RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 79 
18 July  2023 
(23-4838) Page: 1/27 
Dispute Settlement Body  
30 May 2023  
 
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 30 MAY 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. The Chair man recalled a few technical 
instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegat ions. He said that i f a Member was unable 
to take the fl oor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform the 
Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would  proceed to the next Agenda 
item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a 
technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting; (ii) the Chairman  
made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting 
pertaining to the DS574 dispute. He said that, as Members recalled, that matter had been removed 
from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each interested party 
regarding that Agenda item. At the present meeting,  he wished to inform delegations that, like the 
previous Chair of the DSB, he continued to consult with each interested party on this matter and 
that those consultations were ongoin g; and (iii) the Chairman  informed delegations that  on 
17 May 2023, India h ad notified the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report in the dispute on 
"India – Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods". He said that u nder the circumstances, pursuant to 
Article 16.4 of the DSU, the panel report could not be considered for adoption b y the DSB until after 
completion of the appeal. Accordingly, he  said that item 4 not be included on the Agenda of the 
present meeting.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a, as amended . 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Un ion ................................ ................................ ..... 4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers fr om Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ .........................  4 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 2 - 
 
 
   
 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 prod ucts: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
2 TURKEY – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION, 
IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS (DS583) – 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AWARD OF THE 
ARBITRATORS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ .................  6 
3 EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON 
STAINLESS STEEL COLD -ROLLED FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDONESIA  ..............................  7 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia  ................................ .....................  7 
4 STATEMENT BY JAPAN REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS"  (DS584)  ................................ .........  8 
5 INDIA – TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS IN THE INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
A. Joint request by the Separate Customs Territory Of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen And 
Matsu and India for a decision by the DSB  ................................ ................................ ...........  10 
6 DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  ................................ ................................ .... 11 
7 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 O F 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; REPUBL IC 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; TAN ZANIA; 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)  ................................ ................................ ............................  19 
 
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 39) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.214) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.177) 
 
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.61) 
 
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.53) WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 3 - 
 
 
  
 F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report  by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.48 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.48) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of t ime 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 39) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 39, 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 16 May 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with resp ect 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 respe ct 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. 214) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 214, 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 16 May 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 st atements  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 . WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 4 - 
 
 
   
 C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biote ch 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 77) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 177, 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 recommendation s and rulings. The E uropean Union  
continue d to propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European 
Food Safety Authority 's risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 31 March 2023, the 
Commission had presented t o the Standing Committee three draft decisions authorising the placing 
on the market of GM maize2 and three decisions renewing the authori zation for placing on the market 
of GM soybeans.3 The votes had resulted in "no opinion ". The six dr aft decisions were referred to 
the Appeal Committee held on 11 May 2023. The votes in the Appeal Committee resulted in 
"no opinion " and it was now for the Commission to decide on these authorisations.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Euro pean Union for its status report and 
its statement 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 to how the 
European Union could address the u ndue 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 nex t 
of which would be held in June. The United States 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 tha t were with the Standing Committee 
and Appeals Committee. The United States again 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. 61) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 61, 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 washe rs from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 16 May 2023, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6  May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce published a notice in t he 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 t he 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.  
 
2 GM maize MON 87429, MON 95379 and DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS -40278 -9 and its 
sub-combinations . 
3 GM maize MON 87429, MON 95379 and DP4114 x MON89034 x MON87411 x DAS-40278 -9 and its  
sub-combinations . WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 5 - 
 
 
  
 1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wishe d to reiterate  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 ne xt 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. 53) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 53, 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 proceed ings involving 
China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 16 May 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 its statement made at the present meeting . China was  disappointed that nearly 
five years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States  had still fail ed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  therefore once again 
urged the United States to hono ur its obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal prod ucts: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 48 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 48) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 48 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 48, 
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 on the 
implementation of the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in t hese disputes in accordance with 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia continue d to affirm its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. As expressed at previous meetings, Indonesia wishe d to 
highlight substantial adjustments done  to the measures at issue, namely the enforcement of Law 
No. 6/2023 on 31 March 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2/2022 
on Job Creation, which revoke d Measure 18 with regard to self -sufficiency. A number of Ministerial 
Regulations ha d also been adopted to repeal other disputed measures, such as the harvest period 
restriction, import realization requirement, six -months harvest requirement, reference price , and 
domestic purchase requirement. With regard to the Commodity Bala nce, Indonesia  wished to further 
reiterate that this framework serve d as a tool to provide the administration with a set of 
comprehensive, accurate, and reliable information about production and consumption of certain 
commodities , through an integrated nat ional database system. Indonesia  truly believe d that this 
framework would simplify the procedures for the approval of import application s and enhance the 
ease of doing business, as well as facilitate trade. Indonesia wishe d to reiterate its openness to wor k 
closely with New Zealand and the United States to resolve these disputes.  
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 the regimes; and how 
Indonesia expected the new commodity balanc e mechanism to, in its words, simplify the procedures 
for the approval of import applications and enhance the ease of doing business, as well as facilitate WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 6 - 
 
 
   
 trade. The United States would also appreciate further clarity on whether Indonesia was planning on 
making any adjustments to the operation of its import licensing process to ensure that the significant 
delays in issuing permits for the first half of 2023 were not repeated. The United States remained 
willing to confer and work with Indonesia to fully res olve this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. Both compliance deadlines have long since expired, and New Zealand  remain ed 
concerned about a number of measures. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional 
information provided in recent meetings. New Zealand  continue d to assess th at information and 
would revert with any additional questions on th ose and other matters. Like the United States, New 
Zealand would also appreciate understanding better the regulations that presently  underpin ned 
Indonesia 's import licensing re gimes, as well as any regulations that were forthcoming. New Zealand 
looked forward to further constructive engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2  TURKEY – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION, IMPORTATION AND 
MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS (DS583) – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AWARD OF THE ARBITRATORS – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of the European Union, and 
he invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that u nder this Agenda  item, the European Union 
wished  to comment on the statu s report circulated by  Türkiye in this dispute . Türkiye had claim ed 
that the actions it describe d in the status report "bring it into compliance with the arbitration award ". 
The E uropean Union  appreciate d Türkiye's efforts towards implementation. However, the European 
Union d id not agree that th ose actions  amount ed to full compliance. The European Union had several 
concerns, both with regard to the nature of the measures taken and with regard to their substance. 
While the E uropean Union  would further study the recent measures by Türkiye and assess the 
situation in more detail, it wished  to comment on the nature of the compliance measures. Two of 
the actions that Türkiye had mention ed in the status report were still draft measures and had not 
been adopted at the time of the circulation of the status report.  Türkiye had also not provided the 
European Union with all the drafts and had not given the E uropean Union any indication of the timing 
of their entry into force. In the  meantime , the Alternative Drug Reimbursement Regulation ha d been 
published in the Official Gazette and that was a welcome development. In its status report, Türkiye 
also refer red to the December 2022 Health Industries Steering Committee Recommendation to 
initiate the application process for relevant pharmaceutical companies regarding the re -activation of 
their products in the reimbursement system and the January 2023 Health Services Pricing 
Committee adoption of the aforementioned recommendation as measure s taken to implement the 
recommendations of the Panel and of the Arbitrators. Th ose measures ha d not been made public 
and they ha d not even been shared with the E uropean Union, despite requests from the E uropean 
Union for copies of such measures. In light of the above, and the need to further study the measures 
and to monitor their application, the European Union c ould not agree, at this point, that Türkiye ha d 
fully complied with the recommendations of the Arbitrators. The European Union w ould continue 
monitoring the situation and urge d Türkiye to ensure full compliance. The European Union reserve d 
its rights to take further steps under the DSU.  
2.3.  The representative of Türkiye  said that , first, Türkiye  wished  to thank the E uropean Union 
for its statement.  Türkiye  had submitted a status report on 25 April 2023 and an addendum on 
19 May 2023 under Article 21.6 of the DSU , in order to inform the DSB of its progress in the 
implementation of the Arbitration award in this dispute.  On 25 July 2022, the Arbitrators  had issued 
their award in this dispute. On the same day, in accordance with Article 25.3 of the DSU, the Award 
was notified to the DSB, the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and the Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures. Pursuant to 
paragraph 15 of the Agreed Procedures for Arbitration, the Award was not adopted by the DSB. 
Consequently , on 18 August 2022 Türkiye had informed the DSB in writing that, pursuant to 
Article  21.3 of the DSU, i t intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Arbitrators WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 7 - 
 
 
  
 and the Panel in this dispute in a manner that respect ed its WTO obligations, but that Türkiye  needed 
a reasonable period of time to do so. Türkiye had reiterated this statement at the DSB meeting of 
29 August 2022.  On 10 January 2023, Türkiye and the European Union had informed the DSB 
(WT/DS583/17) that they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3  and Article 25.4 of the DSU , that the 
reasonable period of time for Türkiye to implement  the recommendations of the Award of the 
Arbitrators would expire on 25 April 2023.  
2.4.  Since then Türkiye ha d taken many important steps  to implement the recommendations. 
Particularly, the Drug Reimbursement Regulation and Alternative Drug Reimbursement Regulation 
were published in the Official Gazette.  The Health Industries Steering Committee and Health Services 
Pricing Committee recommended the Social Security Institution to initiate the application process 
for relevant pharmaceutical companies regarding the reactivation of their products in the 
reimbursement system , which was already underway. Finally , the new Guideline for Working 
Principles and Procedures of Human Medicinal Products Priority Assessment Commission was about 
to be finalized. Tür kiye would  keep the DSB informed about the Guideline and reactivation process. 
On the other hand, it was worth mentioning that throughout the dispute Türkiye ha d always sought 
prompt settlement , as evidenced by the Agreed Procedures for Arbitration , and Türkiye had never 
tried to delay or block the proceedings.  The same  was true  for the implementation  process . Indeed, 
the devastating earthquake in February changed the priorities of both the Ministry of Health and 
Social Security Institution considerably. Mo reover, the national elections in May ha d slowed down 
preparation of new legislation. Despite all th ose extraordinary circumstances  over the past couple 
of months, Türkiye had continued to take decisive  steps  in implementing the Arbitration Award.  
Türkiye consider ed that the above -mentioned  actions  suffice d to clearly indicate the willingness and 
seriousness of Türkiye to bring its policies  into compliance with the Arbitration Award.  
2.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS 
STEEL COLD -ROLLED FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDONESIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS616/2)  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 30 May  2023 
and had agreed to revert to it, should a requesting Member wish to do so. He then drew attention 
to the communication from Indonesia contained in document WT/DS616/2 and invited the 
representative of Indonesia to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that o n 24 January 2023, Indonesia had requested 
consultations with the European Union regarding the imposition of countervailing and anti -dumping 
duties on Stainless Steel Cold -Rolled Flat Products from Indonesia. Indonesia had noted that th ose 
meas ures appear ed to be inconsistent with the obligations of the European Union under the SCM 
Agreement, the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and the GATT 1994. They ha d further nullified or impaired 
benefits accruing to Indonesia directly or indirectly under the cover ed agreements. Consultations 
between the parties had taken place in March 2023, but had not produce d a meaningful solution to 
this dispute. At the previous regular DSB meeting, Indonesia had filed its first request for the 
establishment of a panel, but the  European Union had  stated that it was not ready to accept the 
establishment of a panel. At the present meeting , Indonesia reiterate d that it was entitled to protect 
its national interest and urge d the European Union to bring its measures into conformity w ith WTO 
Agreements.  Despite the European Union's assertion that its measures were WTO -consistent, 
Indonesia remain ed firm that the measures were inconsistent with the European Union's 
commitments under the WTO. To that end, pursuant to Article 6.1 of the DSU, Indonesia respectfully 
request ed the establishment of a panel at th e present  meeting, with the objective to examine the 
matter identified in Indonesia's panel request, with standard terms of reference , as set out in 
Article  7.1 of the DSU.  
3.3.  The rep resentative of the European Union  said that t he European Union regret ted Indonesia 's 
decision to request a WTO panel on Countervailing and Anti -Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel 
Cold-Rolled Flat Products from Indonesia. Indonesia was of course entitled to bring this matter to 
dispute settlement in the WTO, but the European Union firmly believe d that the measures at stake 
were fully justified. For th ose reasons, the European Union was confident that it w ould prevail in this 
dispute, and that its measures w ould be declared to be in line with WTO law. The E uropean Union WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 8 - 
 
 
   
 stood ready to discuss with Indonesia reciprocal interim arrangements that would preserve the 
availability of appeal review in this and other disputes on the basis of Article 25 of the DSU, as l ong 
as the Appellate Body was not functioning, such as through the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration 
Arrangement (MPIA).  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, wit h standard terms of reference.  
3.5.  The representatives of Argentina , Brazil , Canada , China , India, Japan , Korea , the Russian 
Federation , Singapore , Thailand , Türkiye , Ukraine , the United Kingdom , and the United States  
reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
4  STATEMENT BY JAPAN REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: "INDIA – 
TARIFF TREATMENT ON CERTAIN GOODS"  (DS584)  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Japan , and he invited the representative of Japan  to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of Japan  said that, f irst of all, Japan note d that it ha d been a huge challenge 
to handle the panel proceeding s amid the Covid -19 pandemic while seeking to secure prompt 
settlement of th is case, "India – Tariffs on ICT Goods (DS584) ". Japan underst ood that the issuance 
of the final panel report would not have been possible without the joint efforts of all the actors 
concerned. Especially, Japan wished  to sincerely thank the panelists and the WTO Secretariat for 
their dedication. Japan also wished  to extend its gratitude to the third parties for their  contributions 
in this case. This dispute was about India 's raising of its customs duties on certain products in the 
information and communica tions technology (ICT) sector since 2014, in excess of the bound rates 
set forth in its Schedules of Concessions and Commitments annexed to the GATT 1994. The panel 
had appropriately concluded that India 's measures were inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) a nd (b) of 
the GATT 1994. The panel had also rejected India 's rebuttals including those on the relationship 
between WTO Schedules and the Information Technology Agreement, invocation of "error" under 
Article 48 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatie s, and relevance of the "1980 Procedures " 
to this case. Japan welcome d those findings. Compliance with the obligations laid down in each 
Member 's Schedules was a cornerstone of the rules -based multilateral trading system. Japan 
consider ed that the panel's findings substantially contribute d to ensuring the stability and 
predictability of the WTO tariff concessions, which le d to resilience in the rule of law in the field of 
international trade. Japan also welcome d the panel's recommendations addressed to Indi a to bring 
its measures into conformity with its obligations under Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. In 
this regard, Japan expresse d its disappointment at India 's decision to appeal the panel report to the 
currently non -functioning Appellate Body and to send it into the void despite the clear and reasoned 
assessment of this case by the panel. Japan disagree d with all of India 's allegations of errors of law 
and legal interpretation in the panel report. Japan consider ed that the only consequence of India 's 
decision was to delay the implementation of the recommendations based on objective and 
reasonable findings by the panel. It was contrary to the bedrock principle in the DSU of prompt 
compliance w ith recommendations and the prompt settlement of disputes. Japan believe d that it 
was Members' duty to make every effort and demonstrate flexibility to achieve prompt settlement 
of the dispute in the current situation , including by arbitration under Articl e 25 of the DSU, as 
appropriate. Japan strongly ho ped that India w ould rescind its decision and take appropriate steps 
to promptly comply with the panel's recommendations.  
4.3.  The representative of India said that India t hanked Japan for its statement , and also thank ed 
the panelists, Secretariat , and parties for the smooth conduct of the proceedings of this panel, in 
spite of the challenging circumstances of the pandemic. India was in receipt of the communication 
to the DSB dated 16 May 2023 by Japan in the dispute DS584. In response, on 17 May 2023, India 
had filed a notice of appeal and detailed appellant submissions, as required by the relevant provisions 
of Rule 20 of the Working Procedure s for Appellate Review. In its submissions, India had made 
detailed arguments on the errors of law and legal interpretations by the panel in its report. India 
hoped that the early restoration of the Appellate Body w ould soon enable the review and correction 
of those errors and the expeditious resolution o f this dispute.  India reiterate d its willingness to 
engage in bilateral discussions with Japan on a mutually acceptable way forward.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 9 - 
 
 
  
 4.4.  The representative of the United States  said that for years, the United States, along with other 
Members, had been raising concerns with India's tariff treatment of certain information and 
communications technology (ICT) goods across multiple WTO Committees. The United States also 
had raised its concerns bilaterally. India's tariffs not only imposed an unfair financial burden on 
foreign firms, but they also limited access for Indian consumers and firms to important high -tech 
products. The United States had participated in these proceedings as a third party and welcomed 
the findings in the panel report. The panel found that Indi a imposed tariffs on a number of ICT 
products in excess of its WTO commitments. The panel report represented a strong affirmation of 
key commitments that Members had undertaken in their WTO Schedules reflecting their participation 
in the WTO Information Te chnology Agreement. Further, the panel report affirmed that the product 
coverage of a tariff concession was not circumscribed by the state of technology at the time the 
concession was made. Tariff concessions were defined by the ordinary meaning of the con cession, 
in context, and in light of the object and purpose of the GATT 1994. The United States encouraged 
India to address long -standing concerns on its tariff treatment for ICT products and to work with the 
United States and other trading partners to enh ance trade and resilience in these products . 
4.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union acknowledge d and 
welcome d the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case, which were very clear. The 
European Union also t ook note that the panel report ha d been appealed by India,  but that th is appeal 
could not presently be heard by the Appellate Body, given that it c ould not function. An appeal was 
a right under the DSU, but its exercise amount ed to effectively blocking this d ispute in the current 
circumstances, unless the parties were ready to find an arrangement that allow ed the appeal to be 
heard, such as through appeal arbitration procedures. Th at was why the E uropean Union encourage d 
all parties to find a solution that pre serve d the rights of both the complainant and the respondent 
under the DSU, such as the MPIA. The E uropean Union reserve d its rights in its own dispute (DS582).  
4.6.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to react to India's  statement . Japan  first 
noted India's  statement  on its allegation of errors of law and legal interpretation s in the panel report. 
As expressed in its previous  statements , Japan disagree d with all of them. The panel clearly rejected 
India's rebuttal and made objective and reasonable findings that India's measures at  issue were 
inconsistent with its obligation s under Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. Thus, Japan d id not 
repeat its position, which was described in detail in the panel report , but once again expresse d its 
strong hope that India w ould rescind its decision to appeal the panel report and take appropriate 
steps to promptly comply with the panel 's recommendations. Second, Japan noted that India's  
statements  had mention ed that India had proposed a mutually agreed solution . Japan wished  to 
clarify that, as India had mentioned, India had propose d a bilateral discussion . However, India ha d 
never provided any concrete proposal to  address the WTO inconsistency of the subject measures 
and resolve the case by mutually agreed solutions. Again, despite a consistent and good faith 
approach to achieve the prompt settlement of the dispute in a practical and feasible manner, Japan 
expresse d its disappointment at India's decision to appeal the panel report to the currently 
non-functioning Appellate Body. Finally, Japan believe d that the fact that Japan had put the matter 
on the Agenda for this DSB meeting d id not close the door for further c onsultation s with India to 
resolve this dispute, and Japan expresse d its strong hope that India would  rescind its decision to 
appeal the panel report and take appropriate steps for th at purpose.  
4.7.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that as a result of the blockage of the 
Appellate Body appointments process , Members had  witnessed again another example of an appeal 
into the "void". The Russian Federation reiterate d its concern about the situation, where the number 
of appeals addre ssed to the Appellate Body was rising,  while the problem of Appellate Body 
appointments was not yet fixed.  The consequence of th at 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.  
4.8.  The representative of China  said that China wished  to start by thanking the panelist s and the 
Secretariat for preparing and circulating the panel report in spite of the challenges brought by the 
pandemic. As a third party with  a substantial interest in the tariff measures in this dispute, China 
welcome d the finding s of the panel report and urge d the responding party to faithfully adjust its 
inconsis tent measures in line with the ruling s and recommendation s of the panel report. China also 
wished to express its serious concern s on the blockage of the Appellate Body, which ha d now left 
31 panel reports , including th e one under consideration , in limbo. China strongly urge d the early WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 10 - 
 
 
   
 restoration of the two -tier dispute settlement system and call ed for more Members to join the MPIA 
as an interim arrangement to maintain appeal rights during the absence of a functioning Appellate 
Body.  
4.9.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada took the  opportunity to address 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.  Canada  noted that this 
was India 's fourth appeal into the void since that date. Article 3.10 of the DSU provide d that, when 
a dispute ar ose, Members w ould 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 in Article 3.10 to make good faith efforts t o resolve the dispute still st ood. 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 dis pute may agree to use procedures such as those set out in Annex 1 of the MPIA to 
supplement the appeal process.  Canada believe d that it was essential that all parties to the dispute 
fulfilled their good faith commitment under Article 3.10 of the DSU by mak ing every effort to find an 
acceptable solution. In the long run, no Member would benefit from a situation where disputes 
remai ned unresolved. A Member acting in good faith should find no comfort in an unfair - and 
short-term - advantage that has arisen be cause of the absence of a functioning Appellate Body.  
Canada  reiterate d its invitation to India to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard binding 
dispute settlement with access to appellate review in disputes with other MPIA participants.  
4.10.  The repr esentative of India said that its comments were restricted to aspects related to India 
exercising its right to appeal. India wished  to draw attention  to its long-standing and principled 
position on the Appellate Body crisis and the implications of interim arbitration arrangements. India 
reiterate d its position that such interim agreements undermi ned the right of countries to appeal to 
a permanent standing body, which was fundamental to the multilateral trading syst em. India noted 
that several other Members  had appealed into the void during th at period. India repeat ed its hope 
that the Appellate Body crisis be resolved at the earliest so that pending disputes, including those 
related to India, c ould be resolved at th e earliest.  
4.11.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5  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 decisi on by the DSB (WT/DS588/12)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the joint communication from Chinese Taipei  and India 
contained in document WT/DS588/12 and invited the representative of Chinese Taipei  to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that Chi nese Taipei  and India ha d jointly requested 
the DSB to provide additional time for the adoption or appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute by 
adopting the draft decision circulated to WTO Members in document WT/DS588/12. Chinese Taipei  
and India share d a common understanding that a positive resolution to the dispute was desirable. 
To that end, they had agreed to continue the discussion to reach a constructive outcome, during the 
period specified in the joint request. Chinese Taipei  would appreciate the D SB's support for the draft 
decision as set out in WT/DS588/12.  
5.3.  The representative of India said that India thank ed the delegation of Chinese Taipei  for its 
statement. As previously mentioned, India and Chinese Taipei  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 Members in WT/DS588/12. India welcome d the engagement 
on this issue towards  finding a way forward. This draft decision  would facilitate the continued 
engagement and possible resolution of this issue, and India would appreciate the support of the DSB 
for the proposed draft decision.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 11 - 
 
 
  
 5.4.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States welcomed the efforts of  
Chinese Taipei and India to continue their engagement in this dispute. The United States supported 
efforts to continue dialogue with the aim of achieving a mutually agreed solution. The United States 
took note of the draft decision circulated in document WT/DS588/12. 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 a gree 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 parties' efforts  and join a consensus to adopt the 
draft decision . 
5.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5.6.  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 
19 September  2023 adopt the panel report  in the dispute India – Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods 
in the Information and Communications Technology Sector , contained in document WT/DS588/R, 
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 would be deemed to have occurred within the 60 -day time -period sp ecified in 
Article  16.4 of the DSU ".  
5.7.  The DSB so agreed . 
6  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  
6.1.  The Chairman  said that under this Agenda item he wished to refer to informal discussions on 
DS reform, which he understood were currently ongoing amongst delegations at the technical level. 
He recalled that this matter was on the Agenda of the March DSB meeting in order to allow the 
representative of Guatemala,  Mr. Marco Tulio Molina, who convene d these informal discussions on 
DS reform to report on this matter  and pro vide transparency . The Chairman  invited the 
representative of Guatemala to make a statement.  
6.2.  The representative of Guatemala , Mr. Marco Tulio Molina, made the following statement:  
"Let me start by thanking you, Mr Chairman, for providing an opportunity for Members 
to share the work that is being undertaken on dispute settlement reform. Next, I would 
like to note that my statements regarding the informal process on dispute settlement 
reform are being made in my personal capacity and under my own responsibility. 
Therefore, the views expressed under this agenda item are my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the positions of the Government of Guatemala, unless I explicitly 
indicate otherw ise. Mr Chairman, since my last report on 31 March  2023, delegates, 
who are experts on dispute settlement, have met under an intense programme of 
meetings to have substance -based and highly technical discussions with a view to 
finding practical solutions t o the concerns and interests identified by Members. The 
objective of this work programme is to make a meaningful and substantive contribution 
to the fulfilment of the mandate that we received from Ministers in June 2023 to – and 
I quote – 'conduct discussi ons with the view to having a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 '. End of quote.4 
Furthermore, since my last report, and during the months of April and May, I have 
convened a total of 57 meetings as foll ows: 12 plenary sessions; 6 follow -up thematic 
meetings; 6 small -group meetings; 2 information sessions; as well as 31 bilateral 
meetings with individual delegations and regional groups. In addition to these meetings, 
I am aware that delegates are meeting among themselves every week, in different 
configurations. These two months have been very intense. I would like to commend my 
colleagues for their commitment, proactive engagement, and shared sense of 
responsibility. Your 'can do ' attitude and openness to discuss diverging views truly 
makes a difference. This process belongs to all of you. It is a unique opportunity to 
 
4 Paragraph 4 of the Outcome Document of the 12th Ministerial Conference (WT/MIN(22)/24 and 
WT/L/1135).  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 12 - 
 
 
   
 make a meaningful contribution to multilateralism. Mr Chairman, the methodology set 
in motion for this informal process, in combination with  the delegates ' efforts and 
engagement, are starting to produce results. As you might recall, on 31 March, I 
indicated that Members had submitted 70 initial proposals, which were catalogued in a 
'red table '. Today, I am pleased to report that we have moved  from the 'red tables ' to 
the 'yellow tables ' on all topics. The yellow tables contain more refined and elaborated 
proposed solutions for the issues identified by Members, narrowing down the options 
available for consideration by Members. As a matter of fa ct, the last two months of 
discussions and exchanges have allowed us to improve our understanding of the 
interests and concerns of everyone.  Furthermore, we have been using our creativity to 
find practical solutions to address those interests and concerns.  I am also pleased to 
observe that we all have changed our mindsets in these conversations : we do not see 
the proposals anymore as set positions or redlines but, rather, we make every effort to 
understand the rationale, the interests and/or concerns behind  each proposal with a 
view to finding innovative ways to reconcile diverging views. We also privilege evidence 
and facts -based conversations. Delegates frequently share experiences and information 
to enable all of us to make informed decisions. As indicate d earlier, I have convened 
two information sessions:  the first one, to discuss technical assistance and legal advice 
provided by the WTO Secretariat and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL); and  
the second one, to discuss the specific support that the WTO  Secretariat provides to 
Members and dispute settlement panels.  In those sessions, senior staff members from 
the WTO Secretariat and the ACWL presented the range of technical assistance and 
legal advice made available to eligible Members and Observers; and  delegates had the 
opportunity to pose questions directly.  These two information sessions were extremely 
useful. I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to DDG Angela 
Ellard; Ms Bridget Chilala, Director of the Institute for Training and Technical 
Cooperation (ITTC); Ms Clarisse Morgan, Director of the Rules  Division; Ms Susan 
Hainsworth, Counsel lor at the Legal Affairs Division; Mr Jorge Castro, Chief of the Course 
Design and Training Section at the ITTC; Mr Willie Chatsika, Head of t he Desk for 
English -speaking Africa at the ITTC; and, last but not least, Mr Niall Meagher, Executive  
Director of the ACWL, for their kind and effective assistance during the information 
sessions.  Now, let me turn to the discussion on the next steps in thi s informal process. 
As you can see, we are making progress at a steady pace. We have moved from the 
red to the yellow tables. We are starting to identify practical solutions that could be 
good candidates to include in the forthcoming green tables, which wi ll be the basis for 
the drafting exercise that will take place after the Summer break.  However, we cannot 
be complacent. And we need to keep the pace. The intense work programme will 
continue in June and July:  First, we need to focus on certain issues that  require further 
work and we are running out of time. I am committed to doing everything in my power 
to continue moving this process forward. I will start convening a series of bilateral 
meetings with individual delegations and regional groups, in addition  to the meetings 
already scheduled for June and July. The  objective of these bilateral meetings is to 
identify the solutions that will, most likely, be catalog ued in our green tables. Of course, 
and as we have already been doing over the past two months, a ll decisions will be taken 
in plenary sessions. I would like to thank all  delegations for their cooperation and 
positive response in advance of our work in the next 8 weeks.  Moreover, let me reiterate 
that I am personally aware of the limitations of small delegations to attend all meetings. 
As far as possible, I try to avoid scheduling conflicts and I seek to accommodate the 
requests that I receive from delegations. I am grateful for the  understanding and 
collaboration of delegates, particularly when we nee d to reach a difficult balance 
between accommodating requests and the evident time limitations to restore the 
dispute settlement function of the WTO – the top priority identified by our Ministers.  I 
am always ready to meet delegates bilaterally to brief them and hear their views. I will 
continue to make every effort to ensure that all delegates receive all information; that 
they understand the content of our discussions; and that they have meaningful 
opportunities to express their views.  Second, we need to be mindful that we need to 
take important decisions early in this  process, particularly, with respect to the solutions 
that we will catalog ue in our green tables. As indicated earlier, the green tables will be 
the basis for the drafting exercise th at will start in September. We must ensure that all 
solutions are coherent and consistent throughout the whole dispute settlement process. 
These solutions need to be thought through and  reviewed in their entirety to ensure a WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 13 - 
 
 
  
 fully functioning dispute settl ement system. Let me be clear, there is no space for errors. 
We cannot risk taking improvised decisions very late in the process, and much less 
during the Ministerial Conference in February 2024. With this in  mind, I would like to 
ask all experts in disput e settlement to continue communicating with your respective 
Capitals; and I would like to ask Capitals to empower their delegates in  Geneva to 
participate meaningfully and agree on the set of solutions that we are working on.  Third, 
I would like to recall that the tables are confidential and should not be shared with the 
public. The tables, in the hands of outsiders without the background and context  
information resulting from the meetings, do not make justice to the process that we are 
undertaking. The tab les contain proposed practical solutions that are 'work in progress ' 
and do not reflect the whole content of our conversations, our understandings, and the 
potential avenues to converge in the direction of solutions that satisfy the interests of 
Members.  Therefore, looking only at the content of the tables without any background 
information is a recipe to create anxiety and unnecessary pressure on dispute 
settlement delegates.  Finally, let me conclude my statement with one observation to 
calibrate adequatel y our expectations. Many have asked me whether we are going to 
reach an agreement by the 13th Ministerial Conference. My answer is the same for 
everyone: I sincerely hope so, but I do not have a crystal ball and I am not going to 
speculate about any potent ial outcome because the result depends on all of us. What 
we do have is a clear mandate from our Ministers and we have a limited amount of time 
to deliver 'a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system '. We are making 
steady progress and I am conf ident that we have the necessary ingredients  to deliver 
an outcome that is satisfactory to all Members: we are having conversations based on 
interests and not on positions; experts on dispute settlement are engaged and 
committed to work hard and in good fa ith; we have a platform to discuss, exchange 
information and understand the views of everyone; and we have unlimited creativity to 
seek practical  solutions that work for all Members. As anticipated in my previous report, 
it will not be easy. However, I am confident that with the right approach, we can deliver.  
Remember, May showers bring June flowers. Thank you, Mr Chairman ". 
6.3.  The representative of India said that India wished to refer to its statement made at the DSB 
meeting on 31 March  2023. India reiterat ed that the present  "informal process " on dispute 
settlement was not a multilateral, member -driven, consensus -based process that belong ed to all 
Members. It was the continuation in the third phase of the US -initiated and US -driven informal 
discussions, which had been  initiated almost a year prior. Coming to the process itself  – when this 
"informal " process was initiated, India and other delegations had raised concerns about the proposed 
method of work. Members had been  asked  to give this process a chance, and India had done so, in 
good faith. In th at spirit, at the DSB  meeting held  on 31 March  2023, India had pointed out its 
concerns with reporting on this informal process at the DSB. India had suggested that there were 
severa l ways to ensure a balance of informality and transparency, such as through informal 
transparency meetings.  Unfortunately,  since then, there ha d been no attempt to engage on or 
resolve the concerns with these reporting issues, despite the systemic implicat ions of such reporting. 
India had participated actively in the latest phase of discussions, as it did in the previous two phases. 
Unfortunately, India had found that the methods of work that ha d been adopted thus far in this 
phase were working against the full and effective participation of developing countries and LDCs.  
The WTO dispute settlement system  as envisaged under the Marrakesh Agreement was a 
fundamental part of the package that developing countries had agreed to. Currently , Members were  
witnessing an "informal process " in which fundamental changes were being proposed to the system. 
They were being proposed and discussed, and convergences were being reached, in a process that 
was not WTO -mandated or consensus based. The methods of work an d the pace of work adopted in 
this process were acting as barriers for effective participation of developing and least -developed 
countries.  
6.4.  For instance, India noted that the next round of plenary meetings was scheduled for 
7-9 June 2023. The schedule of those informal plenary meetings conflict ed entirely with the formal, 
WTO-mandated fish negotiations . This mean t that a large  number of delegates from 
resource -constrained delegations w ould not be able to attend the decision -making plenary meeting s, 
which w ould discuss issues such as panel composition, appeal mechanism , and Secretariat support. 
This was in addition to the fact that the multiple layers of meetings  – small group meetings, follow 
up meetings, presentations  – made it very difficult for developin g and least developing countries to 
effectively and meaningfully participate in and report on the whole process. The process was being WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 14 - 
 
 
   
 conducted in a manner which facilitate d the active and consistent engagement of only a limited 
number of delegations. India's  continued participation in th at process reflect ed the importance that 
it attach ed to this issue  and its  commitment to remain engaged in the process in spite of its serious 
concerns. India hoped that going forwar d there w ould be changes made that w ould enhance 
inclusivity and enable the full, effective , and equal participation of all Members.  
6.5.  The representative of South Africa  thank ed Guatemala for the update on the dispute settlement 
reform discussions that were currently taking place. South Africa welcome d the informal dispute 
settlement discussions, as this could be an opportunity to advance towards a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system and to address long -standing developing country concerns, while re-envisioning 
the dispute settlement system to effectively serve all Members ' interests. South Africa had  
participated actively in the discussions and was committed to engaging o penly and constructively in 
the discussions. That said, South Africa  would be remiss not to  raise concerns with the process. 
Those concerns were interlinked and sp oke to the scheduling , frequency , and pace of the meeting s. 
The schedule and frequency were quite ambitious and ha d posed a challenge for developing 
countries, not only because of their small delegations but also because of the meeting clashes  that 
had been  created , and which  continue d to be created. The Facilitator 's report at the present  meeting  
– that he ha d facilitated 57 meetings to date – spoke to the fast pace of the discussions . Concerns 
regarding scheduling, frequency , and pace of meetings ha d been raised on various occasions within 
the discussions, but continue d to persist. Clashe s in meetings create d a challenge for small 
delegations as they were thinly spread, covering a wide scope of issues. Meeting clashes also ha d 
the effect of excluding small delegations in engaging and participating actively and effectively, which 
ran counte r to the principle of inclusivity. South Africa  urged that consideration and sensitivity be 
given to small delegations and suggest ed that major clashes in meetings be avoided . It was 
important that any informal discussions d id not clash with formal WTO mee tings. South Africa w ould 
continue to engage actively and constructively in the process  and hope d that in the end Members 
would  be able to find a lasting solution  to the dispute settlement process.  
6.6.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Guatemala for the progress report 
on the informal dispute settlement reform discussion. Indonesia continue d to believe that the 
ongoing issues surrounding the WTO dispute settlement system would bring adverse impacts to the 
effectiveness and credibility of the rules –based multilateral trading system. Thus, Indonesia  share d 
the view with others that restoring a fully functioning two –tier dispute settlement system was a 
common effort and remain ed a priority for all. While Indonesia was one of the Members who want ed 
the discussion to move to text -based negotiation s as soon as possible, Indonesia  also believe d that 
the end should not justify the means, in that rushing for an agreement of a proposal was not the 
best way to obtain a meaningful and inclusive result. Indonesia's  capital was presently reviewing the 
updated proposals. With regard to "inclusivity ", Indonesia regret ted that, once more, the schedule 
for the DS reform discussion s clashed with the "Fish Week". While it was true that the Fish Week 
schedule  was released after the DS reform schedule , and that Members  should have paid more 
attention, speaking as a delegate  who follow ed four negotiating issues outside the regular ones, it 
had prove d quite challenging to do so. Th e clash was even more concerning as it concerned  the 
plenary meeting  and Mr. Molina  had mentioned previously  that all decision -making w ould be taken 
in such plenary meetings . Therefore, it was Indonesia's  hope that the process for the next discussion 
after the summer break w ould be more inclusive and would  pay more attention to small delegations'  
limited capacity. On that note, Indonesia wished  to suggest that the next phase after the summer 
break could be  undertaken  in a hybrid mode, ensuring full participation from all delegates  – Geneva 
and capital alike. In closing, Indonesia also wishe d to reiterate its commitment to actively and 
constructively contribute to the ongoing work to implement th at commitmen t. 
6.7.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  said that t he African 
Group wished to reitera te its previous statement made under this Agenda item in March  2023. The 
African Group  thank ed Mr. Marco Molina of Guatemala for providing updates on the DS reform 
discussions. The African Group  believe d that the discussions in the informal process ha d been 
positive. However, the African Group was of the view that the ongoing informal process c ould be 
improved. The African Group  encourage d that the Member -driven nature of this process be 
safeguarded, as transparency in every aspect of this stage w ould encourage trust -building, stimulate 
participation , and guarantee inclusiveness. This was key to any cons ensus building. The African 
Group  would therefore encourage that the various meetings in small groups and plenary formats be 
opened for remote participation of Members, so as to fulfil the requirements of transparency and 
inclusiveness in the WTO by enabli ng wider participation of small developing country Members. WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 15 - 
 
 
  
 Regarding the calendar of meetings, the African Group  had taken note , with disappointment,  that 
the DS reform meeting s clashed with formal Committee s' meetings, in particular the upcoming Fish 
Week meetings, and this ha d posed a challenge for small delegations intending to effectively 
participate in the discussions. The African Group  called for adequate coordination among chairs of 
formal committees with the DS reform facilitator  to prevent future clashes of this magnitude. As 
regards the pace of the ongoing work, the African Group  was mindful that Members  needed to take 
decisions as soon as possible . However, Members  could not ignore the challenges of small 
delegations in effectively participating in the process. The African Group  also fail ed to see the value 
of separating proposals with some colouring methods. The African Group  had raised this issue 
severally , as it would potentially jeopardise the spirit of collaboration that ha d underlined this 
informal process from the beginning. It was crucial to emphasise the importance of formalising and 
multilaterali zing the DS reform discussions to fulfil the mandate in Paragraph 4 of the Outcome 
Document . This w ould enhance transparency  and inclusiveness of the process, as well as foster a 
more collaborative  and constructive approach towards reforming the mechanism. Finally, the African 
Group  assured of  its continuous constructive en gagement in this process going forward.   
6.8.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mr. Marco Molina of Guatemala for 
his update on the current informal discussions with regard to the DS reform work among the 
technical experts. While Malaysia  hoped that th at work would contribute towards a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to  all Members by 2024 , as mandated by 
Ministers at MC12, Malaysia wished  to reiterate its support for finding solutions with a view to 
restor ing the fully functioning dispute settlement system, in particular the two -tier dispute 
settlement system, which had to be ensured to remain as the central pillar of this institution. As 
work ha d been ongoing intensely  and rapidly , Malaysia  wished to highlight the constraint s that some 
Members, particularly small delegations like Malaysia, were facing. Due to conflictin g schedules with 
other multilateral meetings such as the upcoming Fish Week , small delegations like Malaysia  might 
not be able to attend the plenary sessions of the DS reform work. As such, Malaysia  would request 
that the challenges faced by such Members  were also taken into consideration  when scheduling 
these sessions. Th at would ensure that all Members would be represented and participate effectively  
at those plenary sessions, where "decisions " were being undertaken.  
6.9.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that u nder this Agenda  item, Bangladesh wished to 
thank  Mr. Marco Molina  for his work and to take note of his detailed report . Bangladesh referred to 
its previous  statement made on this matter on 31 March 2023.  
6.10.  The re presentative of Canada  said that Canada wished  to take this opportunity to sincerely 
thank  Mr. Marco  Molina for his personal efforts to organize and structure the informal meetings on 
dispute settlement reform. Canada note d that all WTO Members were able t o attend and participate 
in the meetings held as part of th ose discussions. The ambitious pace of the meetings was directly 
proportional to the urgency of the task at hand. Members had to do everything in their power to 
achieve the goal that their Minister s had set at the 12th Ministerial Conference. Canada  consider ed 
that the process ha d been set up in a clear, transparent and inclusive way. Canada appreciate d the 
additional efforts made by  Mr. Molina to provide WTO  Members with regular updates through a 
variety of means. Canada underst ood the challenges facing several Members given the pace of the 
discussions. Canada  welcome d the level of commitment shown by WTO  Members in this process, 
and Cana da would continue to engage proactively. Having a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system that was accessible to all Members by 2024 was of the utmost importance. 
Members  had to  make progress in this direction. It was truly in the interest of all Members  to do so.  
6.11.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation  took note of  
Mr. Molina's  report regarding the informal ongoing discussions , which  touch ed upon certain aspects 
of dispute settlement reform. While the Rus sian Federation was  participating in such discussions , 
and was ready to constructively engage in those discussions further , it reiterate d its concern that 
the current discussions ha d not been formalised and therefore , being  an informal process of a limited 
number of participants , was not in a position to produce a consensus -based result. The Russian 
Federation had consistently support ed the idea to start discussions on dispute settlement reform in 
a formal mode, as agreed by  WTO Members at MC12. T hat was  the only process that could bring 
Members  to a meaningful result supported by every Member. Such a formal process could serve as 
a guarantee of transparency and inclusivity. Russia call ed upon all Members to launch such  a process, 
as agreed at MC12 , in order to urgently restore  a fully functioning dispute settlement system.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 16 - 
 
 
   
 6.12.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished  to sincerely thank  Mr. Molina for the 
information he ha d shared with Members at the present  meeting  and for his indefatigable work 
assisting Members  to find a path toward resolving this impasse. Overall, Brazil  continue d to be very 
pleased with the level of engagement shown by delegations, and with the depth of the debate that 
had been taking place so f ar. Brazil  believe d this ha d been possible because the informal process 
had been designed to strike a good balance: it enable d substantive, frank, in -depth discussions, 
while at the same time it ensure d that all Members c ould participate, and safeguard ed full 
transparency throughout the process. At MC12, Ministers  had recognized "the importance and 
urgency " of addressing challenges and concerns with respect to the dispute settlement system, and 
had committed "to conduct discussions with the view to having a  fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024 ". This was no small task, and it was an urgent 
one. Brazil look ed forward to continued engagement with all Members as they prepare d the ground 
for text -based negotiatio ns that m ight take them to the goal established by their Ministers.  
6.13.  The representative of Türkiye  said that , first, Türkiye  wished to thank  Mr. Molina for his much  
appreciated efforts and succes sful administration of the third phase of the DS reform process. At the 
outset, Türkiye  wished to record it s expectation that significant progress could be made in the course 
of the DS reform negotiations. For this to happen, substantial progress was required to be made 
within a certain timetable in order to fu lfil the reform promises. Within the context of the DS reform 
process, the fundamental aim of Türkiye was to maintain the two -tier multilateral independent 
dispute settlement system and create the conditions which w ould enable the Appellate Body to 
become fully functional again. In order to expedite significant advancement in terms of the reform 
efforts, Türkiye envisage d that the informal meetings should soon be formalized , preferably under 
the leadership of the DSB , and that this reporting process concern ing DS reform should be on the 
Agenda of upcoming  meetings as well.  
6.14.  The representative of China  said that, l ike others, China wished  to express its sincere 
appreciation to  Mr. Marco Molina for his update at th e present  meeting , as well as his devotion, 
coordination , and contribution to this endeavo ur. China also wished to  thank the WTO Secretariat 
and ACWL for their informative presentations and detailed explanations, which had proven to be 
very useful. Since the commencement of phase  three discussions earl ier in 2023 , China  had 
witnessed a sense of urgency  and spirits of constructiveness  and pragmatism, and had also detected 
certain room for agreement on some less controversial topics. Nevertheless, as Mr. Molina had  
mentioned, th ere was no time for complacency.  There were also quite a few serious challenges ahead 
of Members , in particula r on some fundamental issues which were of paramount importance to the 
interests of the vast majority of Members in this Organization. DS reform was widely regarded as a 
bellwether to the success of MC13 and the creditability of the multilateral trading sy stem. In spite 
of positive momentum, Members had  to always remind themselves that time was not on their side, 
since they only ha d less than nine months before MC13. To fulfil the mandate given by Ministers, 
Members had  no choice but to spare no efforts in the coming months to continue frank and 
solution -oriented discussions, and narrow down the options for addressing various concerns of 
Members, ideally before the summer break , as expected. It was also important to have more clarity , 
through their joint eff orts on the path forward , with regard to the issues of systemic implications , 
notwithstanding  entrenched positions at the present  stage. China w ould work constructively with all 
Members with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement mechanism accessible 
to all Members by 2024.  
6.15.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union appreciate d the 
opportunity to address, in the DSB, the ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform. For the 
European Union,  a well and fully functioning dispute settlement system in the WTO was a key 
priority. The E uropean Union agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at 
objective. The Eu ropean 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 having a fully and well -functioning dispute se ttlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024 ". It was with that objective in mind, and in a constructive spirit, 
that the European Union  had been engaging in the discussions on dispute settlement reform for 
more than a year. The European Union  thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for the explanations provided at 
the present  meeting,  and for his continuous engagement. While the work was challenging, 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 ", those discussions 
had to  pave the way for agreement on dispute settlement reform at MC13. Finally, the E uropean WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 17 - 
 
 
  
 Union  wished to underscore that th ose discussions, pursuant to the MC12 outcome document, were 
open to all Members, and the E uropean Union  indeed appreciate d the efforts to ensure that the 
process was transparent and inclusive. The European Union  valued the broad participation in the 
meetings which contribute d to the quality of the exchanges, and enhance d the understanding of the 
positions of Members on particular issues. The European Union also welcome d the reporting to the 
DSB, as was the case at the present meeting , which enhance d the transparency and accountability 
of the process.  
6.16.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand welcom ed the further report this 
morning on the informal process on dispute settlement that was underway. New Ze aland again 
wished  to thank  Mr. Marco Molina for his considerable personal efforts in helping to organi ze 
Members in th ose discussions. New Zealand  continue d to support the open and inclusive nature of 
the process , which was generating a number of useful ideas for improving the effectiveness, 
efficiency , and accessibility of the dispute settlement system. New Zealand  looked forward to the 
continued constructiv e engagement of all Members in order to advance this important work in line 
with the direction of Ministers at MC12.  
6.17.  The representative of Japan  said that J apan appreciate d Mr. Marco Molina's  comprehensive 
report on the process. Japan  also appreciate d his effective facilitation of the current Member -driven 
discussions under his dedicated efforts. Japan support ed the proposed schedule of : (i) concluding 
the discussions before the summer break ; and (ii) initiating the text -based discussions after the 
summer b reak. Japan also agreed on the suggestion to maintain the pace of discussions, considering 
the timeframe, importance, and urgent nature of the DS reform discussions.  Further, Japan  
welcome d the transparency and inclusiveness of the process  with respect  to all Member s, and the 
participation by many Members, including developing countries. Japan  believe d that  this modality  
made for  a good forum to  achieve consensus among Members , although the current discussions  
were still in an informal mode.  To achieve the commitment agreed at MC12, Japan would  continue 
to work actively and constructively with all WTO Members.  
6.18.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway w ished to join previous speakers in thanking  
Mr. Molina f or his personal efforts in organising and structuring the series of informal discussions on 
dispute settlement reform , which  no doubt require d great personal sacrifice on his part . Norway  
welcome d his second report made  at the present  meeting  on the progre ss of the ongoing discussions. 
Norway  also welcome d the inclusive and transparent spirits with which meetings ha d been organised, 
including the high degree of flexibility for delegations. For smaller delegations like Norway it was 
especially valuable that  Mr. Molina  had arranged for regular updates on the progress in DS 
discussions. Ensuring a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all 
Members was a top priority also for Norway, and Members had to do their utmost to deliver on th e 
commitments made at MC12 . 
6.19.  The representative of Australia  said that  Australia welcome d the ongoing informal dispute 
settlement reform discussions. Australia also wished  to join other Members in thanking  Mr. Molina 
for his instrumental work in continuing to facilitate the informal process and for his report  at the 
present  meeting . Australia ha d found the current phase to be open, inclusive, transparent , and 
Member -driven. A very large number of Members were engaging constructively in the discuss ions 
and, as Mr. Molina ha d stated, they were  making real progress towards their goal of delivering a 
fully functional dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. Australia  
acknowledge d the concerns raised about the timetable and agree d that it was ambitious, but 
Members had to  remember the urgency of the task. Members' priority should be to continue working 
together to narrow the issues for discussion and to set themselves up for text -based negotiations 
later in 2023 . 
6.20.  The representative of  Korea  said that Korea w ished to echo others and welcome the report by  
Mr. Marco Molina . Korea  express ed its  sincere appreciation for his personal efforts and the additional 
burden he ha d taken on in organizing the informal meetings in his own personal capacity.  Korea also 
appreciate d presentations by the Secretariat, which Korea had  found very helpful. Korea note d that 
this process was 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, Korea  believe d that  this was imperative 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 WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 18 - 
 
 
   
 meetings for those who c ould not participate in person . Korea look ed forward to the continued 
engagement of all parties and w ould also contribute constructively to this process.  
6.21.  The representative of Cambodia  said that with respect to this Agenda item, Cambodia wished 
to join other Member s to thank  Mr. Marco Molina  for his briefing and update on the informal dispute 
settlement reform  discussions . Cambodia  welcome d his efforts in th at process. Cambodia was of the 
view that the process should be inclusive and transparent, which  should  uphold WTO core principles . 
In that regard, Cambodia  support ed the ca ll to formalise this informal process and bring all WTO 
Members on board for their active and full participation.  
6.22.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that, f irst, Chinese Taipei wished to join other 
Members to thank  Mr. Marco Molina for the useful update . Chinese Taipei  appreciate d his 
instrumental support for the informal process. Second, Chinese Taipei  reiterate d its support for the 
ongoing informal discussions. Chinese Taipei  was pleased with the commitment and constructive 
approaches demo nstrated by all participants, as well as the transparency and inclusiveness 
embedded in th ose discussions. Chinese Taipei  looked forward to continuing to work closely with 
Members on this critical topic to achieve a full y and well -functioning dispute settl ement system 
accessible to all Members.  
6.23.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that  the United Kingdom, like every other 
Member that had spoken at th e present  meeting , thanked Mr. Marco Molina for his update and his 
huge personal efforts in coordina ting meetings to discuss this important work. The United Kingdom 
strongly support ed those ongoing informal discussions.  Mr. Molina ha d worked hard to make th ose 
discussions inclusive and transparent , and open to all Members, while noting the urgency of the  
discussions . The United Kingdom  appreciate d his reiteration at the present  meeting  of his openness 
to bilateral discussions with interested Members at any time, and note d the number of such 
engagements he ha d had since the March DSB meeting. Through th ose informal discussions, 
Members  were finding points of agreement and convergence , and Members  needed to build on th at 
momentum  and remain ed ambitious and committed to the objective agreed at MC12, which was 
crucial so Members c ould fully utilise their dispute settlement rights.  
6.24.  The representative of the United States  thanked the delegate from Guatemala, speaking in 
his personal capacity, for his report at the present meeting. The United States intended to lead in 
all areas where it could contribute, including on dispute settlement reform. As the United States had 
said, achieving fundamental reform could only happen through a collective, Member -driven process. 
The United States supported the ongoing informal process, including the efforts of the delegate from 
Guatemala, speaking in his personal capacity. The United States also wished to express its 
appreciation to those developing and least -developed Members who had engaged with the United 
States bilaterally about the informal process following the previous DSB meeting on this Agenda 
item. As a result of those bilateral discussions, the United States had begun taking steps to further 
address the needs of those Members and the challenges they faced as participants in the informal 
process. The United States continued to encourage efforts to ensure the effective participation of 
developing and least -developed Members and would continue to explore wit h those Members the 
most promising ways to facilitate their participation. In closing, the United States was committed to 
working with Members on achieving fundamental reform so that the WTO dispute settlement system 
served the interests of all Members, an d the United States recognized the engagement of all willing 
Members to date. The United States' priority remained to continue the conversation, and it looked 
forward to further work . 
6.25.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine wished  to thank all Memb ers for their 
contribution s and work on discussions of dispute settlement matters. Ukraine was  grateful to  Mr. 
Marco Molina for his contribution and manag ement  of the entire process, and Ukraine reiterate d that 
this work should be based on agreed and united solutions. The outcome c ould only be fruitful under 
circumstances of direct joint work of Members and their common desire. Ukraine was ready to 
continue working  on DS issues  and to be involved in the process as much as possible . Ukraine  fully 
support ed the reform.   
6.26.  The representative of Chile said that Chile also wished  to welcome the report that Members 
had heard on the informal DS reform  discussions . Chile also wished to  thank  Mr. Marco Molino of 
Guatemala for all the work that he  had put into those discussions . Chile believe d that a number of 
delegations w ished to be involved in this process , which  should  be both open and inclusive. Chile WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 19 - 
 
 
  
 considered  it important that Members  had a dispute settlement system in place  and believe d that 
the vast majority of Members fe lt that this was an important short -term priority , given the remit 
given to Members  at MC12 . Therefore , Members'  efforts ha d to be focused on th at objective.   
6.27.  The repres entative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to thank  Mr. Marco Molina for 
his statement and for his excellent facilitation of the informal discussions on dispute settlement 
reform. Th ose discussions were intens e and Switzerland  appreciate d the eff orts deployed by  
Mr. Molina  to structure them  in an efficient, transparent , and solution -oriented way. Members ha d 
many issues and proposals to discuss but little time. Having a fully operational dispute settlement 
system by 2024, as stated in the Outcome Document of MC12  was the highest priority.  Switzerland 
hoped that the good and constructive discussions that ha d taken place thus far in this process w ould 
continue and  would  lead Members  closer to their shared goal . 
6.28.  The representative of Guatemala  thanked a ll delegates for their statements. He took  note of 
their concerns, in particular with respect to the clashes with the fisheries negotiations . However,  it 
was important for Members to recall  that all plenary sessions  in the informal process on dispute 
settlement had been  scheduled since February  2023, which was prior to  the resumption of the 
fisheries negotiations. He did not consider the DS reform informal process to be less important , or 
a second -class process , in the WTO. It was therefore  important to note that it was the Fish Week, 
which was clashing with the DS reform informal  process , and he hoped that Members were  raising 
the same concerns with the Chair of the Fisher ies Negotiations . Maybe to avoid this in the future , it 
would be important to have assistance from the WTO  Secretariat , as he was v ery sympathetic to the 
concerns raised by the small delegations , given  that he  himself was part of  a very small delegation . 
He reiterate d his commitment to make every effort to meet bilaterally with delegations with capacity 
constraints, with a view to brief them about the conversations and to hear their views and ensure 
that they ha d a meaningful participation in th e process.  
6.29.  The Chairman said that he wished to take the opportunity to thank  Mr. Marco Molina for his 
efforts towards this important matter for all Members. He encouraged Members to continue to work 
together in or der to make further progress on this matter. Members would also have to bear in mind 
scheduling issues and do whatever was possible to avoid major clashes.  
6.30.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
7  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM;  BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; 
LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; 
MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR; 
NAMIBIA; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; 
NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; 
SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; 
TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; 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) 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations. He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 25 and invited the representative  of Guatemala  to speak . 
7.2.  The representative of Guatemala  said that, a t the outset, Myanmar  had decided to co -sponsor 
the proposal that Members  would discuss under this Agenda  item. He thank ed Myanmar for its 
interest in the proposal and welcome d it to the group of co -sponsors . Speaking on behalf of the WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 20 - 
 
 
   
 co-sponsors of the joint proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 5, he said that the 
delegations in question had agreed to submit the joint proposal, dated 17 May 2023 to launch the 
select ion processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 
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 dispute settlement system. The joint 
proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes; (ii)  to establish a Selection Committee; 
(iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for t he 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 urged all Members to support this proposal in the interest 
of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems.  
7.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the long -standing US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did no t support the proposed decision. The United States believed that fundamental reform 
was needed to ensure a well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system. A well -functioning dispute 
settlement system supported WTO Members in the resolution of their dispute s in an efficient and 
transparent manner, and in doing so limited the needless complexity and interpretive overreach that 
had characterized dispute settlement in recent years. As WTO Members continued working to better 
understand each other's interests in WTO dispute settlement, the next task of reform was to ensure 
that any future system met the interests of all Members to the greatest extent possible. The United 
States had been 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 towards 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 .  
7.4.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that the African 
Group wished to thank the delegation of Guatemala for their statement regarding the proposal on 
Appellate Body member appointm ents, of which they were co -sponsors. The African Group  also 
welcome d Myanmar as the newest co -sponsor of the proposal under this Agenda item. The African 
Group reiterate d its support for a fully functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to  
all Members by 2024 in accordance with the mandate from their Ministers at MC12 . The critical mass 
of Members asking for the launch of the selection process es indicate d the importance Members 
attached to having a fully functioning dispute settlement system for the multilateral trading system. 
Finally, the African Group  stood ready to engage constructively in the ongoing discussions on dispute 
settlement reform in order to restore a fully  functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as 
agreed at MC12.  
7.5.  The representative of Canada  said that f irst of all Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustified 
and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin. Canada wished  to express its solidarity with 
the Ukrainian people. President  Putin's plans to "annex" Ukrainian territory were devoid of legitimacy 
and w ould never be recognized. Th ose hostile acts ha d 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 integrity had to  be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to  be free to 
determine their own future. Canada urge d Russia to immediately cease all acts of hostility and 
provocatio n against Ukraine and to withdraw from the country its military and intermediary forces. 
Concerning the appointment of Appellate  Body members, for over three years, the Appellate  Body 
had no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. Cana da support ed the 
statement made by Guatemala at the present  meeting on behalf of the co-sponsors and wished  to 
thank that Member for taking the floor.  Canada welcome d Myanmar as an additional co -sponsor of 
the proposal and 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 this proposal was a clear testimony to the importance they all 
accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate  Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. 
Canada recall ed the Membership's objective, which was to have a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system that was accessible to all by 2024. Canada w ould continue to actively participate 
in solution -oriented discussions on the present  situation.  In short, Canada's  priority remain ed to find 
a multilateral and lasting solution  for all Members, including the United  States. Meanwhile, the MPIA WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 21 - 
 
 
  
 gave 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 was available to discuss the details of the MPIA 
with interested Members.  
7.6.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished  to welcome 
Myanmar aboard. Hong Kong, China continue d to join other Members to reiterate its concerns about 
the Appellate Body impasse, as well as its commitment to work constructively with all WTO Members 
to restore a fully and well -functioning dispute s ettlement system accessible to all.   
7.7.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by 
Guatemala and co -sponsored by 129 Members to launch the process for appointments to the 
Appellate Body. Norway  also welcome d Myanmar as a co -sponsor to this proposal. A fully functioning 
dispute settlement system was critical to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system and 
for the credibility of the WTO as a rules-based organization . Norway  referred to its previous  
statements under this Agenda item, but wished  to use this opportunity to remind Members of the 
MPIA. The MPIA was open for WTO Members to join for as long as the Appellate Body remain ed 
unable to function fully. As the work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding o f the rules -based 
international order, Norway  also f ound it pertinent to address the situation in Ukraine. Norway 
continue d to strongly condemn Russia's egregious military attack on Ukraine. Russia's war of 
aggression against Ukraine constitute d a gross violation of international law and the rules -based 
system, which also underpinned the WTO  and the work of the DSB.  
7.8.  The representative of Iceland  said that a  fully functional dispute settlement system was directly 
connected to the upholding of the rules -based international order, which ha d been seriously 
undermined by the unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. Iceland condemn ed in 
the strongest possible terms Russia's actions , which violate d international law  and the UN Charter , 
and undermine d the international order and norms on which organization s such as the WTO were 
based. Turning to the Agenda item, Iceland refer red to its previous statements on this issue and 
thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal on beh alf of the co -sponsors. Iceland also welcome d 
Myanmar as a co-sponsor. Iceland was concerned over the long -standing lack of progress in 
resolving th is important issue and welcome d the ongoing efforts to advance discussions on dispute 
settlement reform with  the aim of having a fully functional dispute settlement mechanism by 2024. 
Iceland  encourage d other Members to join the MPIA as an interim mechanism for assuring Members 
access to a binding, two -tier, and independent dispute settlement system while they worked on 
restoring a fully functional dispute settlement system.  
7.9.  The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala for its statement, 
which Singapore strongly support ed. Singapore  warmly welcome d its fellow ASEAN member , 
Myanmar,  as the latest co-sponsor of this proposal. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements 
regarding the item 's urgency and importance. Singapore  was committed to participating 
constructively and with an open mind in ongoing dis cussions on dispute settlement reform, and 
thank ed Mr. Marco Molina for his  dedication , personal sacrifice , and stewardship of th ose discussions. 
While the Appellate Body impasse persist ed, Singapore  encourage d Members to join the MPI A as an 
interim soluti on that preserve d their right to appeal until they collectively f ound a durable and lasting 
solution. Singapore, together with other MPI A participants , stood ready to engage with any 
delegation that wishe d to learn more about the arrangement.  
7.10.  The represent ative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed and support ed Guatemala for its 
statement presenting the proposal on behalf of the now 129 co -sponsors. Indonesia also wished  to 
use this opportunity to warmly welcome Myanmar, as part of the ASEAN family, as the latest  
co-sponsor to come  on board. The representative of Indonesia  personally appreciate d the delegate 
of Myanmar' s tireless effort s to coordinate with the Capital in coming to such an important decision, 
which reflect ed a common trust and adherence to a rules -based multilateral trading system. 
Indonesia also encourage d more Members to consider positively becoming co -sponsors of this 
proposal. Moreover, Indonesia wishe d to refer to its statement s made at previous DSB meetings on 
this matter. In this regard, as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU, filling the Appellate Body  vacanc ies 
should not be subject to the completion of the discussion on dispute sett lement reform. With that 
being said, Indonesia remain ed ready and open to work with other Members, and was  commit ted to 
participat ing actively and constructively in the said discussion.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 22 - 
 
 
   
 7.11.  The representative of Cambodia  said that , at the outset , Cambodia warm ly welcome d 
Myanmar's decision to co-sponsor the joint proposal . At the same time, Cambodia  support ed the 
statement  made  by Guatemala on behalf of  the 129 co-sponsors and call ed upon more Members to 
join this proposal. Cambodia  referred to its previous statements made on this urgent matter and 
reiterat ed its firm commitment to, and support for, a well-functioning , independent , and impartial 
two-tier dispute settlement system  accessible to all, including the least -developing countries.  
7.12.  The repre sentative of Malaysia  said that a t the outset Malaysia wishe d to warmly welcome its 
ASEAN colleague, Myanmar,  as the latest co -sponsor of the revised joint proposal to launch the 
selection process for the vacancies of the Appellate Body Members , contained in 
WT/DSB/W/609/R ev.25. With this latest addition, they now ha d 129 Members  supporting the  
proposal . Malaysia  urged other Members who ha d yet to support this proposal, to do so. Malaysia 
wished to  thank Guatemala for presenting the proposal . Malaysia  support ed the statement made by 
Guatemala  and referred to Malaysia's  statements made  at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda  
item. 
7.13.  The representative of Ukraine  said that , as a strong supporter of t he international trad ing 
system, Ukraine was ready to contribute to the process of improving the function of the dispute 
settlement mechanism and its two -stage dispute review . Ukraine wished to  take this opportunity  to 
make a statement regarding Russian aggression. Russia continue d terrorizing  Ukrainian civilians by 
attacking critical infrastructure and residential areas , resulting in significant casualties  and 
destructio n. Over the previous  month, Russia had launched the most massive drone attack on 
Ukraine through its overnight and daytime raids. At the same time, a  war of this scale could not 
affect only one country . The impact was indeed global and it  was not only about the economy and  
trade.  Russia's aggression against Ukraine constitute d a violation of international law , in particular 
the UN Charter and the principles of the WTO. Ukraine  urged Members  to remain strong and 
consolidated in their support of Ukraine,  to continue to work together  in unity for Ukraine and to 
support vulnerable co untries affected by  the Russian war and the global crisis  it had caused . 
7.14.  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 
had deep implications for global peace, security , and economic stability. New Zealand  continue d to 
stand firmly 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 now co-sponsored alongside 
128 other WTO Members, and referred to its previous statements . Reform of the dispute settlement 
system to ensure a fully and well -functioning system accessible to all Members remain ed a priority 
for New Zealand. As noted under the previous Agenda  item, New Zealand urged all Members to 
engage in the ongoing discussions constructively and pragmatically in order to advance this critical 
work in line with the direction of their Ministers. New Zealand  also t ook this opportunity to invite 
those Members who ha d not joined the MP IA 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.  
7.15.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand t hanked Guatemala for presenting the 
proposal and the statement made on behalf of the co-sponsors, which Thailand fully suppor ted. 
Thailand  also welcome d and congratulate d Myanmar on its decision to join the proposal and urge d 
the remaining Members to do the same. Thailand referred to its previous statements on this Agenda 
item and reiterate d its commitment to restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system. 
Thailan d also wished  to take this opportunity to thank Marco for the report he ha d shared at this 
meeting  on the progress of the informal reform process and for his dedication and tireless  efforts, 
which ha d enabled substantive and in-depth  discussions while ensu ring, to the extent possible, 
meaningful participation by all Members and safeguarding  transparency. That said, Thailand was of 
the view that the ongoing reform discussion should not prevent the functioning of the Appellate Body 
and Members shall comply wi th their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies as they arise. 
Having a fully functioning dispute settlement system was essential in preserving the rights and 
obligations of Members under the WTO Agreements, including the right to have a panel repo rt 
reviewed on appeal.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 23 - 
 
 
  
 7.16.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa a ssociate d itself  with the statement 
made  by Guatemala on the proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thank ed Guatemala for 
making  the statement on behalf of the co-sponsors. South Africa  also associate d itself with the 
statement made by the Africa n Group. South Africa welcome d Myanmar as a new co-sponsor . South 
Africa  reiterate d its previous statements regarding the urgency of this matter . When Members 
agreed to bind themselves to the Uruguay Round A greements, it was on the understanding that their 
rights would be protected by a predictable , binding , rules-based order underpinned by a two -tiered 
dispute settlement mechanism. The ir assurance that their trade relations would be subject to  rules 
rather than soft law was fundamental, and the continued dysfunctionality of the Appellate Body 
undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay R ound and imperil led the multilateral trading  
system . A fully functioning Appellate Body was a top priority for reform of the WTO and it was crucial 
to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. South Africa  welcome d the commitment 
by Members undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all Members by 2024. Th at commitment was being reiterated at the ongoing informal 
discussions on WTO dispute settlement reform. South  Africa w ould work actively and constructively 
with all Members to find a lasting solution to the present  impasse that w ould ensure an effective 
dispute settlement system.  
7.17.  The representative of Myanmar  said that Myanmar thank ed Mr. Marco  Molina of Guatemala  
and all delegations  that support ed the proposal. Myanmar  believe d in and supported  the rules -based 
system o f the WTO . In accord ance with the MC12  Outcome Document, Myanmar was very much in  
favour of  a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system at the earliest possible date , through  
pragmatic , outcome -oriented and successful  negotiations . Myanmar wished to take this opportunity 
to express its  continue d support for the multilateral trading system.  
7.18.  The representative of China  said that China welcome d Myanmar 's decision to join this 
proposal, and support ed the statement made  by Guatemala on behalf of the 129 co -sponsors. China  
reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent, impartial , two-tier dispute settlement system, 
which had not only facilitated prompt and fair resolution of disputes between Members, but also 
provided security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. To ensure such objectives 
continue d to be fulfilled, China  believe d that the most urgent task  was to immediately launch the 
selection process es and fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. This was a treaty obligation of all 
WTO Members. No prerequisite should be attached to it. China  would  continue its constructive 
engagement in the ongoing disc ussion on DS reform, and call ed upon all Members to engage in th at 
exercise in good faith and with pragmatic, outcome -oriented spirits. Before concluding, China wished  
to take this opportunity to encourage more Members to join the MPIA as a contingent measure to 
safeguard  its right to appeal until the Appellate Body was restored. China  stood ready to discuss 
with and provide further information for any interested Members.  
7.19.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for pre senting the proposal 
on behalf of its many co -sponsors and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda  
item. Brazil also warmly welcome d Myanmar as a co -sponsor to the proposal. Having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system a ccessible to all Members was a top priority for Brazil.  
Brazil  continue d to engage constructively in informal discussions on dispute settlement reform, which 
it hoped would contribute to that outcome, within the deadline set by Ministers at MC12. As Member s 
had seen at the present meeting , another dispute ha d been parked indefinitely and w ould remain 
unresolved due to an appeal to a non -functioning Appellate Body. Brazil recall ed that, while the 
impasse with the appointment of Appellate Body members persist ed, WTO Members c ould ensure 
the resolution of their disputes by joining the MPIA.  The MPIA had proved to be a tested, effective , 
and viable way for Members to avail themselves of their right to resolve disputes under the DSU. 
Once again, Brazil encourage d Members to consider doing so.  Brazil was  ready to discuss the MPIA 
with any delegation t hat wishe d to learn more about the Arrangement and its functioning.   
7.20.  The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam wished  to echo other Members to thank 
Guatemala and the almost 130 co -sponsors for th eir continuous and faithful commitment to the 
appoin tment process of the Appellate Body member s. At th is DSB meeting, Viet Nam warmly 
welcome d Myanmar as a new co -sponsor of the proposal. Viet Nam reiterate d its support for 
launching the appointment process as soon as possible and encourage d more Members to  join th e 
proposal. Regarding the informal discussions on dispute settlement reform, Viet Nam was ready to 
engage in the process to reinforce the building of the effective, fully functioning dispute settlement 
system.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 24 - 
 
 
   
 7.21.  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 organization s such as the WTO were based. 
Australia stood  in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to this Agenda item, Australia  joined other Members in welcoming Myanmar as a co -sponsor. 
Australia's number one WTO reform priority was delivering a fully and we ll-functioning dispute 
settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024, as agreed by Ministers at MC12. A fully 
functioning WTO dispute settlement system was critical to the rules -based multilateral trading 
system and was in Members'  collective interes t. Australia  noted the ongoing discussions were making 
real progress towards developing meaningful and lasting reforms. Australia  would continue working 
actively and constructively with all Members to find solutions. While Members  collaborate d to restore 
a fully functional dispute settlement system as soon as possible, Australia encourage d all Members 
to join the MPIA as the best interim mechanism for ensuring Members rights under the WTO 
agreements c ould be enforced and protected. Joining the MPIA also dem onstrate d the value 
Members place d on a binding, enforceable WTO dispute settlement system. Australia was  ready to 
engage with any delegation interested in joining.  
7.22.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that the United Kingdom thank ed Guatemala 
for its statement. The United Kingdom  continue d to support launching the process for appointments 
to the Appellate Body, and refer red to its previous statements made on this issue. The United 
Kingdom  noted the increasing number of Members  co-sponsoring this proposal  and welcome d the 
addition of Myanmar.  The United Kingdom  encourage d all remaining Members to support the 
proposal. The United Kingdom continue d to be committed to reaching a resolution to the current 
impasse . Achieving a fully and wel l-functioning dispute settlement system was in the interest of all 
Members who value d an effective multilateral trading system. As such, the United Kingdom was 
actively participating in the ongoing Member -led discussions on dispute settlement reform. The 
United Kingdom  welcome d the ambition and intensity of discussions underway.  A pragmatic and 
dedicated approach was required to find solutions that w ould command the support of all WTO  
Members and the United Kingdom call ed on all  Members to continue to prioritise this work. As 
Members  discuss ed these issues concerning how they ensure d that rules were respected, the United 
Kingdom  had to  yet again condemn the outrageous violations of international law and the UN Charter 
that Russia c ontinue d to commit against Ukraine. President Putin's outrageous and illegal war against 
sovereign democratic Ukraine continue d to cause death, suffering , and damage. It was a repudiation 
of the principles that every country ha d committed to uphold under t he UN Charter as well as of the 
purpose and principles of the WTO . What happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of the WTO  and 
matter ed to all Members.  Russia's actions directly impede d the ability of Ukraine to fully participate 
in the work of this insti tution and the global trading system. More broadly, Members had to  recognize  
the enormous global impact of President Putin's chosen war. The United Kingdom and the 
international community ha d made it clear to President Putin that he had to  urgently stop hi s attack 
on the Ukrainian people and that he had to  withdraw from Ukraine and restore regional and global 
stability. A s the people in Ukraine continue d to face relentless Russian bombardment, the United 
Kingdom st ood with Ukraine a nd would continue to do everything it could  to support Ukraine in the 
face of this assault on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United Kingdom  stood  for freedom, 
democracy and the sovereignty of nations around the world.  
7.23.  The representative of Korea  said that , like others , Korea reaffirm ed its consistent position on 
Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity , and independence of Ukraine should 
be respected.  Korea, as a responsible member 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 more actively participate in those efforts. As for 
the item at hand, Korea thank ed Guatemala and  the co-sponsors for their continuous support in 
favour of launching the Appellate Body selection process.  Korea  also warmly welcome d Myanmar as 
the latest co -sponsor. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and refer red to its previous 
statements on this issue. The WTO dispute settlement system ha d enhanced the security and 
predictability of the rule -based multilateral trading system in response to the needs of WTO 
Members. With that in mind, Korea welcome d Members ' continuous interest  in ongoing discussions 
for dispute settlement reform and very much appreciate d all the efforts that they were making to 
materialize the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document.  Korea reaffirm ed its firm commitment to 
moving forward to achieve a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 25 - 
 
 
  
 7.24.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished  to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Guatemala and the co-sponsors for 
their continu ous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body 
members. Russia w ished  to warmly welcome Myanmar as a new co -sponsor. Russia reiterate d its 
strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately. Russia also had to address 
certain political declarations made by some WTO Members under this Agenda  item. First, Members 
had to  keep to the Agenda  of the present meeting, circulated on 2 5 May 2023 in document 
WT/DSB/W/718 and adopted  at th e present  meeting , as amended. The political discussions 
suggested by some WTO Members d id not concern any of the issues listed on the Agenda . Second, 
the DSB had its own tasks and mandate expressed in di fferent provisions of the DSU . None of the 
political issues raised by some WTO Members was within the competence of the DSB. Third, and 
ultimately, the WTO was not a political organization and Members had to  refrain from trying to 
address issues in the WTO  that were not in the competence of the WTO. Russia consider ed that one 
of the root causes of the crisis of the multilateral trading system that Members  were facing were the 
actions that blocked the Appellate Body appointments as well as the attempts to po liticize the WTO 
that Members had  heard at the present  meeting . Russia encourage d WTO Members to focus on 
resolving the problems they already ha d and not create new ones, unless any WTO Member ha d an 
intention to continue to destroy the multilateral tradin g system further.  
7.25.  The representative of Japan  said that , first, and like other Members, Japan wished to touch 
upon the situation in Ukraine. Japan strongly condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine and 
its missile attacks against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urged 
Russia,  once again, to stop its aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine, 
within its internationally recognized borders immediately. Japan would also continue to work firmly 
on the two pillars of imposing sanctions against Russia and provi ding logistical support to Ukraine, 
in cooperation with the international community. Turning to Agenda item 8,  Japan refer red to its 
statements at previous DSB meetings and support ed the proposal. Japan absolutely share d a sense 
of urgency for the reform o f the dispute settlement system and ha d set as the utmost priority to 
achieve a reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and functional 
problems of the dispute settlement system. Members should discuss the reform, including  on how 
to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. In relation to th at, Japan welcome d the 
development  in the informal DS reform discussions currently led by Members , as Mr. Marco Molina 
of Guatemala had reported at th e present  meeting.  With a  view to having a fully and well -functioning 
DS system by 2024, as agreed at MC12, Japan wished  to work actively and constructively with all 
WTO Members.   
7.26.  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 Union's 
support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and right of self -defence was 
unwavering. The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression and 
withdraw its troops from Ukra ine. Russia had to cease actions endangering civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people. Turning 
to this Agenda item,  the European Union refer red to its previous statements made on this issue and 
thank ed all Members who ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointment processes. Since 
11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to a bind ing, two -tier, independent , and 
impartial resolution of trade disputes.  A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial.  
That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the present proposal. The 
European Union  believe d that re storing a fully functioning dispute settlement system and appointing 
members of the Appellate Body was a key priority. Th at task was a shared responsibility of WTO 
Members. In order to achieve th at objective, the E uropean Union  agree d that a meaningful ref orm 
was needed. The European Union  support ed a reform that preserve d the core features of the dispute 
settlement system. As mentioned under  the previous Agenda  item, the European Union  treated very 
seriously the commitment made at MC12 of having a fully fu nctioning system by 2024 , and the 
European Union  was committed to continuing to work towards meeting that goal. In the meantime, 
the European Union  was concerned with the impact that the absence of a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system was having on the international trading order. In that context, the MPIA ha d been 
put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a fully functioning dispute settlement system 
among its participants and to support rules -based trade. The MPIA was open to any  WTO Member, WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 26 - 
 
 
   
 and the European Union i nvite any WTO Member to join for as long as a solution to this impasse ha d 
not been found.  
7.27.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh wished t o subscribe  to the statement 
made  by the least-developed country  focal point and , like others , thank ed Guatemala for presenting 
the proposal  on behalf of the 129 co-sponsors. Bangladesh took  note of the Member who had recently  
joined the proposal. Bangladesh also wished to take the opportunity to refer to its statement made  
at the previous DSB meeting . 
7.28.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States would like to recall that 
the United States and other Members had jointly issued WTO 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 United States reiterated its support 
for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time. The United States paid trib ute to the heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and Leaders . 
7.29.  The representative of the Philippines  said that the Philippines thank ed Guatemala for the 
statement in support of the proposal to launch the Appellate Body appointment processes. The 
Philippines extend ed warmest congratulations to fellow ASEAN member Myanmar for co-sponsoring 
the proposal. Th at significant step forward underscore d Myanmar's commitment to promote an 
effective multilateral trading  system that uph eld WTO principles. The Philippines  commend ed 
Myanmar for its proactive engagement in the dispute settlement mechanism, recogni zing its vital 
role in resolving trade disputes and ensuring the stability and predictability of global trade. The 
Philippines  also thank ed Myanmar as  it recognize d the urgency to restore the functionality of the 
WTO dispute settlement system, which play ed a fundamental role in safeguarding the rights and 
obligations of WTO Members. Finally, the Philippines continue d to support this priority proposal, 
recogni zing that the functioning A ppellate Body was indispensable for the fair resolution of trade 
disputes and the preservation of the rules -based international trading system. The Philippines  hoped 
that this initiative w ould contribute to the swift resolution of the existing impasse and the restoration 
of a fully functioning , fully operational Appellate Body by 2024 as mandated in MC12.  
7.30.  The representative of Brunei Darussalam  said that Brunei Darussalam wished  to thank and 
support the statement by Guatemala on behalf of the co-sponsors and warmly welcome d Myanmar, 
its fellow ASEAN  member State, as the latest co-sponsor of the proposal. Brunei Darussalam  
reiterate d the importance and urgency of restoring the two -tier dispute s ettlement system by filling 
the vacancies in the Appellate Body. 
7.31.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland condemned Russia's military 
aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. Such aggression blatantly violated 
international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territorial 
integrity of States.  Switzerland called upon Russia to take military de -escalation measures , end 
hostilities, and immediately withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. Switzerland called on all 
actors to respect international law , in particular international humanitarian law.  Regarding this 
Agenda item, Switzerland thanked Guatemala for placing this matter on the Agenda  and wished to 
refer to its sta tements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings. Switzerland called upon all 
Members to commit to ensuring a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as set out in 
the MC12 Outcome Document. Switzerland would continue to participate constr uctively in the newly 
initiated phase of informal discussions and hoped that concrete solutions could be discussed in the 
coming weeks and months.  
7.32.   The representative of Guatemala  said that, on behalf of the 129 co -sponsors, Guatemala 
regret ted that for th e sixty -sixth 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 had to  comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies as they ar ose. The co -sponsors  noted with deep 
concern that by failing to launch the selection processes at this meeting , the Appellate Body w ould 
continue to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members.  WT/DSB/M/47 9 
 
- 27 - 
 
 
  
 7.33.  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, which w ould be reflected in the minutes 
of the meeting. Once again , the Chairman  took the opportunity to re call 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 would be able to find 
a solution to this matter.  He then propose d that the DSB take note of the statements made under 
this Agenda item.  
7.34.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________