surgical 
solution might bear the biggest chance to succeed. In addition, China fully understood the resource 
constraints that smaller Members  faced due to the intensive meetings and discussions required to 
fulfill their mandate. Therefore, China support ed the idea of providing the virtual participation for 
Geneva -based  delegates who were in need so that t hey could continue to follow this important 
discussion. While recognizing that a bit more patience should be given to the informal process which 
provide d them with a valuable forum for frank and solution -oriented discussions, China  also look ed 
forward to t he early formalization of discussions when the condition was ripe. China would continue 
its focused, constructive and pragmatic engagement in this process, so that Members could achieve 
the harvest at the upcoming MC13.  
7.7.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to thank Mr . Marco Molina for 
presenting the progress report in his capacity as facilitator . Thailand reiterate d its commitment to 
participating constructively in ongoing discussions with an aim to  achieving  lasting dispute 
settlement reforms that would address all Members concerns and interests while preserving the core 
principles of the dispute settlement system, notably with respect to Members  right of appeal.  While 
recogni zing the challenges faced  by small delegations in fully participating in the process, especially 
considering the current rapid pace of discussions, Thailand underst ood that it was imperative for 
Members  to deliver a substantive outcome by MC13 , as supported by the Senior Officials  Meeting . 
Thailand  hence thank ed Members for their active engagement and enforce d to advance all issues. 
Thailand hoped that Members could finalize the draft text very soon . Finally,  Thailand wished to 
express its sincere appreciation  to Mr . Molina for his efforts in ensuring that the process was open, 
transparent and inclusive to all Members. Thailand  wished that Mr. Molina would continue to improve 
the process and enhance the accessibility of the process for all Members, as he ha d indicated in his  
statement.  
7.8.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to thank Mr. Marco Molina for his report and 
his continued work throughout this year in assisting Members to achieve a meaningful reform of the 
dispute settlement system. At th e present meetin g, which was the last meeting in the year of  2023, 
two months away from the next Ministerial Conference, although Brazil  expected to have a final 
package on DS reform, it recognize d that much ha d been done. Members had been able to achieve 
progress through  interest -based conversations, brainstorming, proposals and drafting exercises. 
Brazil notice d a high level of engagement , but wishe d to hear more developing countries ' voices in 
the room. The maintenance of an informal process with a high frequency of meetings inevitably 
create d difficulties for the participation of smaller delegations. At the same time, Brazil was cognizant 
of the urgency of restoring the system. A com promise solution could be achieved by emulating the 
parameters established for capital observation in the fisheries negotiations. This very system 
ensure d the fulfillment of rights and obligations of all Members  and guarantee d the credibility of 
Members commitments. The paralysis of the binding dispute settlement system affect ed developing 
countries disproportionately: they were more vulnerable to power dynamics and could not resort to 
the system to defend from unilateral trade measures possibly inconsisten t with WTO obligations. 
This was why having a fully and well -functioning two -tier binding system accessible to all Members  
by 2024 was of utmost importance.  
7.9.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway , once again , thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his 
dedicat ion and work to coordinate discussions on reforming the dispute settlement system and 
welcome d the significant progress that ha d been made under his guidance. Text -based discussions 
were now well on the way. Norway agree d that the discussions should be mul tilateral and organized 
in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, which facilitate d effective, and equal participation of 
all Members. This process ha d been and was open, transparent, and inclusive. All Members were 
invited to the discussions and the contributions of all Members who ha d chosen to be involved in 
this process ha d been duly considered in the discussions. Members were now also offered 
simultaneous interpretation  and draft texts were translated into French and Spanish. Being a small 
delegat ion, Norway certainly knew  the challenges that smaller delegations  had to face,  and 
support ed efforts to wards  finding concrete solutions to these issues. Scheduling conflicts would  
unfortunately occur, but Mr. Molina ha d all along made every effort to avoid clashes. Norway 
welcome d the opportunity for delegates to virtually participate in the upcoming plenaries. The 
process would  have to be formalized, but, as several  Members  had stated before, now was not that 
time. Norway remain ed open to ideas presented to continue improving the informal process . WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 23 - 
 
 
7.10.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to express appreciation to Mr. Marco 
Molina for his tireless efforts and comprehensive report on the informal process. Japan believed that 
the informal process should be assessed in terms of how Members could move forward on the 
substance. Japan commend ed that Members  had discussed the remaining issue intensively and had 
revised the consolidated text, which  was currently in its third version . In this respect, Japan 
support ed the current process and wished to be actively involved in th is process. Japan  had heard 
the concerns expressed by  several Members on the current process . First, Japan believe d that the 
ongoing process was already multilateral and open, transparent and inclusive to all Members. The 
process w ould be formalized at an appropriate tim e before MC13, but now was not right tim e. Japan 
believed that the informal process should continue for the moment so that Members co uld discuss 
the remaining issues under a frank and constructive environment. Second, Japan believe d that 
meeting clashes between the DS reform meeting s and major negotiation meeting s were one issue 
for small delegations in particular. Japan recall ed that its objective was to finalize the consolidated 
text and to compose a reform package as soon as possible. To this end, Japan support ed Mr. Molina 's 
idea of allowing for remote participation for Geneva -based  delegations , upon request , under the 
informal proce ss because it minimize d changes in the dynamic and addresse d Members ' concerns 
on meeting c lashes. To achieve a concrete outcome at MC13, Japan continue d to work actively and 
constructively with all WTO Members.  
7.11.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that the African 
Group thank ed the facilitator , Mr. Marco Molina , for his report on the informal DS reform discussions 
and for his valuable work. The African Group  welcome d the useful improvements by the facilitator 
to ensure inclusivity in the process, and further urge d that the ongoing informal meetings were open 
for remote participation as had been  announced by the facil itator so as to ensure the effective 
participation of developing countries and LDCs with small delegations. This would promote the 
effective participation of small delegations that could not be physically in attendance at every 
meeting due to conflicting s chedules.  Furthermore, the African Group  believe d that in order to 
facilitate  the full and effective participation of developing countries and LDC Members throughout 
the process of the DS reform discussion s, the meetings, including small -group meetings, sh ould be 
based on a structural plan to avoid conflicted agenda and schedule of meetings mainly with other 
negotiations taking place at the WTO. The African Group  urged deeper collaborations amongst  Chairs 
in the forthcoming year. The African Group noted that in order to do things differently, it would be  
useful to resolve pending issues informally. The African Group  believe d it was pertinent to formalize 
the process as soon as possible in order to legitimize it. It was pertinent to note that Members  still 
had major outstanding issues and the African Group recognize d the need to intensify work in 
January  2024 so as to deliver outcome s. Finally, the African Group reiterate d its commitment to 
continue engaging constructively.  
7.12.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom believe d strongly in 
a dispute settlement system that was transparent and accessible to all Members . The United 
Kingdom  would continue to work with all Members to pursue those shared objectives. The United 
Kingdom wished  to thank the facilitator, Mr. Marco Molina, for his tireless work and his support of 
Members. Moving away from the current proce ss of dispute reform discussions risk ed retaining the 
status quo indefinitely. This was not in the interests of any Member that value d an effective rules -
based multilateral trading system. The United Kingdom urge d all Members  to continue to work 
pragmatica lly to find a resolution . The United Kingdom recogni zed and sympathi zed with concerns 
over the time demands of the process, especially as Members approach ed MC13 , and was open to 
potential solutions that could improve the accessibility of the process while  still maintaining their 
positive momentum towards reform.  
7.13.  The representative of South Africa  said that, f irst, South Africa wished to thank the facilitator, 
Mr. Marco Molina, for his report on the DS reform discussions and thank ed him for his time, efforts 
and dedication to the informal discussions. South Africa  wished to be associate d with the statement 
made by the African Group. A fully and well -functioning, two -tier dispute settlement system that 
was accessible to all Members  by 2024 was a top priority for reform of the WTO and it was crucial 
to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. To this extent, meaningful reform was 
needed to achieve this objective. South Africa value d the current informal dispute settle ment 
discussions, which it had actively and constructively participated in. The informal process had been 
useful insofar as exploring solutions, while noting the progress in the informal discussions, a lot 
remain ed to be done, and Members were  not there ye t, especially if they noted that MC13 was just 
around the corner with some outstanding concerns to be addressed and core issues that remain ed WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 24 - 
 
 
pending. One core issue being the appeal review mechanism. This issue need ed to be addressed. It 
was but the very issue that gave life to the informal discussions that Members were  currently 
engaged in. Failure to address this core issue would  result in any deal having little meaning, if at all, 
as long as concerns were not addres sed and core issues remain ed pending. As discussions advance d, 
it was South Africa's  considered view that the process need ed to be formali zed and multilaterali zed 
under the DSB and that this need ed to be done sooner rather than later. The development of a clear 
road map was also key to ensure transparency and able planning and full and effective participation 
of all Members . South Africa was  concerned about  any ideas or calls for an early harvest or mini 
package, especially if it did not address their issues. Any outcome had to  be balanced and take into 
account the interests of all. South Africa noted and appreciate d the recent efforts being employed 
at making the informal process inclusive. For instance, the recent availability of interpretation and 
translation services. South Africa  welcome d the undertaking of enabling virtual meetings as of next 
year, when the informal discussions would resume, there was still room for improvement to enhance 
inclusive and effective participation. It was only an inclusive and transparent approa ch that would  
enable Members  to achieve their shared objective of a fully functioning dispute settlement 
mechanism by 2024. South Africa stood  ready to work with all Members  in fulfilling the mandate of 
the MC12 Outcome Document and would  continue with act ive and constructive engagement with all 
to find a lasting solution towards reform of the dispute settlement system.  
7.14.  The representative of India said that India took the floor to note the enormous amount of 
work that ha d been accomplished in the informal p rocess. As of 6 December 2023, Version 3 of the 
consolidated text ha d 11 chapters that ran to 48 pages. It ha d approximately 208 provisions, 
74 footnotes, and eight appendices. The provisions made  deep changes to the entirety of the DSU 
as it currently exi sted, in many cases changing default processes and timelines.  And all this, after 
20 months, without a single mention of the restoration of the Appellate Body. Truly  an incredible  
task! Coming to the substance of the text, let it be clear that this draft did not signify a convergence. 
There were many countries that maintain ed reservations  on different portions of text. India had 
engaged in the drafting exercise on the assurance that delegations c ould evaluate the proposed 
reforms as an entire package. Yet, the central plank of the package, the issue that brought so many 
Members  to the table, in spite  of their deep concerns about the process  - the WTO appeal review 
mechanism - remain ed missing from th e text. Be that as it may, India drew Member's attention to 
the fact that assuming that this informal discussion was multilaterized immediately, on the first 
working day of 2024, then delegations would  have 36 working days to the start of MC13.  So 
delegations that did not have the good f ortune to have multiple delegates in Geneva, or capitals that 
were but a train ride away, had to  analyse  and react to this package in one month. India thank ed 
the custodians of the informal process for agreeing, in a small part, to the request for online 
participation that developing countries, including LDCs,  had been making for the  past 11 months. 
However, the request  was for online capital participation. India noted that since the online 
participation was restricted to Geneva -based  delegates, some of them would still have to pull off the 
interesting task of being in two negotiations at the same time. India left it to the judgement of 
Members  as to how equitab le and inclusive this process was of a 164 -Member  organization.  
7.15.  The representative of Indonesia  said that  Indonesia thanked  Mr. Marco Molina for his report  
and believed that appreciation should also be given to Members , particularly developing -country  
Members  and LDC s, who despite all the challenges faced to be able to fully and meaningfully 
participate in the informal discussion s, still ha d the "good will " to show up every time they could . At 
12 December 2023 TNC meeting, the majority of Members  had highlighted the dispute settlement 
reform as the main priority for an MC13 outcome. Indonesia was one of those Members . Indonesia 
also remain ed convinced in the preservation of a two-tier dispute settlement system t hat 
safeguard ed Members  from power dynamic s as well as provided the security and predictability of 
the multilateral trading system.  Indonesia, h aving heard some Members  stating that it might not 
return to safeguard Members ' interest, was concern ed, to say the least. Indonesia was also 
concerned that there were many occasions where developing Members  and LDCs expressed their 
views on certain issues  and those views had not been  taken into consideration nor been reflected in 
the current draft text. Such i ssues  included  protecting due process rights and making the system 
less erroneous to developing Members  and LDCs. As Indonesia reaffirm ed the objective of Paragraph 
3 and 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document in having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024, such an objective should be reached through a discussion 
that was Member -driven, open, transparent, inclusive, and addressed the interests of all Members. 
In this regard, formalization of the dispute settlement refo rm discussion , as stated in  different 
communication s by Indonesia, the African Group, and India, Egypt, and South Africa, was urgent . WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 25 - 
 
 
This request  was continuously delayed , and with MC13 looming Indonesia doubt ed whether it would 
happen at all , thus denying the rights of developing Members  and LDC s once again. Furthermore, 
there were several questions asked by  Indonesia   in document JOB/DSB/6. Most pertinent of all, yet 
so easily solved was to open access for capital -based  delegates  to follow the discussion s online. This 
was important not only to keep them abreast on the fast pace of the negotiation, but also to allow 
small delegations, like Indonesia, to not have to sacrifice one issue over the other, because one 
negotiation issue could  only be at tended in person, by Geneva -based  delegates only, or for those 
lucky enough to be in close proximity to Geneva and have the resources to send their capital -based  
delegates on a weekly basis. These delegations were surely not developing Member s or LDCs. 
Opening up access for capital -based  delegates  was even more important when in January 2024 
Members could  anticipate many clashing negotiation schedules. However, where request s by some 
Members  to have interpretation service s was provided, the request s by othe r Members  to have the 
online presence of capital -based  delegates wa s contin uing to be denied, without offering any 
solution. Furthermore, it would be improper that instead of this informal discussion try and adjust 
with the time and the urgent need s of many Members , these Members  had been  asked to request 
the other formal negotiating  bodies to change their schedule and to accommodate a discussion that 
is informal in nature. Providing online access to Geneva -based delegates was like putting a bandage 
for a big, open wound. The inability to accommodate the needs of developing Members  and LDCs 
was symptomatic of systemic discrimination that indirectly close d the door for them to contribute 
and to contribute fully.  
7.16.  The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the ACP  Group, 
wishe d to thank Mr. Marco Molina,  convenor of the informal discussions on DS  reform , for his 
comprehensive update.  The ACP Group  saw value in the work being carried out by a subset of 
delegates under this informal process. When the WTO Agreement had been  signed in Marrakesh in 
1994, the n ew procedures of implementing dispute settlement rulings had been  broadly regarded as 
a decisive and historic improvement over the procedures previously codified and practiced under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which had bee n establis hed in 1947. In 1997, the 
then Director -General of the WTO had even stated that the dispute settlement system was the WTO 's 
"most individual contribution to the stability of the global economy ". It had also been claimed that 
the establishment of the dispute settlement system was "likely to be seen in the future as one of 
the most important, and perhaps even watershed developments of international economic relations 
of the twentieth century ". However, no system was perfect. For a large number of developing 
Members, the system ha d largely been inaccessible due to , among other factors, cost and 
complexity. This lack of accessibility ha d for the most part, fallen short of the legitimate expectations 
of several ACP Mem bers that the dispute settlement system should work to the benefit of all 
Members. While the ACP Group saw value in the informal discussions, it also call ed for this process 
to be formalized and the ACP Group  placed on record its request for the establishm ent of a clear 
timetable for this to happen sufficiently in advance of MC13. The ACP Group took  note of the three 
discrete submissions from the African Group (WT/GC/W/892); Indonesia (JOB/DSB/6); and Egypt, 
India and South Africa (JOB/DSB/7). The ACP Group  saw merit in many of the elements in these 
submissions. For example, it noted the call by the African Group "for the commencement of an 
effective and inclusive multilateral process on dispute settlement reform under the Dispute 
Settlement Body  …". Indones ia also shared its thoughts on how the DS Reform discussions should 
be carried, namely that they should respond positively to the foundational principles of the WTO by 
being Member -driven, open, transparent, inclusive, and had to  address the interests of a ll Members, 
including development issues. Egypt, India and South Africa stated that DS reform should be 
addressed in a holistic manner and that reforms should be conceptualized and implemented as a 
comprehensive and balanced package, and should address the  concerns and interests of all 
Members, in particular developing countries and LDCs. Therefore , the call for formalization was about 
giving every WTO Member an equal opportunity to participate in this very important work, especially 
given the systemic natu re of the dispute settlement system . Even as Members  await ed formalization, 
this should not preclude the informal process from adopting procedures to enhance transparency, 
inclusivity and openness which undergird ed the multilateral trading system. As such,  Members 
should have the ability to participate remotely in all meetings  and d ocuments should also be made 
available to all delegates via  the WTO 's website. Already, the ACP Group  viewed positively the 
availability of interpretation for some meetings and t he translation of the negotiating draft text into 
French and Spanish.  Without formalization or without adopting procedures to enhance transparency 
and openness, the integrity of any final outcome would  likely be undermined.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 26 - 
 
 
7.17.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea welcome d the report by Mr. Marco Molina and 
express ed its sincere appreciation for his efforts and  the additional burden he ha d taken on in 
organizing the informal meetings in his own personal capacity.  Korea not ed that this process had 
been open, transparent and inclusive to all Members and thank ed all Members for their participation 
and proactive engagement. While Korea  recognize d that the pace of discussions was fairly swift, it 
believe d that this was imperativ e in order to deliver on the mandate of Paragraph  4 of the MC12 
Outcome Document.  Korea  also recognize d that Marco ha d been providing comprehensive reports 
which accurately reflect ed substantial discussions, and he ha d been conducting bilateral meetings 
continuously for those who could not  participate in person, and provided fully explanation.  With the 
constructive  engagement of all Members to date, Korea aim ed for discussions to advance as much 
as possible in order to yield a meaningful outcome at MC13 an d to provide and maintain positive 
momentum for ongoing discussions . 
7.18.  The representative of Pakistan  said that, f irst of all, Pakistan wished to thank the facilitator 
for presenting the report on the DS reform discussions. The dispute settlement mechanism  was an 
important hallmark of the rules -based system and a central pillar of the multilateral trading system 
in settling disputes. Pakistan  acknowledge d the fact that the dynamics of trade and development 
were changing, and rapidly evolving, thus creating a need for reforming the rule -based system to 
make  it more robust and dynamic. Pakistan was also aware of the fact that the informal discussion s 
on dispute settlement reform were in place with the objective to achieve an outcome for functional 
dispute settlement , however, the processes had so far remained informal and concerns to this effect 
had been voiced both in the form of written and oral su bmissions by various Members  on the 
procedures and modalities of these discussions. While acknowledging the efforts being put in place 
in these discussions, Pakistan  did not intend to deviate from this very fact that there might  be 
positive externalities o f these informal discussions by understanding the concerns of Members , 
however, for giving a meaningful dimension to these discussions, Members  needed to formalize and 
channelize these informal discussions because this informal process  could not be a subs titute for a 
formal multilateral and Member -driven process. Pakistan also believe d that the basic principles 
underpinning the dispute settlement mechanism  had to be preserved in the interest of multilateral 
trading system . Pakistan felt that engagement in the substantive discussions would benefit the 
Members hip if conducted in a formal process and at the relevant forum.  
7.19.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union appreciate d the 
opportunity to address, in the Dispute Settlement Body, 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 this objective. The European Union support ed a reform that preserve d the core 
features of the dispute settlement system. The European Union thank ed Mr. Marco Molina , the 
convener , for the explanations prov ided at the present meeting . The European Union fully support ed 
the ambitious schedule for the discussions, as set out by Mr . Molina.  If Members were to have a 
fully-functioning dispute settlement system "by 2024 ", these discussions had to pave the way for  
agreement on dispute settlement reform at MC13. The European Union welcome d the progress that 
had already been achieved and reflected in the draft text. In the remaining weeks, Members needed 
to intensify the discussions to finali ze the text and find a so lution to outstanding issues. Finally, the 
European Union wished to underscore that these discussions, pursuant to the MC12 Outcome 
Document, were open to all Members. The E uropean Union appreciate d the efforts to ensure that 
the process was transparent and inclusive. The European Union value d the broad participation in the 
meetings. The European Union w elcome d the regular reporting to the DSB, as it was the case at the 
present meeting , which enhance d the transparency and accountability of the process. The European 
Union also welcome d the very useful improvements (such as interpretation and translation) recently 
introduced and further changes to make the process more accessible. The European Union was  
grateful to Mr . Molina for his restless efforts to continuously improve the process. The European 
Union was  open to discussing with Members regarding any further improvements to the process , 
which would facilitate achieving the objective of having a well and fully -functioning system as soon 
as possible.  As demonstrated at the present meeting, this matter was urgent,  and therefore the 
European Union  called on  all Members to approach it constructively with a view to finding a solution 
as soon as possible.  
7.20.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia express ed its appreciation to Mr . Marco 
Molina for his invaluable update on the ongoing  informal discussions concerning the DS reform work 
among the technical experts. While Malaysia  anticipate d that this en deavour would  significantly WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 27 - 
 
 
contribute to the establishment of a fully operational dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members  by 2024, as mandated by Ministers at MC12, Malaysia wishe d to reiterate its unwavering 
support in finding comprehensive s olutions to restore the fully functioning dispute settlement. 
Malaysia firmly assert ed that the two -tier dispute settlement system had to  remain the indisputable 
cornerstone of this institution . Given the rigorous nature of the ongoing work, Malaysia emphasi zed 
the significant constraints faced by certain Members, particularly smaller delegations like Malaysia. 
Malaysia foresaw that, in the run up to MC13 , meetings would  intensify and conflicting s chedules 
with other negotiation  meetings would  definitely occur , and t his might  regrettably prevent smaller 
delegation like Malaysia from following the plenary sessions of the DS reform work. Therefore, 
Malaysia earnestly request ed that new consideration b e given to the challenges faced by their 
delegations when scheduling these sessions. By doing so, it would ensure the full representation of 
all Members at th e critical  plenary sessions where crucial decisions would  be made. On that note, 
Malaysia welcome d the introduction of virtual participation for all Members  in the upcoming 
discussions. However, Malaysia would also support the virtual participation for the capital -based  
delegates in these meetings to follow the fast -paced discussions.  
7.21.  The representativ e of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation thanked 
Mr. Marco Molina for his report. The Russian Federation also wish ed to thank Mr . Molina for his efforts 
and patience in facilitating the informal negotiating process on the dispute settlement reform. The 
Russian Federation was  ready to further engage constructively within this process in an effort to 
move towards consensus. Having sai d that, the Russian Federation share d the view that multilateral 
outcome could only be achieved through the formal process as envisaged by Paragraphs 3 and 4 of 
the MC12 Outcome Document . Only the formality of it could guarantee that any possible outcome 
would be acceptable by all WTO Members, as the participation in the discussions in an equal, 
inclusive and transparent manner was an  inevitable part of the negotiations conducted in this 
Organization. The Russian Federation also proceed ed on the basis of th e understanding that the 
informal discussions were meant only "to contribute to multilateral discussions on dispute settlement 
reforms as mandated under MC12 Ministerial Declaration, rather than to substitute [them] ". Further, 
the Russian Federation suppor ted the approach that "nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed ", 
which Members should follow in the discussions. In this regard, the Russian Federation consider ed 
that the restoration of the two -tiered system with a fully and well -functioning Appella te Body was 
the indispensable element of any successful dispute settlement reform. Without solving the problem 
of the Appellate Body blockage, the consideration of other elements of the DS reform seem ed to be 
meaningless.   
7.22.  The representative of Australia  said that Australia first wished  to join other Members in 
thanking the facilitator of the informal process, Mr . Marco Molina, for his report at the present 
meeting . Australia thank ed Mr. Molina for his tireless efforts to ensure that the discussi ons continue d 
to be transparent, inclusive and open to all. Australia , however, hear d and underst ood the concerns 
raised by several developing and LDC Members and, in particular, the request that some ha d made 
for meetings to take place in a hybrid format.  Australia recogni zed the importance of ensuring that 
all Members with an interest in dispute settlement reform could  participate in the informal process. 
Australia also appreciate d that, as MC13 drew near, the demands on all delegations, but especially 
smaller ones, would  only grow. That was why Australia support ed Mr. Molina 's proposal to enable 
hybrid participation for Geneva -based delegates. On the issue of formali zation of the process, 
Australia also agree d that it would  be necessary, but it was not ye t time to do so. The innovative 
nature of the informal process ha d been critical to progress, and while some key issues remain ed 
pending, Members  should be careful about changes that might undermine progress. The majority of 
WTO Members identif ied dispute settlement reform as their top reform priority. In these critical final 
months before MC13, now was the time to intensify their efforts.  
7.23.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand joined other Members in thanking 
Mr. Marco  Molina  for the further update provided at the present meeting , and for his tireless work 
in supporting this process. New Zealand welcome d the progress and momentum in the ongoing 
discussions. The latest consolidated draft text was testament to the quality and th e pace of the work 
to date. It capture d a range of reform options that would  bring about meaningful improvements to 
the efficiency, affordability, and accessibility of the system. There was more to be done, however, 
including on some of the most difficult issues. Members had to  use the weeks remaining ahead of 
MC13 to continue the discussions with a view to preparing a package of reforms that would  enable 
the system to return to its full-functionality. New Zealand agree d that formalization  of the process 
should occur at the appropriate moment, and certainly ahead of taking any decisions on the package WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 28 - 
 
 
of reform options. But New Zealand continue d to believe the informal, interest -based nature of the 
discussions represent ed Members  best opportunity to find ing the solutions needed to secure a fully 
and well -functioning system ahead of MC13. The process should continue to be organized  in a 
transparent, open and inclusive manner that facilitate d the participation of all Members, as it ha d to 
date. 
7.24.  The representati ve of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mr. Marco  Molina  for his report 
and expresse d its deep appreciation to him for facilitating transparent and inclusive informal 
discussions, and for doing so in a responsive and adaptive manner, as evident from his latest 
announcement that remote participation would be arranged upon request by Geneva -based 
delegates. The urgency of the matter and the short runway to MC13 call ed for maintaining a brisk 
pace of work in a setting that facilitate d frank exchange s. Singapore therefore urge d Members to be 
pragmatic and flexible to maximi ze progress in the remaining time,  and looked forward to 
formali zation in due course and to the continued constructive engagement of every Member in this 
important process.  
7.25.  The repr esentative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to thank Mr. Marco Molina for 
his tireless commitment and, above all, for his excellent management of the process. The fact that 
key issues were still under discussion mean t that three plenary meetings  would  be held in 
January  2024. Switzerland would  participate constructively in th ose meetings and ask ed all Members 
to do the same so that they could secure an outcome that contribute d to the success of MC13 . 
Switzerland recall ed that, while the discussio ns certainly took up many resources, they were 
pragmatic and inclusive and facilitate d the search for compromises by enabling Members  to discuss 
their interests rather than simply defend their positions of principle. Dispute settlement discussions 
had never been so efficient, which would not have been possible in a formal process. To conclude, 
Switzerland reiterated its  view that it was crucial for the dispute settlement mechanism, once 
reformed, to continue to preserve the rules -based multilateral trading system and to protect against 
power dynamics.  
7.26.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia welcome d the progress report made by 
Mr. Marco  Molina  on the informal dispute settlement reform discussions. Cambodia share d similar 
views as with other delegations that the informal process was useful. However, Cambodia also 
share d the same thought with Members about the intense schedule of this informal process including 
the structure and pace of the informal meeting s and, like other small delegat ions, Cambodia could 
not manage to participate, follow -up and contribute substantively to the informal discussions . 
Cambodia was aware that , similar to the informal DS reform discussions,  a number of issues were 
scheduled to intensify the ir discussion s and negotiation , to name a few : Fish Month, Agriculture, 
LDC Graduation, and many more. In this regard, Cambodia  was curious to know how they could  
maintain inclusivity of Members , especially LDCs and small delegations to join in on all these 
priorities.  Dispute settlement reform was  one of the top priorities for most Members , including 
Cambodia,  to ensure a full and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all by 2024. 
Therefore, to ensure the inclusive participation of all Members , especially  in addressing the 
challenges of the LDCs and small delegation , and importantly to avoid overlapping with any WTO 
official meetings, the informal dispute settlement reform discussion should be institutionalized or 
multilaterali zed at the earliest possible  time. Finally, Cambodia  welcome d the introduction of virtual 
participation  for this process , which  should also be extended to capital -based delegates . 
7.27.  The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements. He said that t he discussion had 
been very useful and, as in the past, the DSB would take note of the statements expressing the 
respective positions, which would be reflected in the minutes of the present meeting.  The Ch airman 
conclude d that, in the course of the discussion, several dele gations had reiterated their call for the 
informal DS discussions to be formalized under the DSB/GC as quickly as possible . At the same time, 
he heard that many Members indicate d that this should be done at the right time and not 
prematurely. The Chairman propose d that Members reflect on this matter between now and  the next 
regular DSB meeting  to be held on 26 January 2024. He said that i n the beginning of next year, he 
would make himself available for consultations, upon request, with any interested delega tions to 
discuss how to proceed with this matter in preparation for the regular DSB meeting in January 2024. 
7.28.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 29 - 
 
 
8  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LAO PEOPLE 'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ; L ESOTHO ; L IECHTENSTEIN ; M ADAGASCAR ; M ALAWI ; 
MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; 
NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; 
PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; 
SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; 
UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 26) 
8.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations . He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 26 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
8.2.  The representative of Guatemala,  speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 6, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the jo int proposal, dated 6 September  2023 to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body  members . On behalf of those 1 30 Members, Guatemala wished to 
state the following . This Agenda item and the extensive  number of  Members submitting  the joint 
proposal reflected a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body  and, more generally, 
in the functioning of the dispute settlement system . The joint proposal sought to : (i) start seven 
selection processes ; (ii) to establish a Select ion Committee ; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the 
submission of candidacies ; and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates . The co -sponsors 
invited and urge d all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and 
multilateral trading systems . 
8.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, b efore beginning with its statement, the 
United States recall ed that the United States and other Members ha d jointly issued WT/GC/244, 
"The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of 
Belarus, " which condemn ed Russia 's actions as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and 
fundamental principles of international peace and security.  The United States reiterate d its support 
for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time.  The United States paid tribute to the heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their armed forces  and Leaders. Turning to this Agenda item, Members were 
aware of the long -standing US concerns with WTO dispute settlement.21 Those concerns remain ed 
unaddressed, and the United States did not support the proposed decision.  The United States 
believe d that fundamental reform was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement 
system.  The goal for the United States was not to return to the old system.  Rather, the United States 
was seeking a system that would be  fair and would revitalize the agency of Members to settle their 
disputes.  A system that preserve d the policy space in WTO rules for Members to address their critical 
interests – most notably on matters of essential security.  And a system that support ed, rather than  
undermine d, the WTO 's role as a forum for discussion and negotiation to help Members address new 
challenges.  As WTO Members continue d working to better understand each other 's interests in WTO 
dispute settlement, the next task of reform was to ensure that  any future system met the interests 
of all Members to the greatest extent possible.  The United States ha d been working with Members 
to advance this goal, and look ed forward to continued engagement.  As Members continue d to 
engage, the United States  welcome d the experimentation of Members in finding alternative means 
to resolve their disputes.  These varied approaches reinforce d Members ' primary interest in a system 
 
21 US Trade Representative Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (February  
2020) , available at https: //ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/DS/USTR.Appellate.Body.Rpt.Feb2020.pdf . WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 30 - 
 
 
that support ed parties in the resolution of their disputes.  The United States share d that obje ctive 
and look ed forward to engaging further with those Members that also saw value in an improved and 
reformed dispute settlement system that was accessible to all.  
8.4.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland condemn ed Russia's military 
aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. This was a flagrant violation of international law, 
most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. 
Switzerland call ed on Russi a to take military de -escalation measures, end hostilities and immediately 
withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international 
law, in particular international humanitarian law. With regard to Appellate B ody appointments, 
Switzerland  thank ed Guatemala for placing this matter on the Agenda  of the present meeting  and 
wished to refer to the statements made  by Switzerland  on this matter at previous DSB meetings. 
Switzerland encourage d all Members to join the M ulti-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  
(MPIA) . The MPIA was a pragmatic and effective way to preserve Members' rights until the Appellate 
Body impasse was resolved. Switzerland's  priority remain ed, of course, to find a multilateral solution 
that would  ensure that the dispute settlement system was fully operational.  
8.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union reiterate d its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation 's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violate d the UN Charter and disregard ed the rules -based international order. It undermine d 
international security and stability, and had no place in the 21st century. The European Union 's 
support for Ukraine 's independence, sovereignty, territ orial 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 the civilians and respect 
internation al humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people. Regarding 
this Agenda item, t he European Union wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter 
and thank ed all Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment 
processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, 
independent and impartial resolution of trade disput es. 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 settlement system 
and appointing  members of the Appellate Body was a key priority. This task was a shared 
responsibility of WTO Members. In order to achieve this objective, the European Union agree d that 
a meaningful reform was needed. The European Union support ed a reform that would pre serve  the 
core features of the dispute settlement system. The European Union treated very seriously the 
commitment, made at MC12, of having a fully and well -functioning system by 2024 and was 
committed to continuing to work towards meeting that goal. As st ated under the previous Agenda 
item, the European Union welcome d the progress that had already been achieved in the ongoing 
discussions and hope d that Members could  continue constructive discussions with a view to finali zing 
the text as soon as possible. In the meantime, the European Union was concerned with the impact 
that the absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system was having on the international 
trading order, as illustrated by the discussion  under Agenda 5  at the present meeting.  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 as long a 
solution to this impasse ha d not been found .  
8.6.  The representative of Korea  said that  Korea echoed other delegations and reaffirm ed its 
consistent position on Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected. With regard to this  Agenda item, Korea thank ed 
Guatemala and co -sponsors for their continuous support in favour of launchi ng the Appellate Body 
selection process es. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and refer red to its previous 
statements made on this matter . The WTO dispute settlement system ha d enhanced the security 
and predictability of the multilateral  trading system in response to the needs of WTO Members. With 
that in mind, Korea welcome d Member s' continuous engagement  in ongoing discussion s for dispute 
settlement reform and very much appreci ated all the efforts that they were making  to fulfil the 
mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document in achieving a fully  and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system  accessible to all Members by 2024 . WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 31 - 
 
 
8.7.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine wished to commend the tireless and efficient 
work of the WTO Secretariat, the DSB, Mr. Marco Molina, and everyone involved in extensive efforts 
on the WTO reform process. Despite Russia's  barbaric actions to destroy the traditional international 
trade routes and the violat ion of  international obligations in all possible manifestations, Ukraine was 
still an active standing participant of the WTO initiatives to support the multilateral trading system. 
Ukraine  was very grateful for the unwavering consolidated support and active position of all their 
international partners, thanks to which Ukraine had the possibility to exercise its rights within the 
framework of the WTO and stay ed strong resisting Russia's blatant violation of the fundamental 
principles of international peace, security and international law.  
8.8.  The representative of Cambodia  said that, a t the outset, Cambodia wished to be associated  
with the statement made  by Guatemala on behalf of the co -sponsors. Cambodia wished to refer to 
its previous statements  made  on this important and long -standing Agenda  item, and once again 
called for more Members to co -sponsor the AB  proposal. Cambodia stood  ready to continue the 
constructive engagement on this Appellate Body  restoration discussion multilaterally.  
8.9.  The representative of Japan  said that, f irst, Japan wished  to touch upon the situation in Ukraine. 
Japan strongly condemn ed Russia 's aggression against Ukraine and its attacks against civilian 
infrastructure and citi es across Ukraine. Japan strongly urge d Russia , once again , to stop the 
aggression and immediately withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally 
recognized borders. Japan would  also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of imposing severe 
sanctions against Russia and providing robust support to Ukraine, in cooperation  with the 
international community. Turning to this Agenda item, Japan wished to refer  to its statements  made  
at DSB previous meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan absolutely share d the sense of 
urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system an d had set as the utmost priority to achieve 
a reform. For that purpose, Japan welcome d the intensive discussions in the informal process  on DS 
reform . With a view to having a fully and well -functioning DS system by 2024, as agreed at MC12, 
Japan would work  actively and constructively with all WTO Members.  
8.10.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body . The United Kingdom wished to refer 
to its previous s tatements made on this matter and continue d to encourage all remaining Members 
to join in support. The United Kingdom continue d to condemn President Putin's war against Ukraine 
in the strongest terms. The United Kingdom again recall ed that Russia's actions  were a repudiation 
of the principles of the UN Charter and of the purpose and principles of this Organization. The United 
Kingdom stood  with Ukraine and would  continue to do everything it could  to support Ukraine's heroic 
resistance to this assault on its sovereignty and territorial integrity . 
8.11.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  wished to thank 
Guatemala for its statement. The African Group reiterate d its supp ort for a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system that was accessible to all Members  by 2024 in accordance with the mandate from 
Ministers at MC12.  The African Group's p riority remain ed to find a long -lasting resolution to the 
impasse that all Members  could  agree to in order to restore confidence of Members  in the multilateral 
trading system as well as strengthen the negotiating function within  the WTO. The critical mass of 
WTO Members that had co-sponsored the proposal for appointments of Appellate Body member s 
indicate d the importance that  all accord ed to a fully functioning dispute settlement system. Finally, 
the African Group stood  ready to engage constructively in the ongoing discussions on dispute 
settlement reform in order to restore a fully func tioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as 
agreed at MC12.  
8.12.  The representative of Pakistan  thanked  Guatemala and other co -sponsors for the statement  
and their continuous commitment towards the appointment process of Appellate Body members .  
Pakistan wishe d to refer the previous statement made on this matter. Pakistan reiterate d its stance 
that the dispute settlement system should address the issues an d challenges identified and faced by 
Members  without compromising on agreed principles and a dysfunctional system would not serve 
the rules-based system in  the current  environment which  require d certainty and predictability.  
Pakistan , therefore, urge d the early resolution of this matter as mandated under Para graph  4 of the 
MC12 Outcome Document to have fully functional and accessible dispute settlement system.  
8.13.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand continue d to condemn 
unequivocally Russia 's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Th ose actions were egregious and WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 32 - 
 
 
unlawful: the use of force to changes borders was strictly prohibited under international law, as was 
the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory 
had deep implications for global peace, security, and economic stability. New Zealand continue d to 
stand firmly alongside its Ukrainian partners and  against any steps by Russia that risk ed a further 
escalation in this conflict. In relation to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
proposal co -sponsored by 130 WTO Members and wished to  refer to its previous statements  made 
on this  matter . Restoration of a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system remain ed a key 
reform priority for New Zealand. New Zealand urged all Members to continue engaging constructively 
and pragmatically in order to advance this well ahead of MC13, consistent with the shared priority 
placed in restoring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members. 
New Zealand also took this opportunity to invite those Members who had not joined the MPIA to 
consider doing so. The M PIA provide d an avenue to safeguard access to an appeal level of review, 
while Members  worked collectively towards reform.  
8.14.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand thank ed Guatemala for delivering the 
statement on behalf of the co -sponsors. Thailand offered  its strong support for launching the 
selection process of new Appellate Body  members, so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system and to fulfil the MC12 man date of restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement that was 
accessible to all Members  by 2024.  
8.15.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for placing this item 
on the Agenda, which Singapore strongly support ed. Singapore reiterate d its previous statements 
made on this matter  and noted that the discussion under Agenda item 5 of the present meeting 
underscore d the importance and urgency of this proposal. While the Appellate Body impasse 
persist ed, Singapore encourage d Members to join the MPIA as an interim solution that preserve d 
their right to appeal.  
8.16.  The representative of Australia  said that, f irst, Australia wished  to note that it condemn ed in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion  of Ukraine. Australia 
continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organi zations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia stood  in solidarity with  the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to this Agenda item, with only two months to go until MC13, it was essential that Members  
increase d their efforts towards their shared mandate of having a fully functioning dispute  settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024 . Australia encourage d all Members to engage 
pragmatically and creatively to find solutions that were in all Members ' interests. While their 
discussions continue d, Australia encourage d Members to join the Multi -Party Interim Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA)  as the best interim means of protecting and enforcing Members ' 
rights under the WTO Agreements.  
8.17.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that  Bangladesh thank ed Guatemala for prese nting the 
proposal o n AB appointment s contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26. The two -tier dispute 
settlement  system was an indispensable feature of the WTO. For the restoration of the Appellate 
Body, Bangladesh, as a co -sponsor of the AB proposal, was requesting  that the DSB take a decision 
to launch the selection processes immediately to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. In order to 
ensure the security, predictability, and proper functioning of this multilateral trading system, 
Members  had to launch the process for Appellate Body appointments as a top priority. Bangladesh 
request ed that Members engage in discussions for Appellate Body appointments without further 
delay.  This was an urgency, which had also been expressed by Ministers at MC12. Bangladesh look ed 
forward to working constructively with other Members.  
8.18.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of 130 co-sponsors to call for the appointment  of new Appellate Body members without 
further delay . Brazil wished to refer to its previous statements  made  under this Agenda item.  
8.19.  The representative of Canada  said that , first,  Canada continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's 
unprovoked and unjustifiable invas ion of Ukraine. These hostile acts were a flagrant violation of 
international law and the rules -based international system, upon which organizations such the WTO 
were based. Canada express ed its solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Ukraine 's sovereignty and 
territorial integrity had to  be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to  be free to determine their 
own future. Canada call ed on Russia to immediately cease all hostile and provocative acti ons against WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 33 - 
 
 
Ukraine, and to withdraw its military forces from the country. Turning back to this Agenda item on 
the appointment of Appellate Body  members , Canada thank ed Guatemala for its statement made 
on behalf of the co-sponsors. The critical mass of WTO  Members supporting this proposal clearly 
demonstrate d the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral 
part of the dispute settlement system. Canada reiterate d Members ' objective of having a fully 
operational and well -functioning dispute settlement system, accessible to all, by 2024. Canada would  
continue to participate actively in discussions aimed at finding solutions to the current situation. 
Canada's priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members. In the 
meantime, the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA), provide d access to 
binding dispute settlement that include d the possibility of appeal in disputes between its participants. 
Currently,  53 WTO Members endors ed the M PIA.  Canada had  witnessed the positive impacts of this 
arrangement in the context of several disputes and invite d all WTO Members to consider participating 
in the MPIA. Canada was  available to discuss the details with any interested Members.  
8.20.  The represent ative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of 130 co -sponsors. China wished to refer to its previous statements made on this urgent 
matter, and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal so that the selection process of the 
Appellate Body could be launched without further delay. China would  continue its constructive 
engagement in the ongoing discussion s on DS reform, and call ed upon all Members to e ngage in this 
exercise in good faith and with pragmatic, outcome -oriented spirits so that Members  could deliver 
the reform outcome at the upcoming MC13. For now,  China encourage d more Members to join the 
MPIA. China stood  ready to discuss with and provide further information to any interested Members . 
8.21.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wished to refer to its previous statements  
made on this matter  and, with that being said,  Indonesia  emphasize d that the most urgent task to 
do was to restore an independent, impartial, and two -tier dispute settlement system with the 
functioning Appellate Body without further  delay. It was regrettable that while Members  were eager 
to uphold a rule -based multilatera l trading system, particularly implementation of Article 17.2 of the 
DSU, such effort s were to no avail due to the continuous blockage. A microcosm of the world today.  
8.22.  The representative of Malaysia  said that  Malaysia support ed Guatemala's statement, which  
represent ed 130 co -sponsors of the revised joint proposal to launch a selection process for the 
vacancies of Appellate Body members . The immediate launch  of the selection process es and prompt  
filling of vacancies for the Appellate B ody were of paramount importance. Malaysia firmly restate d 
its support in finding effective solutions with a view to restor ing the fully functioning dispute 
settlement system, in particular the two -tier dispute settlement system as the cornerstone of this 
institut ion. This system ha d consistently demonstrated its efficacy  in facilitating prompt  and fair 
resolution of dispute s among Members  instilling a sense of security and predictability within the 
multilateral trading system. While Malaysia  hoped that the ongoing  informal discussions would  make 
substantial contributions towards establishing a fully functional, accessible dispute settlement 
system by 2024, as mandated by Ministers at MC12, it urged all Members who had not yet endorsed 
this proposal  to promptly lend  their support . Such collective support was essential in expedit ing the 
commencement of the selection process es without any further delay. Malaysia also wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter . 
8.23.  The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , speaking on behalf of the ACP  Group , 
thanked Guatemala for presenting the joint proposal under this Agenda  item. Whilst the ACP Group 
as a whole was  not a co -sponsor of the current proposal, there were 45 ACP Group Members which , 
under their own responsibility, were co-sponsors. The ACP Group remain ed concerned that WTO 
Members were unable to benefit from the full y-functioning dispute settlement syste m. This was a 
system which the ACP Group believe d Members could all agree was essential for maintaining a 
rules-based international trading system, resolving conflicts in a fair and orderly manner, and 
fostering an environment where the rule of law trump ed power politics. Therefore, the ACP Group 
support ed the call for the launch of the selection process for Appellate Body appointments so as to 
restore the full y-functioning of two -tier binding dispute settlement in the WTO. The ACP Group did  
not believe tha t the approach taken by the Member concerned, to block an entire system from 
functioning, was the right way to resolve their differences in the WTO.   
8.24.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished  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 in order to restore a fully and well -functioning dispute WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 34 - 
 
 
settlement system by 2024 as mandated in the M C12 Outcome Document. Hong Kong, China  had 
not made a statement  under the previous  Agenda  item, noting the long list of Agenda items and 
speakers, however Hong Kong, China  wished to take this opportunity to thank Mr . Marco Molina for 
his tireless work in t he past few months on the informal DS reform process and to express its 
appreciation for the collegial spirit demonstrated by fellow delegates.  
8.25.  The representative of Norway  said that since the work of the DSB directly concern ed the 
upholding of the rules -based international order, Norway  found it appropriate and pertinent to 
address the situation in Ukraine. Norway condemn ed Russia 's illegal war of aggression against 
Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. Norway stood  firmly w ith its allies and partners in response 
to Russia 's war that constitute d a gross violation of international law, the rules -based system which 
also underpin ned this Organization  and the work of the DSB. Norway fully support ed the joint AB 
proposal presented  by Guatemala, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, 
supported by 130 Members. A fully functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members 
was critical to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system and for the credibility of the WTO 
as a rules -based organization  and was  a top priority for Norway . Norway referred to its previous 
statements made under this Agenda item . Norway continue d to engage in the ongoing discussions 
to address the current impasse. Norway also wished  to use this opportunity to remind Members  of 
the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) . The MPIA was open for WTO Members 
to join for as long as the Appellate Body remain ed unable to function fully.  
8.26.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associate d with the 
statement made by Guatemala on the proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thank ed 
Guatemala for its statement made on behalf of the co-sponsors. South Africa also support ed the 
statement made by Nigeria,  on behalf of the Africa n Group, and reiterate d its previous statements 
made regarding the urgency of this matte r. When Members had agreed to bind themselves to the 
Uruguay Round Agreements, it was on the understanding that their rights wou ld be protected by a 
predictable,  binding rules -based order underpinned by two-tier dispute settlement mechanism. The 
assurance that their trade relations would be subject to rules rather than soft power was a 
fundamental element of the bargain that was  struck and the continued dysfunctionality of the 
Appellate Body undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and imperilled  the 
multilateral trading system. A fully functioning Appellate Body was a top priority for WTO reform and 
it was crucial to t he effective operation of the multilateral trading syste m. As Members  inched closer 
to MC13, South Africa  remind ed them of the commitment undertaken during MC12 for a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system  accessible to all Members by 2024. South Africa would  
work actively and constructively with all Members towards finding a lasting solution to the current 
impasse.  
8.27.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements  made on this matter and thank ed Guatemala and co -sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of Appellate Body members. The 
Russian Federation reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes 
immed iately. The Russian Federation also wished to address certain political statements made by 
certain Members, and with respect to them , unfortunately the Russian Federation was  forced to 
remind  Members  that the Dispute Settlement Body had its own tasks and m andate as expressed in 
different DSU provisions . The political issues raised by some WTO Members neither concern ed any 
of the issues contained on  the Agenda to this meeting, nor were they within the competence of the 
DSB. Most importantly, the WTO was not a political organization and  Members  shall refrain from 
trying to address the issues  that were not in the competence of the Organization. In contrast, under 
Article 17.2 of the DSU the DSB did not just have the mandate,  but obligation  regarding this matter . 
Accordingly, the situation with the blockage of the Appellate Body appointments was the one to be 
addressed and the solution  to this matter  would strengthen the multilateral trading system. Hence, 
the Russian Federati on encourage d WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already 
had and not create new ones.  
8.28.  The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam wished to echo other Members in thank ing 
Guatemala and the co-sponsors for their continuous and faithfu l commitment to the appointment 
process of Appellate Body members. Besides the discussion of dispute settlement reform, Viet Nam 
reiterate d its support for launching the appointment process es as soon as possible and encourage d 
all Members to join this prop osal in order to restore a fully functioning, two -tier dispute settlement 
system that could be accessible to all.  WT/DSB/M/48 6 
- 35 - 
 
 
8.29.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala, on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that for the sevent y-second  occasion, Members had not been able to launch the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body . Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their 
duties as Members of the WTO . As Article 17.2 of  the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled 
as they arise ". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not 
prevent the Appellate Body  from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their 
obligation u nder the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise . Guatemala noted with deep concern that by 
failing to launch the selection processes at the present meeting, the Appellate Body  would continue 
to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members . 
8.30.  The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their statements . As in the past, the DSB would take 
note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected in the minutes 
of the present meeting . Once again, the Chair 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 . The Chair said that he  hoped that collectively 
Members would be able to find a solution to this matter . 
8.31.  The DSB took note  of the statements .