RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/481  
28 July 2023 
(23-5142) Page: 1/13 
Dispute Settlement Body  
30 June 2023   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 30 JUNE 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 both in -person and remotely. He reminded delegations that the technical 
instructions for remote participation remained the same as at 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 pres ent meeting, he wished to inform delegations that, 
like the previous Chair s of the DSB, he continued to consult with each interested party on this matter 
and that those consultations were ongoin g; and (iii) DDG Ellard  inform ed delegations  that the 
selectio n process for the Director of the Legal Affairs Division ha d been completed and the 
Director -General ha d decided to appoint Mr Jorge Castro,  Chief of Training Section at ITTC , with 
effect as of 17 July  2023. She said that Mr Castro ha d 20 years of experien ce in the WTO Secretariat, 
where he had previously served as a senior dispute settlement lawyer in the Legal Affairs Division 
and the Rules Division and counsellor in the Office of the Director -General. Before joining the WTO 
Secretariat , Mr Castro was the Head of the Legal Department of the Andean Community General 
Secretariat in Peru, and before that he had led the Legal Department of the Venezuelan 
Anti-Dumping Commission. He  also worked in private practi ce and served as a panelist in a WTO 
dispute.  Mr Castro  had a law degree from the Universidad Central de Venezuela in Caracas and a 
Masters degree in Foreign Service from  Georgetown University. DDG Ellard also wished  to thank Ms 
Susan Hainsworth, who ha d assisted DDG Ellard  during th e transition period .  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ................................  2 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States  .... 3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ............  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............................  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/481  
- 2 - 
  2 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 AFRICA N REPUBLIC; CHAD; 
CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; 
LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; 
MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQU E; 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; SINGAP ORE; 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.25)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
 
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 40) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.215) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.178) 
 
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.62) 
 
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.54) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.49 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.49) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant t o Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the  date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman  wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also remind ed 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting 
on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have 
been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 40) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 40, 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 cert ain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 19 June 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had WT/DSB/M/481  
- 3 - 
  addressed the DSB' s recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would  confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to th is matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 215) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 215, 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 19 June 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 s tatements  made on this matter and said that it wished  to resolve this case 
as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 78) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 178, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's reco mmendations and rulings. The E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms  (GMOs)  that, in the 
European Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 21 June 2023, 
the Commission adopted three decisions authorising the placing on the market of GM maize and 
four decisions renewing the authorisation for placing on the market of GMO s. Those decisions w ould 
be valid for ten years. On 11 May  2023, the Commission had presented to the Standing Committee 
two draft decisions authorising the placing on the market of GM maize. The  votes  had resulted in 
"no opinion ". The Commission w ould refer the two decisions to the Appeal Committee of 6 July 2023. 
On 3 July  2023, the Commission w ould present to the Standing Committee a draft decision 
authorising the placing on the market of a GM maize and a decision renewing the authorisation for 
placing on the market of a GM maize . 
1.12.  The representativ e of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States continued to engage with the 
European Union on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as t o how 
the European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States 
had described those problems in detail and noted its concerns with the European Union's biotech 
approval procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations, 
the most recent of which had taken place on 22 June 2023. The United States acknowledged the 
European Union's recent actions to authorise three new products and reauthorise four products and WT/DSB/M/481  
- 4 - 
  again requested that the European Union  move to issue final approvals for all products that had 
completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety Authority, including those 
products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee. The United States agai n 
noted the European Union 's issuance of approvals on a rolling basis and appreciated that approach . 
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 62) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 62, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the i mplementation 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 dis pute on 19 June 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 re sidential 
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 thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures in this 
dispute.  
1.17.  The representa tive of Canada  said that Canada wishe d to recall its  statement made under this 
Agenda  item at the 28  April 2023 DSB meeting.  
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 54) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to docume nt WT/DS471/17/Add. 54, 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 19 June  2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained in 
that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB . 
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and statement at this meeting . China was  disappointed that nearly five years after the 
expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the adopted 
rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  therefore once again urge d the United States to 
honour its obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity without further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/481  
- 5 - 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal prod ucts: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 49 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 49) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 49 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 49, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had submit ted a status report regarding 
the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes , in accordance 
with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia continue d to reiterate its commitment to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings through revocation of the measures at issue. On 31 March 2023, 
Indonesia had  issued Law No. 6/2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in lieu of 
Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation. The enactment of th at regulation affirm ed the removal of the 
measures at issue, particularly those related to self -sufficiency (Measure 18).  On that n ote, 
Indonesia also continue d to highlight the repeal of relevant Minist ry of Agriculture and Minist ry of 
Trade Regulations administering measure s 1 to 17, including : harvest period restriction ; import 
realization requirement ; six-months harvest requiremen t; reference price ; and domestic purchase 
requirement.  Aside from Indonesia 's compliance with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings , and 
to respond to the  complainants ' interest in the Commodity Balance, Indonesia again wished to  
highlight the purpose of th at framework, which was to serve as a mechanism for providing 
comprehensive, accurate, and reliable information through the integrated national database system. 
To that end, Indonesia remai ned convinced that the Commodity Balanc e would streamline import 
approval procedures, enhance the ease of doing business, and facilitate trade in a transparent 
manner. Indonesia remain ed ready to continue its engagement with New Zealand and the United 
States with the aim of resolving these disp utes. 
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. As the United States had expressed 
before, it would still appreciate further clarity on: which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's 
import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect those regimes; and 
how Indonesia expected the new commodity balance mechanism to, in its words, streamline the 
import approval procedu res, enhance the ease of doing business, as well as facilitate trade in a 
transparent manner. The United States would also appreciate further clarity on whether Indonesia 
was planning on making any adjustments to the operation of its import licensing proce ss to ensure 
that the significant delays in issuing permits for the first half of 2023 were not repeated. The United 
States remained willing to confer and work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that  New Zealand  thanked Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DS B's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired and New Zealand  remain ed concerned 
about a number of measur es. Like the United States , New Zealand would also appreciate 
understanding better the regulations that presently  underpin ned Indonesia 's import licencing 
regimes, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New Zealand was 
simila rly interested in better understanding how the new commodity balance w ould in fact operate  
to simplify and facilitate trade in affected products . New Zealand look ed forward to further 
constructive engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DS B took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/481  
- 6 - 
  2  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 R EPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; 
LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; 
MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; 
NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; 
NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; 
SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; 
TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; U NITED KINGDOM ; U RUGUAY ; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 25) 
2.1.  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 then drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 25 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of Guatemala , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.25, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 May 2023 , to launch the selection processes for the vacancies 
of the Appellate Body  members. On behalf of thos e 129 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 d ispute settlement system. The joint proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection 
processes; (ii)  establish a Selection Committee; (iii) set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv)  request that the Selection Committee issue its re commendation within 60  days 
after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The co -sponsors invited and urged all Members to 
support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the longstanding US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States believed that fundamental reform 
was need ed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system. A well -functioning dispute 
settlement system supported WTO Members in the resolution of their disputes in an efficient and 
transparent manner, and in doing so limited the needless complexity an d interpretive overreach that 
had characterized dispute settlement in recent years. As WTO Members continued working to better 
understand each other's interests in WTO dispute settlement, the next task of reform was to ensure 
that any future system met the  interests of all Members to the greatest extent possible. The United 
States had been engaging with Members to advance that goal and looked forward to continued 
engagement. The United States acknowledged that considerable work remained and that achieving 
fundamental dispute settlement reform would not be easy. But the United States continued to believe 
that working collectively towards that goal provided the greatest chance of achieving durable, lasting 
reform. The United States was committed to working tow ards an improved system. The United 
States looked forward to engaging further with those Members that also saw value in an improved 
and reformed dispute settlement system that was accessible to all . 
2.4.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada strongly co ndemn ed the unjustified and 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin. Canada wished to  express its solidarity with the 
Ukrainian people. President  Putin's plans to annex Ukrainian territory were devoid of legitimacy and 
would  never be recognized. Th ose hostile acts ha d been ongoing for over a year. Th ose acts were a 
flagrant violation of international law and of the rules -based international system.  Ukraine 's 
sovereignty and territorial integri ty had to  be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to  be free to 
determine their own future. Canada urge d Russia to immediately cease all acts of hostility and 
provocation against Ukraine and to withdraw from the country its military and intermediary for ces. 
Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body  members, for over three years the Appellate Body  WT/DSB/M/481  
- 7 - 
  had no longer had a quorum and h ad been unable to hear new appeals. Canada support ed the 
statement made by Guatemala at th e present  meeting  on behalf of the co-sponsors . Canada invite d 
those WTO  Members that ha d not yet endorsed the proposal to consider joining the 129  Members 
that were calling for the selection process to be launched. The critical mass of WTO  Members that 
support ed that proposal was a clear t estimony to the importance  they all accord ed to a fully 
functioning Appellate Body  as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada  recall ed the 
Membership 's objective, which was to have a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
that was accessible to all by 2024. Canada w ould continue to actively participate in solution -oriented 
discussions on the current situation. In short, Canada's  priority remain ed to find a multilateral and 
lasting solut ion for all Members, including the United  States. Meanwhile, the Multi -Party Interim 
Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) g ave access to binding dispute settlement that include d the 
possibility to appeal in disputes among its participants. Fifty -three WTO  Members ha d now joined 
the MPIA. Canada invite d all WTO  Members to consider joining the MPIA, and Canada was  available 
to discuss the details of the MPIA with interested Members.  
2.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenti ng the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors . Brazil  referred to its previous statements under this Agenda item. 
Having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was a top 
priority for Brazil. Brazil  looked forwa rd to continued engagement with all Members as they prepare d 
the ground for text -based negotiations that m ight take them to the goal established by Ministers at 
MC12. While the impasse with the appointment of Appellate Body  Members persist ed, WTO Members 
could ensure the resolution of their disputes by joining the MPIA. The Arrangement ha d proved to 
be a tested, effective , and viable way for Members to avail themselves of their right to resolve 
disputes under the DSU. Brazil encourage d Members to consider joining  the MPIA . Brazil was  ready 
to discuss the Arrangement with any delegation that wishe d to learn more about the MP IA and its 
functioning.  
2.6.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia  thank ed Guatemala for presenting the 
proposal and support ed the statement  made at the present meeting. Malaysia  wished to refer to its 
statements made  at previous DS B meetings under this Agenda item and  urged other Members , who 
had not done so,  to join the  proposal . 
2.7.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Guatemala  and suppor ted the 
statement made regarding  the proposal on behalf of the 129 co -sponsors, reflecting the common 
interest of Members in resolving the current crisis surrounding the Appellate Body . Indonesia wished 
to encourage more Members to become co -sponsors of this proposal. While referring to its 
statement s made at previous  DSB meetings on this matter, Indonesia further emphasize d the 
urgency of having a fully functioning dispute settlement system as mandated at MC12, to preserve 
the credibility and relevance of the rules -based multilateral trading system. To th at end, Indon esia 
would remain committed to engag ing constructively with all Members and positively contribut ing to 
this matter, including in the forthcoming text -based negotiation s of dispute settlement reform after 
the summer break.  
2.8.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine  once again confirm ed its support for, and  
readiness to contribute to  this initiative  regarding the proper functioning of the Appellate Body . 
Ukraine also wished  to make a statement regarding Russia 's war in Ukraine, which continue d to have 
a huge impact not only on international trade, but which  had also resulted in significant 
environmental damage and a detrimental effect on the global climate. Ukraine  had repeatedly 
stressed that Russia had put the world in an unprecedented situat ion, because war of this scale 
affect ed not only one country – the impact indeed ha d a global range, from a shortage of food 
products, raw materials , and components, to the termination of trade routes, changes in demand , 
and rising prices. Ukraine wished  to raise awareness that the consequences of this war were 
increasing over time, and were becoming increasingly  global, beyond Ukraine. The environmental 
impact of the explosion at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant on 6 June 2023 had yet to be 
assessed, but it w ould undoubtedly have a significant impact on various aspects of the environment, 
from the depletion  of flora and fauna, to pollution of the Black Sea. One could see now that Russia 
had prepared everything for its next terrorist attack at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, which 
would  cause radiation leakage, entail ing global consequences. Ukraine wished to remind all Members 
that radiation d id not recognize borders and each Member  should understand that to remain silent 
about a disaster at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant or about the direct threat to the nuclear 
safety of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear P ower Plant today mean t to legalize it tomorrow in any part of 
the world.  Ukraine was the mouthpiece of the fight for life and  health of all mankind and for the WT/DSB/M/481  
- 8 - 
  environment throughout the world. Therefore, Ukraine  urged Members to remain strong and 
consolid ated in their support of Ukraine, to continue to work together in unity for global safety in all 
areas of human life, holding Russia accountable and preventing it s terror that h ad been ongoing for 
over a year.  
2.9.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in condemning 
unequivocally the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose actions were 
egregious and unlawful. The act of aggression was strictly prohibited under international law, as was 
the targeting of civilians. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory ha d deep implications for 
global peace, security , and economic stability, and New Zealand  continue d to stand firmly against 
any steps by Russia that risk ed further escalation in thi s conflict. In relation to this Agenda item , 
New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal now co-sponsored alongside 128 other WTO 
Members, and refer red to its previous statements  made on this matter. Reform of the dispute 
settlement system to ensur e a fully and well -functioning system accessible to all Members remain ed 
a priority for New Zealand. New Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to engage in the ongoing 
discussions constructively and pragmatically in order to advance this critical work in line with the 
direction of  Ministers. New Zealand  also t ook this opportunity to invite those Members who ha d not 
joined the  MPIA to consider  doing so. The MP IA provide d an avenue  to safeguard access to an appeal 
level of  review while Members  worked collectively towards reform in order to restore a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system.  
2.10.  The representative of Peru said tha t Peru  thank ed Guatemala  and support ed the presentation 
made on behalf of the 129 co-sponsors of the proposal . Peru called on those Members who were not 
yet party to the proposal  to consider joining  the proposal.  A fully functioning dispute settlement 
system was key to protect ing legal security , predictability , and the principles of the multilateral 
trading system.  In this regards,  Peru wished for a level playing field where both large and small 
countries c ould enforce the trade rules agreed  by Members . The status quo that prevail ed for the 
past three years was damaging not only for Members individually, but for the system  as a whole. In 
that regard, and in order to move forward towards  the objective of having a ful ly functioning dispute 
settlement system by 2024, Peru support ed and had engage d in the informal discussion s for th at 
purpose . However, Peru r eiterate d that this process was separate. Also, in order to preserve the 
security and predictability of the system , and while th e impasse last ed, Peru joined others in urging  
Members  to join the MPIA, which allow ed Members  to safeguard their right to binding dispute 
settlement with two levels of adjudication.  
2.11.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented 
by Guatemala to launch the process for appointments of Appellate Body  members. A fully function ing 
dispute settlement system was critical to maintain ing the rules -based multilateral trading system 
and for the credibility of the WTO as a rules -based organization . Norway  also wished to remind 
Members of the MPIA. The MPIA was open for WTO Members to j oin for as long as the Appellate 
Body remain ed unable to function fully. Since  the work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding 
of the rules -based international order, Norway also  found it pertinent to address the situation in 
Ukraine. Norway continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on Ukraine. 
Russia 's war of aggression against Ukraine ha d now continued for more than a year  and constitute d 
a gross violation of international law, the rules -based system which also underpi nned the WTO , and 
the work of the DSB.  
2.12.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement  made  by Guatemala on 
behalf of the 129 co -sponsors. China  referred to its previous statements on this urgent matter, and 
called upon more Members to join th e proposal. Like others, China  reiterate d its firm commitment 
to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system. To fulfil such objectives, China  
believe d that the most urgent task was to immediately launch the selection process es and fill the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body . China recognize d all the efforts dedicated by all Members  to the 
ongoing discussions of DS reform . China  was working constructively and w ould continue to do so 
with all Members , with pragmatic and outcome -oriented spirits , aiming to have a fully and 
well-functioning  dispute settlement system by 2024 , as mandated by Ministers at MC12. This 
remain ed the top priority for China. Finally , China wished  to take this opportunity to encourage more 
Members to join the MPIA as a contingent measure to safeguard their rights to a ppeal until the 
Appellate Body  was restored. China stood  ready to discuss with , and provide further information for , 
any interested Members.  WT/DSB/M/481  
- 9 - 
  2.13.  The representative of Thailand  thank ed the representative of Guatemala  and fully support ed 
the statement made  on behalf of the co-sponsor s. Thailand  urged other  Members to join the 
proposal. Thailand refer red to its previous statements made on this urgent matter and reiterate d its 
commitment to restore a fully and well-functioning dispute settl ement system as mandated  by 
Ministers . Thailand welcome d and was committed to participating in the ongoing reform discussions 
with an aim to improv ing the efficiency of the dispute settlement system in a way that addresse d 
Members ' concerns and interests. Having said that, Thailand  also wished to caution Members not to 
lose sight of their MC12 mandate, which w ould remain unfulfilled as long as the curre nt impasse 
with the appointment of Appellate Body  members persist ed. Filling the Appellate Body  vacancies 
was unequivocally Members'  obligation  under the DSU and nothing should prevent Members from  
their right to appeal . 
2.14.  The representative of Japan  said th at, first, Japan wished to touch upon the situation in 
Ukraine. Japan strongly condemned the Russian aggression against Ukraine and its attacks against 
civilian infrastructure and sites across Ukraine. Japan strongly urged Russia to stop the aggression 
and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine, within its internationally -recognized borders 
immediately. Japan would also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of imposing civilian 
sanctions on Russia and providing logistical support to Ukraine,  in cooperation with the international 
community. With regard  to Agenda item 2,  Japan absolutely share d a sense of urgency for reform 
of the dispute settlement system and ha d set as its utmost priority to achieve a reform that w ould 
contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and functional problems of the dispute 
settlement system. Members should discuss the reform, including how to address the concerns 
surrounding the appellate review mechanism. In relation to th at, Japan welcome d the intensive 
discussions in the informal DS reform initiative currently led by Members. With a view to having a 
fully and well -functioning DS system by 2024, as agreed at MC12, Japan wished  to wor k actively 
and constructively with all WTO Members.  
2.15.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea echoed other delegations  and reaffir med its 
consistent position on Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity , and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected.  Korea, as a responsible member of the international 
community, support ed various diplomatic and economic efforts of the international community to 
contribute to the end of the aggression and the restoration of peace, and w ould actively participate 
in those efforts. As for the item at hand, Korea thank ed Guatemala for its state ment, and the 
co-sponsors for their continuous support , in favour of launching the Appellate Body  selection process.  
Korea reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and refer red to its previous statements on this 
issue. The WTO dispute settlement syste m ha d enhanced the security and predictability of the 
rules-based multilateral trading system in response to the needs of WTO Members.  In this context, 
Korea very much appreciate d all the efforts that Members ha d made to materialize the mandate of 
the MC12  Outcome Document. Th ose multilateral efforts were making progress in relevant 
discussions , including through  recogni zing the importance and urgency of addressing the challenges 
and concerns with regard to the dispute settlement system.  Korea reaffirm ed its firm commitment 
to moving forward to achieve a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system and look ed 
forward to working further with Members with the aim of accommodating the needs of Members.  
2.16.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China,  wished to join other 
Members to reiterate its concerns about the A ppellate Body impasse as well as its commitment to 
working constructively with all WTO Members to restore a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system in accordan ce with the MC12 mandate . 
2.17.  The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia wished to be associated  with the 
statement  made  by Guatemala on behalf of the 129 co-sponsors and call ed upon more Members to 
join th e proposal. Cambodia referred to its previous s tatement s made on this Agenda item and 
reiterate d its firm commitment to, and support for, the well-functioning of an independent and 
impartial t wo-tier dispute settlement system accessible to all Members , including least-developed 
countries, to realise the MC12 mandate on this matter . 
2.18.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , thank ed Guatemala 
for its statement regarding the proposal on Appellate Body  member appointments, of which the 
African Group  were co-sponsor s. The African Group reiterate d its support for a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members by 2024 , in accordance with the 
mandate from  Ministers at MC12. The fact that the Appellate Body  could not hear new appeals 
remain ed a concern. Without a fully functioning WTO dispute settlement  system the security, WT/DSB/M/481  
- 10 - 
  credibility , and predictability of the multilateral trading system was put at risk. Th e critical mass of 
Members asking for the launch of the selection process indicate d the importance Members attach ed 
to having a fully functioning dispute settlement system for the multilateral trading system. The 
African Group  stood ready to engage constru ctively in the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement 
reform  in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 . 
2.19.  The representative of Australia  said that  Australia join ed others in condemning in the strongest 
terms Russia 's illeg al, 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 organisations such as the WTO were based. Australia  
continue d to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its 
troops. Turning to Agenda item 2, for Australia there was no higher reform priority than achieving a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as agreed by Members at MC12. Members  were 
now halfway through 2023 with MC13 on the horizon. Now was the time to build the  necessary 
momentum to deliver on  their MC12 mandate. It was crucial that Members  balance d principle with 
pragmatism to make the best possible use of th at window of opportunity. Australia  looked forward 
to working actively and constructively with all Membe rs to fulfil th at shared objective. As Members  
worked towards that objective, Australia  encourage d all Members to join the MPIA as the best interim 
mechanism for ensuring Members ' rights under WTO Agreements c ould be enforced and protected. 
Joining the MPI A also demonstrat ed the value that Members place d on a binding, enforceable WTO 
dispute settlement system. Australia was ready to engage with any delegation interested in joining  
the MPIA.  
2.20.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation w ished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter, and thank ed Guatemala as well as  the co-sponsors 
for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body  
members. Russia reitera ted its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. 
Also, the Russian Federation consistently urge d all WTO Members to start discussions on dispute 
settlement reform in a formal mode, as agreed by WTO Members at MC12. Th is was the o nly process 
that would be  based on principles of transparency and inclusivity , and which  could bring Members  
to a meaningful result supported by every Member. Meanwhile, Russia welcome d the attempts to 
begin informal discussions on dispute settlement issue s and was ready to engage constructively with 
any delegation that intend ed to reinforce the building of the effective fully functioning dispute 
settlement system. The Russian Federation  also had to address certain political statements made by 
some WTO Members under this Agenda item , and wished to stress the following . First, nowhere in 
the Agenda of this meeting , circulated on 28 June 2023 in document WT/DSB/W/720 and adopted 
at th e present  meeting,  could one  see an invitation to deliver such statements. The political 
discussions suggested by some WTO Members d id not concern any of the issues listed on the Agenda. 
Second, the WTO was not a political organization and Members shall  refrain from trying to address  
issues in the WTO  that were not in the competence of this Organization.  Third, none of the political 
issues raised by some WTO Members was within the competence of the DSB . In contrast, Russia 
consider ed the problem with the blockage of Appellate Body  appointments to be the core issue to 
be addressed in the DSB  – Article 17.2 of the DSU provided  the DSB not just with that mandate, but 
that obligation.  Finding a solution to this  problem would  strengthen the multilateral trading system. 
Russia encourage d WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already ha d and not 
creating new ones, unless any WTO Member ha d an intention to continue to destroy the system 
further . 
2.21.  The representative o f the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body . The United Kingdom  referred to its 
previous statements on this issue  and note d the increasing number of Members co-sponsoring the 
proposal. The United Kingdom encourage d all remaining Members to join and support  the proposal . 
The United Kingdom remain ed committed to reaching a resolution to the current impasse . Achieving 
a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement s ystem was in the interests of all Members who value d 
an effective multilateral trading system. As such, the United Kingdom  continue d to participate in the 
ongoing Member -led discussions on dispute settlement reform. The United Kingdom  welcome d the 
ambition  and intensity of the current discussions. Pragmatic solutions were required for reforms that 
would command the support of all WTO Members . The United Kingdom call ed on all Members to 
continue to prioritise efforts on reform . As Members  talked about comply ing with and strengthening 
international law, Russia continue d to violate international law  through President Putin 's outrageous 
and illegal war against sovereign and democratic Ukraine. Th at was not simply politic s – it was a 
repudiation of the principles  that every country ha d committed to uphold under the UN Charter, as WT/DSB/M/481  
- 11 - 
  well as to the purpose and principles of the WTO . Russia 's actions directly impede d the ability of 
Ukraine to fully participate in the work of this institution and the global trading syst em. President 
Putin had to  urgently stop his attack on the Ukrainian people , withdraw from Ukraine,  and restore 
regional and global stability. The United Kingdom st ood with Ukraine and w ould continue to do  
everything it could  to support Ukraine in the face of this assault on its sovereignty and territorial 
integrity.  
2.22.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statement , 
which Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous st atements regarding the 
proposal 's urgency and importance . Singapore was committed to participating constructively and 
with an open mind in the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform . 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 until they collectively f ound a durable and lasting solution. Singapore, 
together with other MPI A participants, was ready to engage with any delegation that wishe d to learn 
more about the arrangement . 
2.23.  The representative of Moldova  said that Moldova  thanked Guatemala for presenting the joint 
Appellate Body  proposal and for including this item on the Agenda. Moldova  joined other Members 
in reiterat ing the necessity to solve, in an urgent manner , the existing issues in connection with the 
Appellate Body  selection process in order to have a viable , two-tiered dispute settlement mechanism 
serving all Members. Moldova  also en courage d other Members to join this proposal. Moldova also 
expres sed its support for the ongoing discussions  on dispute settlement reform with the purpose of 
finding a viable long -lasting solution for the Appellate Body  impasse  before MC 13. Referring to 
Russia's war against Ukraine, Moldova  thank ed Ukrain e for its update in th e DSB . Moldova align ed 
itself with  other Members condemn ing the aggression and reiterate d its full support for, and solidarity  
with, the Ukrainian people . Moldova call ed upon Russia to stop this war and withdraw its troops from 
Ukrainian territory immediately and unconditionally.  
2.24.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland condemn ed Russia 's military  
aggression against Ukraine. Such aggression was  a flagrant violation of international law, especially 
the prohibition o n the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland 
called on Russia to take de-escalation measures, cease hostilities and immediately withdraw its 
troops from Ukrainian t erritory . Switzerland call ed on all stakeholders to respect international law, 
especially international humanitarian  law. With regard to item 2 on the Agenda, Switzerland  thank ed 
Guatemala for the intervention and refe rred to its statement made on this issue at previous DSB 
meetings . Switzerland called on  all Members to commit to achieving a fully operational dispute 
settlement system by 2024, as stipulated in the final Outcome Document  of MC12 . That objective 
was a priority for Switz erland and Switzerland would  continue to participate in a constructive way in 
the informal discussions which were presently  in progress . 
2.25.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union reiterated its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violated the UN Charter and disregarded the rules -based international order. It undermined 
international security and stability and had no place in the 21st century. The European Un ion's 
support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and right of self -defence was 
unwavering. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression and 
withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia had to c ease actions endangering civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people. Regarding 
this Agenda item,  the European Union refer red to its previous statements on this issue and thank ed 
all Members who ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes. Since 
11 December 2019, the WTO had no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, indepen dent 
and impartial resolution of trade disputes.  A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was 
crucial.  That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the present proposal. 
The European Union believe d that restoring a fully functio ning dispute settlement system and 
appointing Members of the Appellate Body  was a key priority. Th at task was a shared responsibility 
of WTO Members. In order to achieve th at objective, the European Union  agree d that a meaningful 
reform was needed. The European Union  support ed a reform that preserve d the core features of the 
dispute settlement system. The European Union  treated very seriously the commitment made at 
MC12 to conduct discussions with the view to hav ing a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024 . It was with that objective in mind, and in a constructive 
spirit, that the European Union  had been engaging in the discussions on dispute settlement reform. WT/DSB/M/481  
- 12 - 
  The European Union  was keen to see discussions continue in a focused and result -oriented manner, 
with a view to having a well and fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. Members  had 
an ambitious schedule in place, but they had to  be ambitious if they were to deliver on the MC12 
commitment. Indeed, th ose discussions had to  pave the way for agreement on dispute settlement 
reform at MC13. In the meantime, the European Union was  concerned with the impact that the 
absence of a fully functioning dispute s ettlement system was having on the international trading 
order. In that context, the MPIA ha d been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system among its participants and to support rules -based trade. The  
MPIA was open to any WTO Member, and the European Union  invite d any WTO Member to join as 
long as a solution to th at impasse ha d not been found.  
2.26.  The representative of Colombia  said that Colombia wished to thank Guatemala for the 
statement made on behalf of 129 co -sponsors of the joint AB proposal. Colombia also thanked the 
representative of Guatemala for his tremendous efforts in the context of the discussions on DS 
reform.  
2.27.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associated with the 
statement made  by Guatemala on the proposal for Appellate Body  appointments  and thank ed 
Guatemala for delivering the statement on behalf of the co-sponsors. South Africa  also support ed 
the statement made  by Nigeria , on beha lf of the Africa Group. South Africa  reiterate d its previous 
statements regarding the urgency of this matter . The fact that the Appellate Body  could not hear 
new appeals remain ed a concern. Members ha d a shared responsibility to safeguard and preserve 
the Appellate Body , the dispute settlement system , and the multilateral trading system. It was the 
duty of Members to proceed without further delay  with the launching of the selection processes for 
the Appellate Body  members. South Africa  therefore urge d the D SB to urgently fulfil its obligation 
under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they arise and to maintain the two -tier dispute 
settlement system, as this w ould ensure predictability within the multilateral trading system. A fully 
functioning Appellate Body was a top priority for reform of the WTO and it was crucial to the effective 
operation of the multilateral trading system that Members  achieved th at shared objective. South 
Africa  welcome d the commitment undertaken  by Members during MC12 for a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. Th at commitment 
was reiterated during the recent informal discussions on WTO reform , which  were continu ing. South 
Africa w ould continue to work actively and constructiv ely with all Members to find a lasting solution 
to the present impasse and to ensure an effective dispute settlement  system . 
2.28.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States and other Members had 
jointly issued document  WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation 
against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus, " which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The U nited States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time. The 
United States paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, armed forces and Leaders . 
2.29.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed Guatemala for presenting the 
proposal on Appellate Body  appointment s contai ned in  document WT/DS B/W/609 /Rev.25 , for the 
immediate restoration of the Appellate Body . Bangladesh , along with the listed Members , as a 
co-sponsor of the proposal on Appellate Body appointment s, was requesting the DS B to take a 
decision to launch the selection  process to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body . If Members  were 
truly respectful of the commitment by their Ministers, as provided in paragraph four of the MC12 
Outcome Document, Members had  to engage in discussions for Appellate Body  appointments as a 
top priority. Bangladesh was ready to continue constructive discussions in that regard . 
2.30.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala , on behalf of the 129 co -sponsors, 
regret ted that for the sixty -seventh  occasion, Members  had not been able to launch the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body . Thus, Members  continue d to fail fulfilling their 
duties as Members of the WTO . As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly state d, "vacancies shall be filled 
as they arise ". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not 
prevent the Appellate Body  from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise . 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.  WT/DSB/M/481  
- 13 - 
  2.31.  The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements. As in the past, the DSB w ould take 
note of the statements expressing the respective positions, wh ich would be reflected in the minutes 
of the present meeting. Once again, he 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. He hoped that collectively Members w ould be able to find 
a solution to this matter.  
2.32.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________