RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/48 7 
25 March  2024 
(24-2199) Page: 1/29 
Dispute Settlement Body  
26 January 2024  
 
 
  
MINU TES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 26 JANUARY 20241 
Chair man: H.E.  Mr Petter  ØLBERG (Norway ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . He reminded delegations that the 
technical instructions for the remote participation remained the same as was the case at the previous 
meetings ; (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of 
the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute . He said that, as Members would 
recall , this matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's 
consultations with each interested party regarding th is 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; (iii) the Chairman  
informed delegations that Türkiye  had notified the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report in 
the dispute on: "Turkey – Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States " (DS561). 
He said that under the circumstances, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU, the panel report could 
not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal. Accordingly, the item 
was removed from the proposed Agenda ; and (iv) the representative of the United States  said that, 
under "Other Business ", the Unite d States wished to make a statement regarding the dispute DS561 
on: "Turkey – Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States ". 
 
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 (WT/DS184/15/Add.246)  ................................ ....................  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.221)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.184)  ................................ .................  3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers  
from Korea: Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add.68)  ................................ .... 4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add.60)  ..............................  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products:  
Status report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add.55 – WT/DS478/22/Add.55)  ..............................  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 2 - 
 2  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
3  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA) (DS597)  18 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ....................  18 
4  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOL IVIA; 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; DOMI NICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; 
EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; 
GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; 
INDIA; INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LAO PEOPLE'S 
DEMOCRA TIC REPUBLIC; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; 
MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; MYANMAR; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; 
NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN;  PANAMA; 
PARAGUAY; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TA NZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO;  TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE; 
UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE  BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.26)  ..............  21 
5  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE DISPUTE ON: "TURKEY – 
ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES" (DS561)  .... 27 
 
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 46) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.221) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech produ cts: 
Status report by the European Union ( WT/DS291/37/A dd.184) 
 
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.68) 
 
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.60) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural pr oducts, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia ( WT/DS477/21/A dd.55 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.55) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members would recall, 
Article  21.6 required that : "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable per iod of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman wished to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . He also reminded 
delegations that, as provide d 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. " WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 3 - 
 A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States ( WT/DS184/15/Add.2 46) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 46, 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 15 January 2024 , in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States had 
addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue . With respect to the 
recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be ad dressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thanked the United States for the most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its ne xt regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States ( WT/DS160/24/Add. 221) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 221, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning Sect ion 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 15 January 2024 , in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report  and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and said that it wished  to resolve this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union ( WT/DS291/37/Add.1 84) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to docu ment WT/DS291/37/Add .184, 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  wished to recall that the European Union approval 
system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The E uropean Union continue d 
to propose for vote authori zations for genetically modified organisms t hat, in the European Food 
Safety Authority 's risk assessment, had been concluded to be safe.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the European Union ( "EU") for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States continue d to engage with 
the European Union on these issues, and ha d provided recommendations on several occasions as to 
how the E uropean Union could  address the undue delays in its approval procedures.  The 
United  States ha d described these problems in det ail and had noted its concerns with the EU 's 
biotech approval procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech 
consultations, the next of which would  be held on 9 February 2024. The United States appreciate d 
that a number of approvals  and reapprovals had been  made in 2023, and look ed forward to the WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 4 - 
 Commission 's continued progress in making decisions when the Standing Committee and Appeals 
Committee were unable to do so. Despite this progress, the United States  again request ed that the 
European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that ha d completed science -based risk 
assessments at the European Food Safety Authority, including those products that were with the 
Standing Committee and Appeals Committee.  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States ( WT/DS464/17/Add. 68) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 68, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15 January 2024 , in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed . Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)) . With that action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders . The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the D SB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea,  once again , urged the United States to take 
prompt a nd appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s 
in this dispute . 
1.17.   The representative of Canada  that Canada thanked the United States for its status report. 
Canada wished to recall its statement made under this Agenda item at the 18 December 2023 DSB 
meeting . 
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States ( WT/DS471/17/Add. 60) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 60, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommend ations in the 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 15 January 2024 , 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 
recomme ndations of the DSB . 
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thanked the United States for its most recent 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting. China was disappointed that more 
than five years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States still failed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. Therefore, China, once again, 
urged the United States to honour its obligation by bringing its measures into conformity without 
further del ay. 
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 5 - 
 F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia ( WT/DS477/21/Add. 55 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 55) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 55 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 55, 
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 provide d a status report in these disputes , 
in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. In early 2023, Indonesia had adopted Law No.  6/2023 
on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in lieu of Law No. 2/2022 on Job Creation. It had 
been an integral part of Indonesia 's effort in the implementa tion of the recommendation and rulings 
in this dispute with regard to self -sufficiency. In relation to Measures 1 to 17, Indonesia ha d made 
significant adjustment s to its import policies following the amendments to the relevant regulations 
of the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Trade. Indonesia firmly believe d that these  adjustment s 
effectively revoked the measures at issue, including harvest period, import reali zation requirement, 
six-month harvest requirement, reference price and domestic purchase . Considering the interest 
expressed by the complainants on Indonesia 's Commodity Balance mechanism as informed at the 
previous  DSB meeting, it serve d as a tool to facilitate, streamline and expedite trade activities 
without imposing additional burdens or restrictive effects on trade. Indonesia continue d to reiterate 
its strong commitment to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes. 
Indonesia stood  ready to continue the positive and constructive engagement with New Zealand and 
the United States with a view to reach ing positive solutions to 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. With respect to measu res 1-17, the 
United States had asked several times and would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations 
now comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would 
affect the regimes. The United States noted  that measures 9 and 17 were, respectively, the 
horticultural products, and animal and animals products import licensing regimes as a whole. As the 
United States had expressed before, it continued to have concerns about Indonesia's administration 
of these regimes. To enable the United States to understand and evaluate Indonesia's claim of 
compliance with the DSB recommendations, the United States had requested that Indonesia provide 
the regulations that comprised Indonesia's current import licensing regimes , in addition to any draft 
regulations that might affect the regimes. The United States had received a response from Indonesia 
listing the laws and regulations which it believed brought the measures into compliance with the 
DSB recommendations. The United States was currently reviewing and was not in a position to agree 
with Indonesia's claim of compliance regarding Measure 18. The United States remained willing to 
work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings. As outlined at previous DSB meetings , New Zealand  remain ed concerned about a 
number of measure s. New Zealand would still appreciate understanding better the regulations that 
now underpin ned Indonesia 's import licensing regimes as a result of the relevant legislative 
adjustments, as well as any regulations or other amendments that were forthcoming. New Zealand 
continue d to have concerns about the administration of these regimes, including a lack of 
transparency regarding allocation criteria and applicable timeframes. New Zealand also remain ed 
interested in better understanding how the new commodity b alance would  in fact operate to simplify 
and facilitate trade in affected products. New Zealand look ed forward to further constructive 
engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this mat ter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 6 - 
 2  DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DS REFORM2 
2.1.  The Chairman  said that, u nder this Agenda item, he first wished to make a short report on the 
consultations that he had held that week with interested delegations on DS reform. Subsequently, 
he would invite Mr. Marco Molina, the representative of Guatemala, who convene d the informal 
discussions on DS reform, to report on this matter for transparency. Turning to the Chair 's report, 
Members would  recall that, at the DSB meeting on 18  December 2023, he had announced that he 
would make himself available to meet with any interested delegations to hear their views on how 
and when to formalize the informal process on DS reform, which was currently ongoing. On 22, 23 
and 24 January 2024, 26 delegations, including the group coordinators, had expressed their interest 
to meet with the Chair and provided their views on this matter. First, the Chair wished to thank all 
delegations for their interes t and their constructive participation in th ose consultations. He could say 
without any hesitation that all delegations who had met with him had stated that they consider ed 
DS reform as a priority issue for MC13 and beyond. In this regard, Members  had acknowledged the 
work done so far in the informal process and had seen  great value in this process. It was underscored 
that the informal process ha d achieved significant progress so far and that this work should be 
preserved. Almost all delegations had commend ed Mr. Marco Molina for his outstanding leadership 
in this informal process. Concerning the issue of formalization, which was the subject of the 
consultations, he said that delegations had recognized the need to formalize this process. However, 
it became clear that formalization of the process mean t different things to different delegations in 
terms of process, timing, purpose, and leadership. One group of delegations reiterated their position 
that the informal DS discussions had to be formalized un der the DSB/GC as quickly as possible. A 
second group indicated that this should be done at MC13. A third group believed that this should be 
done at the first DSB meeting after MC13. A fourth group indicated that this should be done 
sometime in the future when the text was complete. The reasons in favour of formalizing were as 
follows: the need for participation of capital -based officials, attribution of texts, reflection of 
reservations and textual suggestions of all Members, and the need for a dedicated p ortal on the 
WTO website where all Members could access relevant documents being discussed, among others. 
Another group of delegations had stated their preference that any such formalization should take 
place later at the "appropriate time " and that the in formal discussions should continue as long as 
possible before MC13 in order to maintain the momentum and avoid unravelling the work already 
done. Those delegations strongly believed that the reason why Members ha d gotten so much work 
done over the past yea r was because of the flexibility and convergence building spirit provided by 
the informal process led by Mr. Molina, and movement to a formal process at this stage could 
jeopardi ze what ha d been accomplished. During the consultations, it became clear that there was 
no consensus to formalize the informal DS discussions at this point. The Chair  believe d that since 
there was still some time left for delegations to continue with the informal process on DS reform for 
another few weeks, he strongly encourage d Members to do so. In the consultations, delegations 
expressed a strong desire to work towards delivering on what Ministers ha d agreed at MC12 on DS 
reform. Some ideas had been  put forward on how to deal with the draft text once such a text was 
acceptable to a ll delegations. At the same time, concerns had been  raised that, at this point, there 
was no consensus on the current text and that there were still a number of important outstanding 
issues that ha d not yet been addressed. Accordingly, more work was needed  on the current text in 
order to achieve convergence. The Chair  encourage d delegations to intensify their efforts with the 
period of time left before MC13. As he had  noted, since there was no consensus on the formalization 
of the informal process at this p oint in time, he suggest ed that Members should allow the informal 
process on DS reform to continue to do as much work as possible to achieve a successful outcome. 
In the meantime, the Chair would reflect on what would  be the best way forward to inform the 
Ministers on the progress made in this area – and he would continue to engage with delegations.  
2.2.  The representative of Guatemala , Mr. Marco Molina, made the following statement:  
"Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I will refrain from commenting on the matter of 
formalizing the process, recognizing that it is a decision for Members to make with your 
guidance. I await further instructions on how to proceed with the outcome of the 
informal process. Instead, I will offer an assessment of the status of the consolidated  
draft text and outline the plan for the next two weeks. I trust that this information will 
prove valuable in guiding Members ' decisions regarding formalization and help manage 
expectations regarding the informal process. It is important to note that the DS Reform 
 
2 Following the consideration of item 1, the Chair proposed to take up the item on "Discussions 
Concerning DS Reform", which was originally listed as item 4 on the proposed Agenda (WT/DSB/W/728).  WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 7 - 
 Informal Process is operating in two separate tracks: one for the revision of the draft 
consolidated text and the oth er for the discussion on the appeal/review mechanism. 
Regarding the consolidated draft text, we are currently reviewing its fifth iteration. The 
sixth revision of the text, reflecting changes made during this week, will be circulated 
on Monday, 29 January . The plenary will further review this document during that week, 
with the expectation to incorporate final comments by the week of February 5th. With 
the collaboration of expert delegates on dispute settlement and Capital officials, we 
must aim to complete  the consolidated draft text by 9 February . As for the 
appeal/review mechanism, on a without -prejudice basis, the plenary has initiated the 
identification of certain concepts that could offer a solution to this critical issue. These 
concepts are undergoing  refinement and testing to ensure they address the interests 
and concerns identified by Members. In the coming days, the plan is to create an 
inventory of the elements of these concepts gaining interest and support among 
Members and further develop those t hat require consideration. Gradually, we are 
progressing towards finding a viable solution for the appeal/review mechanism. When 
Members are ready, the next step would be to draft legal text. In this regard, once the 
plenary finalizes the consolidated text , the intention is to shift all attention and energy 
to the question of the appeal/review mechanism. With Members ' commitment, 
determination, and a focus on interests and concerns, it is feasible to achieve the 
objective of designing an appeal/review mecha nism that works for all WTO Members in 
the next few weeks. Regarding procedural aspects of the informal process, it is crucial 
to note that all meetings are conducted in plenary session with simultaneous 
interpretation and offer remote participation for Ge neva delegates, extending the 
sessions until 8:30 p.m. Despite multiple negotiating processes occurring within the 
organization, the level of participation in the DS Reform Informal process remains high, 
and delegates continue to engage fully and construct ively. I have continued to make 
efforts to seek the views and brief those who cannot attend the entirety of the meeting. 
At the request of many delegations, I have conducted bilateral meetings with Capital 
Officials to ensure a widespread inclusion of inte rests and concerns reflected in the text. 
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the consolidated draft text, now exceeding 
50 pages, reflects meticulous craftsmanship. This is not an improvised effort but rather 
the tangible outcome of extensive c onversations and exchanges among Members over 
several years. Every WTO Member has had ample opportunities to participate and 
articulate their views. Upon reading the text, it will become apparent that the proposed 
reform significantly enhances the operatio n of the dispute settlement system, 
emphasizing accessibility. The text is a testament to our interest -based approach, 
wherein optimal results are achieved through the careful reconciliation of various 
interests and concerns. Chair, over the past year, the  expert delegates on dispute 
settlement have been engaged in an enduring ultramarathon. We find ourselves just 
some steps away from the finish line. During the last three weeks, we have intensified 
our pace and redoubled our efforts. The collective exhaust ion is palpable, and it would 
be remiss of me not to express my deep appreciation for the commitment and dedication 
demonstrated by my colleagues who have spared no effort in the informal process of 
DS reform. Undeniably, the final steps of this race are t he most challenging. To reach 
the finish line, we must display unwavering determination, reveal our true colors, and 
rise to the occasion. This is not the moment to stop or quit the race. Together, we can 
do it! At the next available opportunity, I commit to reporting on progress in the work 
of the informal process. Thank you ." 
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States welcomed the engagement 
of Members on dispute settlement reform. Thanks to the collective effort of all, Members w ere 
moving towards their goal of achieving fundamental reform. The United States also appreciated the 
positive contribution of the volunteer facilitator. He had thoughtfully guided the discussions and 
pursued an inclusive and transparent process that was g rounded in the interests of all Members. The 
United States strongly supported his efforts. The United States continued to believe that a reformed 
dispute settlement system should address the interests of all Members to the greatest extent 
possible. This ne cessarily required the participation of all Members if they valued a durable system. 
The United States welcomed the dedicated level of participation of Members in the interest -based 
discussions day -in and day -out over the past two years. Their collective e ffort had produced draft 
text on a number of procedural and functional reforms that could help lead to convergence among 
Members. More importantly, it demonstrated a shift in the culture toward resolving disputes and 
avoiding needless litigation for the sa ke of litigation. While work remained to be done on the text, WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 8 - 
 the United States believed it demonstrated a serious effort on the part of Members to address the 
interests and concerns of the entire Membership. Members should embrace what had been achieved 
in this regard. As Members approached MC13, the United States was in favor of neither speeding 
too quickly to an outcome that overlooked the needs of certain Members, nor artificially slowing 
down the discussion by imposing constraints that limited rather t han encouraged constructive 
dialogue. The United States felt strongly – as evidenced by Members’ progress to date – that the 
interest -based discussions provided Members with the best opportunity to address the remaining 
issues. And let it be clear – difficult issues remained to be addressed. Those included the needs of 
developing country Members and LDCs, but also on critical substantive areas where "judicial" 
overreach had damaged the functioning of the WTO and altered the balance of Members' rights and 
obligations. If Members were concerned about policy space, Members should be for a reformed 
dispute settlement system. A reformed system should address erroneous interpretations on such 
issues as essential security, regulatory space, remedies for unfair trad e, and other fundamental 
systemic issues. With the success of the interested -based discussion – and Members' investment in 
that process – they had laid the foundation for having more difficult conversations. If Members 
embraced the approach that had led th em to success thus far, they could put themselves in a position 
to succeed on achieving fundamental reform in accordance with their collective interests. The United 
States looked forward to working with Members to build on their substantial progress to dat e. 
2.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to thank Mr. Molina for his unwavering effort 
in conducting discussions on dispute settlement reform throughout almost a year now. The depth of 
the discussions therein reflect ed Members ' commitment to and engagement in the process. As the 
ministerial conference approach ed, so d id the time to formalize the DS reform process taking 
advantage of the work done with the consolidated draft text. This text was the  fruit of Members ' 
collective wo rk since April 2022 and had been  crafted in a transparent and open manner. As a 
reflection of their discussions, the text consolidate d the views of basically all WTO Members on the 
interests  they had  presented themselves about the dispute settlement reform. Those issues m ight 
not be attributable to individual countries, but their substance reflect ed known positions of each 
Member. Brazil  would very much appreciate if Mr. Molina could continue to facilitate their work in a 
future formal mode . Brazil ha d been constructively engaged in discussions since the very beginning 
of the informal exercise and was certain that the draft text, although still incomplete, was the best 
way forward to fulfill the mandate set by Ministers at MC12. Let Members  make no mistake, their 
main task, which was the restoration of a two -tier binding system, remain ed unresolved. This very 
system that ensure d the fulfillment of rights and obligations of all Members and guarantee d the 
credibility of their commitments was at stake. Member could not afford prolonging the paralysis of 
the binding dispute settlement system in such a way that affect ed developing countries 
disproportionately. This was why Brazil would  continue to work with a view to having a fully and 
well-functio ning two -tier binding system accessible to all by 2024.  
2.5.  The representative of China  said that t he restoration of a fully and well -functioning 
dispute  settlement mechanism accessible to all Members by 2024 was the top priority of China. It 
could not only re gain Members ' confidence in the WTO, but also make MC13 a successful milestone 
of the multilateral trading system. To that end, China  welcome d the encouraging progress achieved 
so far in the sense that they already ha d a fifth  version of the consolidated t ext which encompassed 
the vast majority of the issues identified. China thank ed all Members for their professional 
engagement and contribution, and particularly appreciate d the informal facilitator Mr. Marco  Molina 's 
tireless coordination and irreplaceable leadership to this endeavor. China believe d that with every  
Members ' strong co mmitment and continuing joint  efforts with the sense of urgency, fulfill ing the 
mandate of MC12 for dispute settlement reform was  doable. That being said, there were still a 
number of fundamental challenges ahead of Members , particularly the issue of the appeal review 
mechanism, the most difficult but extremely important one in their process. Within less than one 
month, Members had  no choice but to maintain the current positive momentum and further 
accelerate their work both on the consolidated text and the  appeal review mechanism, to make  their 
best efforts to wrap up everything and deliver an outcome at MC13. To that end, China support ed 
to move the current discussions into a formal mode as soon as possible. China w ould continue its 
focused, constructive a nd pragmatic engagement in this process.  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union appreciate d the 
opportunity to once again 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 European Union agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order to 
achieve this objective. The European Union support ed a reform that preserve d the core features of WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 9 - 
 the dispute settlement system. The European Union wished to thank the DSB Chair and Mr. Marco 
Molina for the explanations provided at the present meeting . The European Union wished  to express 
its gratitude to Mr. Molina for the able handling of discussions, and for ensuring their transparency 
and inclusiveness. The European Union also appreciate d the constructive and intensive engagement 
of Members. The European Union wished  to recall that this process had started with the identification 
of interests of WTO Members in the dispute settlement system. It was on that basis that Members 
had discussed the means to achieve these interests, and those means had then been reflected in 
the draft legal text. The European Union acknowledge d that discussions were still ongoing and there 
were important open questions that need ed to be addressed. However,  the European Union was  also 
mindful of the progress that had been achieved to address  Members ' interests, as reflected in the 
draft legal text. The European Union believe d the text was of high quality and very useful as it 
sketche d a possible package of reforms for a well and fully functioning dispute settlement system, 
after the open issues were resolved. The European Union also ac knowledge d that these discussions 
had been extremely intense and at times challenging to keep up with. But the European  Union 
wished  to underscore that this process had so far allowed to make much more progress than any 
previous DSU reform attempt. The Eur opean Union believe d that the manner in which discussions 
had been  organi zed served the Membership well, allowing to achieve great progress in a limited 
amount of time. The European Union acknowledge d the calls to formali ze the process and was open 
to cons ider different options in terms of set up of the process going forward. However, those changes 
could not  stall the process as, for the European Union and the overwhelming majority of the 
WTO Membership, a solution to this issue was of the utmost urgency .  
2.7.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway  first wished to thank the Chair and Mr.  Marco 
Molina for their reports made at the present meeting . Norway , once again , thank ed Mr. Molina for 
his dedication and work to coordinate discussions on reforming the dispute settlement system and 
welcome d the significant progress that ha d been made under his guidance. This progress should be 
preserved. Norway fully agree d that such discussions should be m ultilateral and organized in an 
open, transparent, and inclusive manner, which facilitate d effective, and equal participation of all 
Members. Being a relatively small delegation, Norway was certainly familiar with the challenges 
faced by smaller delegation s, and support ed efforts to find ing concrete solutions to these issues. 
Norway welcome d and ha d made use of the opportunity for Geneva -based  delegates to virtually 
participate in the discussions. The process would  have to be formalized , but, as several delegations 
had previously stated, now was not th e time. The discussions should continue to preserve 
momentum and reach solutions also to the still outstanding important questions. Restoring a fully 
and well-functioning dispute settlement mechanism was still a top priority for Norway.  
2.8.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to  thank the facilitator for his 
report and his time, efforts and dedication to the informal discussions. South Africa also wished to 
be associate d with the statement to be made  by the African Group. A fully and well -functioning 
two-tier dispute settlement mechanism , accessible to all Members by 2024 , was a top priority for 
WTO reform , and it was crucial to the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. To this 
extent, meaningful reform was needed to achieve  this objective. South Africa had articulated its 
concerns in  documents  WT/GC/W/892  and JOB/DSB/7  and t hese were further underscored in 
Indonesia 's paper in document JOB/DSB/6 . South Africa value d the current informal dispute 
settlement discussions which it had  actively and constructively participated in. The informal process 
had been useful in so far as exploring possible solution s and w hile noting the progress in the infor mal 
discussions, there was no consensus on issues. Members were not there yet, a lot remain ed to be 
done with some outstanding concerns to be addressed and core issues that remain ed pending and 
were yet to be fully addressed, like that of accessibility and  the appeal review mechanism. The 
appeal review mechanism was the very issue that had given  life to the informal discussions , yet it 
remain ed to be addressed. As long as the concerns were not addressed and the core issues remain ed 
pending, the text would have little meaning, if at all. Given those  concerns, the text was not ready 
to be shared with Ministers and could not be presented as a consensus document. Members needed 
a balanced agenda and balanced discussions if they were to arrive at a balanced outco me. This 
mean t all interests and concerns need ed to be taken on board and considered in a balanced manner. 
South Africa was concerned with any ideas or calls for an early harvest or mini package, especially 
if it did not address their issues. Any negotiati ons on dispute settlement reform should result in an 
entire package, South Africa could not consent to calls for a mini package from the draft text. In 
addition, the current draft text could not be regarded as the zero draft for formal negotiations, but 
should be considered as one of many inputs into the formal negotiations yet to be launched. The 
current informal process should be formali zed as soon as possible, according to the accepted 
practi ces of the WTO. Formali zation of the process should be formed b y a number of issues, for WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 10 - 
 instance: negotiations taking place within the DSB or in an open -ended special session under the 
auspices of the DSB and under agreed Rules of Procedure of the GC or, as may be adjusted or agreed 
to by Members; a DSB Chair -led pro cess with reporting to the GC; a work programme with a clear 
road map and deadline to be met . These were all key elements to ensure transparency and able 
planning and full and effective participation of all Members. A Member -driven process with 
negotiation s based on Member submissions and open, transparent and inclusive process and record 
keeping of the negotiations. It was only an inclusive and transparent approach that would  enable 
Members  to achieve their shared objective of a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism by 
2024. 
2.9.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand t hanked the Chair for his report  and 
was pleased to provide its views during the Chair's  consultations. New Zealand joined other Members 
in thanking Mr. Marco Molina for the update provided at the present meeting  on progress in the 
informal process, and for his tireless work in supporting this critical process. New Zealand continue d 
to welcome the progress and momentum in th e ongoing discussions. The consolidated draft text 
under review was testament to the quality and the pace of the work to date. It capture d a range of 
reform options that would  bring about meaningful improvements to the efficiency, affordability, and 
access ibility of the system. There was more to be done, however, including on some of the most 
difficult outstanding issues. The time remaining ahead of MC13 was short, but with continued focused 
and constructive engagement Members could  finalize their work on a  package of reforms that would  
enable the system to return to full -functionality. New Zealand welcome d the continued transparent, 
open and inclusive manner that this work was being organized . 
2.10.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thanked Mr. Molina for his report, it was 
a good snapshot. Indonesia thought that it had been an intensive three weeks of discussion and 
unfortunately, was not able to follow during the last two weeks due to conflicting schedules with the 
fisheries subsidies negotiation. For Indonesia, as a Member with a small delegation, its priority would 
be to follow a negotiation that was formal in nature. With that in mind, Indonesia also wished to 
thank the Chair for conducting consultations with Members on the formalization of the DS reform 
discussion of which Indonesia had also conveyed its concerns and comments on this process. For 
Indonesia, the latest version of the consolidated draft text, while dense in content, was evidently 
still lacking c onsensus and contribution from the whole Membership. Also, Indonesia was still 
concerned whether a two -tiered dispute settlement system would make a comeback and if so, 
whether it would be two-tier. Paragraph 3 of the  MC12  Outcome Document stated that the objective 
was to have a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 
2024 and , looking at the way this text was heading, Indonesia remain ed concerned that the reform 
system might be even more erroneous and less accessib le to developing Members and LDCs. 
Indonesia,  as well as some Members that had already indicated before it, was not comfortable to 
submit a half-baked outcome to the ministers before MC13, especially because it had not been fully 
debated by the whole Membe rship. Indonesia would  also not consent to having mini packages related 
to DS reform at MC13. For Indonesia,  it would be more realistic to use MC13 to launch the 
formali zation of the DS reform negotiation led by the DSB C hair at the DSB Special Session. Th e 
text could serve as one of the inputs to the formal process as well as any new proposals by Members. 
And for the question of what formalization would look like, as Indonesia  had already conveyed these 
forms and elements of formalization in its  previous c ommunication contained in document  
JOB/D SB/6, Indonesia believed the communication  could be referred to along with  the several other 
ideas given  by Members  at the present meeting . 
2.11.   The representative of India said that India 's position on this process ha d been made clear at 
the Senior Offic ials Meeting , where along with many other countries, it had  pointed out the problems 
in the current process and requested for immediate multilateralization. To briefly recap, this process 
had not been inclusive for many reasons, most notably; (a) not allowing virtual participation till 
almost the end  of the process ; (b) the absence of Ambassadors in the room; (c) no capital 
participation , except for one notable delegation; (d) the difficulty for small delegations in maintaining 
sustained participation in such a process; and (e) the lack of records and objective reporting. This 
text was undoubtedly a work of meticulous craftsmanship. Unfortunately, it was  the work of 
meticulous craftsmanship of a handful of countries, and in this context, India took this opportunity 
to note the remarkable commitment of its fellow developing country Members. In the face of a 
process which privilege d, resource -rich delegations and which ha d consistently refused to adopt 
methods of work that would have levelled the playing field, developing countries ha d remained 
engaged in this gruelling process for the past two years. It was a tangible demonstration of the 
commitment of developing countries to the foundational prin ciples of the Marrakesh Agreement and WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 11 - 
 the restoration of the Appellate Body. India wished to draw the attention of this Organization to the 
actual text, to the fact that this text ha d no brackets, no multiple colours , no alt versions and look ed 
so unlike a  text that emerge d during other WTO negotiations. This absence did not mean that there 
was agreement on substance. This absence only show ed that reservations and suggestions made by 
Members who continue d to have concerns were not being recorded and were being systematically 
undermined. India had  three main points to convey on the way forward. First, this process had to  
be multilateralized imm ediately, a multilateral process mean t a process  in which Members negotiate d 
amongst themselves according to the accepted practices of the WTO. Second, the current text was 
not an endpoint, it could not be presented at MC13 as the consensus end product of a 
WTO-mandated process, at the very best it was preparatory work for the launch of a WTO -mandated 
process. Similarly, this text was not a starting point. It could be one of the inputs into the formal 
process. It could be submitted in its entirety or in sections, and had to be attributed to specific 
delegations. If there was no attribution, there was no indication on who had ownership of the 
proposed reform and thus who had to be negotiated with. Third, there could not  be a partial package 
at MC13. India had  entered into this process with good faith, into a process that was not ideal with 
an informal volunteer coordinator , in the hope that this would resolve the Appellate Body impasse. 
Now, after one year, the entire DSU was being rewritten and there was no m ention of the Appellate 
Body. If there was no resolution of the Appellate Body, and India noted here that statements as to 
work which was being done to achieve some convergence on the Appellate Body issue was not an 
adequate outcome. There had to be unders tanding on what the two -tier system and what the 
Appellate Body would look like. Without this in the MC13 package, India could not say that there 
was momentum on three or four issues and push them through at the upcoming ministerial  
conference . 
2.12.   The represe ntative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  thank ed Mr. Marco 
Molina for his useful report and for the tremendous work he ha d done so far in the informal process. 
However, the African Group ha d been calling for a formal process since the beginning of the 
DS reform informal discussions. The African Group believe d, as ha d been acknowledged by all 
dispute settlement colleagues , that it was imperative that the conduct of the negotiations of dispute 
settlement reform should be made in the way and manner prescribed by the WTO, through formal 
negotiations at the DSB where all Members , including their capital -based officials , were able t o fully 
participate in the process. This would provide the required legitimacy. At the WTO, the normal 
practice of negotiations was based on  the principles imbedded within the rules of the Marrakech 
Agreement and Rules of Procedure agreed for the formal WT O councils and committees. However, 
the African Group had  continued to engage in a constructive manner in the informal discussions on 
the understanding that the process would be formalized by bringing it into the formal WTO Dispute 
Settlement Body in good time, if there could  be any hope of achieving an outcome at MC13. 
Regrettably, this ha d not been done. The discussions were still being held informally. What the 
African Group  mean t by formalization was as follows:  (i) negotiations under a formal DSB following 
the agreed Rules of Procedure of the General Council or as might  be adjusted and agreed by others;  
(ii) the conduct of such negotiations at the DSB would be  overseen by the General Council;  (iii) a 
Chair selected by consensus of the Members; (iv) for the Chair to remain impartial and the process 
remain Member -driven in accordance with the agreed WTO Rules on the Conduct of Chairs of 
Committees ; and (v) the process to be  transparent and inclusive. The African Group wished  to 
emphasize this last poi nt. From its point of view, the current process was particularly not inclusive, 
a majority of Members were not present in the negotiations despite urgent calls from developing 
countries for meetings to be scheduled in a way that avoid ed major clashes with other formal 
WTO bodies. Th ose justified calls ha d not been heeded to recently. The African Group stress ed that 
developing countr ies concerns had to be taken into account and a text could not move  from an 
informal process to the Ministers for adoption. It was not proper. It  was best that th ose calls from 
developing countries were acted upon to guarantee inclusivity. On substance, the African Group held 
the view that the text was not ripe for Ministers to consider it. Regarding one of its core interests as 
the African Group , which was accessibility among other things, it regret ted that no solution ha d been 
found to address th ose interests. It was pertinent to note that the African Group viewed any 
negotiation on dispute settlement reform as an entire package,  which mean t it could not accept low 
hanging fruits or early harvests. Members could not claim to reform a system where majority of 
them did not have access to it. This issue ought to be fundamental and there had to be a real 
commitment to improve accessib ility and ensure that the treaty embedded special and differential 
treatment  right of all developing countries was guaranteed. Regarding the way forward, the African 
Group had a few final comments: (i) the African Group was of the opinion that more time sh ould be 
given to the negotiations so as to arrive at a consensus document that could be adopted at the DSB 
by 2024; (ii) the negotiations should and must be inclusive; (iii) the MC13 outcome document had WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 12 - 
 to have a clear timeline for the formalization of th e process to avoid indefinite deliberations in the 
informal mode; (iv) the African Group was of the view that Ministers should adopt a three-month 
period for the informal preparatory discussions to conclude and the process to be immediately 
formalized. This preparatory work could  serve as one of the reference documents once formal 
negotiations beg an; and (v)  Ministers at MC13 should adopt a wor k program me for the formal 
process that resume d three months after the Ministerial . 
2.13.   The representative of Pakistan  said that Pakistan wished to thank  the Chairman  and Mr. Marco 
Molina, the facilitator, for presenting the reports on the consultations with delegates and on 
DS reform discussions. In this regard, Pakistan wished to reiterate its earlier statement and stance 
made in the last DSB meeting and in the continuous process from the last year. Although the ongoing 
informal discussions on DS reform might  have some externalities, however, Pakistan  believe d that 
the process ha d so far remained informal and concerns to this effect ha d been voiced both in the 
form of written and oral submission s by various Members on the procedures and modalities of these 
discussions. Pakistan wished to refer the recent consultation  with the Chairman  on the functionalities 
for the reform process, that also reflect ed the concerns of Members. Pakistan, once again , wished 
to urge the need to formalize and channelize these informa l discussions  as soon as possible , because 
these could not  be a substitute for a formal , multilateral and Member -driven process if we are to 
address  the concerns being raised by  most Members time and again for the past two years. Finally, 
following up on the demands of most WTO M embers for formalizing the reform process, Pakistan 
support ed a decision on this at MC13 for affirming the functional dispute settlement system in 2024 . 
2.14.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia continue d to closely monitor the DS reform  
discussions at the expert level with great interest. Malaysia wished to register its appreciation to the 
update provided by Mr . Marco Molina on the informal discus sion and also wished to commend the 
process that ha d been conducted thus far, particularly with the latest improvement  of allowing the 
online participation of Geneva -based delegates , which ha d indeed helped small delegations like 
Malaysia to follow the dis cussion closely. As the schedule of WTO meetings was becoming more 
intense in the run up to MC13 , and Malaysia expect ed meetings to multiply in all areas in the coming 
weeks , Malaysia  believe d it was worth explor ing online participation to be extended to c apital -based  
delegat es as well in order to assist with understanding the negotiation s. While Malaysia underst ood 
that conducting informal discussions ha d allowed for a thorough and balanced deliberation  to identify 
common ground toward s the negotiated outcome at this stage, Malaysia was of the view that 
Members needed to be prepared for the formalization of this process if they were expecting to submit 
a proposal on the DS reform to Ministers at MC13. Malaysia 's aim, like all Members, was to see a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as agreed by Ministers at MC12. However, this 
lofty goal require d change that addresse d pending concerns in their entirety, not partially. Chief 
among them was establishing a strengthened two -tier dispute settlement system, upholding the 
WTO's foundational principles. This contentious issue was still being discussed and Malaysia wished 
to express its concern that with the limited time that Members had, exactly one month, whether 
they would be a ble to achieve an outcome on this particular issue. As intensive discussions 
continue d, Malaysia  stressed its optimism for a solution that would safeguard the key interests of all 
Members. With understanding and compromise, Members st ood poised to inaugura te a dispute 
settlement process, restoring confidence in the rules -based trading system.  
2.15.   The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed the Chairman  for arranging 
the recent consultations on DS  reform and the process to be followed and also for his report made  
at the present meeting . Ministers at MC12 had mandated Members to "conduct discussions with a 
view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members  by 
2024. " These  consultation s could be termed as the first significant step towards that, beyond a 
volunteer  facilitator -led informal exploratory exchange of views , as in the past. Bangladesh note d 
the informal delegate -led exploratory consultation s by Mr . Marco Molina and the statement made in 
his personal capacity. Bangladesh appreciate d his efforts and his attachment to this topic. 
Bangladesh acknowledge d that there ha d been some challenges and concerns raised by a few 
Members regarding the dispute sett lement  system including the Appellate Body  impasse . By 
referring to challenges and concerns, the Ministers at MC12 mandated Members  in Paragraph  4 of 
the Outcome Document to conduct discussions to address those challenges and concerns. Ministers 
did not ma ndate Members  to derogate from or dismantle the core and foundational principles of  the 
WTO dispute settlement system, as the context for reform ha d been clarified in Paragraph 3 of the 
MC12 Outcome Document. Paragraph 3 of the MC12 Outcome Document assure d that any reform 
work, of course including the DS reform , shall be , among others , Member -driven and inclusive and 
must address the interests of all Members, including development issues. But unfortunately, the WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 13 - 
 current informal discussions could  neither meet the criteria of being fully member -driven nor be 
called truly inclusive. Bangladesh had raised some concerns and cha llenges during several previous 
DSB meetings regarding the delegate -led informal discussions. Bangladesh ha d repeatedly asked 
several questions/raised important issues during the informal discussion and also sent questions in 
writing to the voluntary facil itator and sought clarifications. To its dissatisfaction, none of the 
questions had been acknowledged, nor replied to.  Bangladesh had  experienced no effort to engage 
and reflect on its views and inputs. Its experience clearly indicate d that the facilitatio n process ha d 
not been truly inclusive. This deficit of credibility and confidence need ed to be overcome. Bangladesh  
underst ood that any "reform " should not make the existing dispute settlement  system more complex 
and onerous for developing countries and L DCs. Bangladesh  welcome d the communications by the 
African Group, by Indonesia and the joint submission by Egypt, India and South Africa.  The LDC 
Group's communication contained in  JOB/GC/223/Rev.1  adequately highlight ed the urgency that, as 
LDCs their voices had to be heard and that the reform discussions ought to be conducted through a 
multilaterally guided process with inclusivity, transparency, and with the opportunity for the full, 
effective and equal participation of all Members. In conclusi on, Bangladesh suggest ed the following 
points:  (i) DS reform was a mandate from the Ministerial Conference  and therefore, as a relevant 
WTO body , the DSB had to  initiate Member -driven, inclusive discussions as soon as possible to 
realize that mandate.  Members should be given adequate opportunit ies to contribute to the 
discussions.  The ideas and options already discussed and generated in the informal discussions might 
be accommodated for the future discussions at the DSB alongside other inputs; (ii) As Members had 
to now enter a negotiation phase, away from the exploratory phase, the process of consultation s 
and actors on facilitation might both change in the new phase. A formal process, with new faces of 
facilitators, agreed by Members, was need ed to create greater credibility and confidence, requisite 
for commencing and conducting negotiation s to conclude that by 2024; (iii) The DSB might prepare 
a DS Reform progress report, agreed by Members, for MC13. The progress report m ight potentially 
contain in brief how the exploratory phase ha d progressed thus far as well as an indication on the 
mechanisms and processes expected to be followed in the post -MC13 period of formal negotiation s. 
Bangladesh look ed forward to working constructively with Members  on this important topic.  
2.16.   The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked the Chairman and Mr. Marco Molina for 
their reports, and Mr . Molina for his inspiring words. The United Kingdom continue d to be deeply 
concerned that the absence of a fully  functio ning dispute settlement system was detrimental to all 
Members who value d and rel ied upon a binding and enforceable system to enforce their negotiated 
rights. All Members need ed to continue to work together, in a pragmatic and constructive spirit, to 
resolve the current impasse as quickly as possible. The informal process, led so strongly by 
Mr. Molina, ha d demonstrated that swift progress, however seemingly difficult, was possib le. The 
United Kingdom believe d that all Members should recognize  and be proud of their work to date in 
the informal process. As Members  move d towards MC13, they had to redouble their efforts to reach 
agreement on all outstanding issues. As Members  conside red formalization  it was crucial that they 
continue to build on the text they had been developing through the informal process and maintain 
their positive momentum. The United Kingdom believe d strongly in a well -functioning dispute 
settlement system that was transparent and accessible to all Members. The United Kingdom  looked 
forward to continued work with Mr. Molina and all Members to pursue those shared objectives.  
2.17.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to express appreciation to  the Chair man's 
report on the consultations. Japan took note of the divergent views among Members on formalization  
of the process , its timing and its purpose as well as the consolidated text. Japan was  listening 
carefully to the views of Members regarding the appropriat e method and timing on the formalization. 
However, it was important for Members to consider what was the most effective way to maximize 
an outcome at MC13 and achieve a fully  and well -functioning dispute settlement system by 2024. 
At the DSB meetings, Japan had  heard that several Members ha d requested the formalization of the 
process before MC13. Japan  believe d that now was not the right tim e to formalize the process 
because Members  still ha d remaining issues including the appeal review mechanism . While  
recognizing that MC13 was approaching, Japan would make its best endeavor to advance the 
discussions to finalize the consolidated text, including the issue of the appeal review mechanism , 
before MC13. Japan also appreciate d Mr. Marco Molina's  tireless efforts and comprehensive report 
on the informal process. Japan strongly support ed the current informal process that ha d generated 
the consolidated text based on the interests and concerns of Members. Japan further commend ed 
that Members ha d discussed the rem aining issues intensively and revised the consolidated text, 
which was currently the fifth version. Japan understood that the intensive discussions were still 
required to finalize the consolidated text and deepen the discussion of the appeal review mechani sm. WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 14 - 
 While moving t owards MC13, Japan would  be actively involved in the discussions to find  convergence 
on the remaining issues.  
2.18.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished to thank 
Mr. Marco Molina for his report on  the informal DS discussions. The Russian Federation was thankful 
for his hard work and attempts to steer this "boat" in the right direction. As it had indicated from 
the very beginning, the Russia n Federation  believe d that a multilateral outcome could  only be 
achieved through a formal process as Members had envisaged in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the MC12 
Outcome Document. Only the formal  process could result in the outcome of negotiations to be 
acceptable for all WTO Members being in the position to p articipate in an equal, inclusive and 
transparent manner. This was the proper way of how negotiations should be conducted in the WTO. 
The formal placement of the DS reform discussion under the framework of WTO bodies would lead 
to certain practical implica tions. The formal negotiations should be recorded appropriately, the 
proposals submitted and positions taken should be attributable to concrete delegations and taken 
into consideration. Under the formal mode all WTO Members, including capital -based delegat es, 
would  be in a position to follow the process more deeply. This  was extremely important, especially 
in the course of complicated legal issues raised, which were sometimes very technical in nature and 
require d additional expertise and time to digest. The Russia n Federation  could agree on the premise 
that the work done though  the informal process was valuable and that its result could contribute to 
the discussions to be held in the formal mode. However, the Russia n Federation  did not view that 
such a text would or should serve as an exclusive basis for such discussions. Unfortunately, the 
up-to-date text did not reflect many of the Russia n Federation 's concerns, which had been 
consistently raised throughout the discussions  and, as far as it could judge, many other Members 
share d the same view. Finally, the Russia n Federation  emphasize d that most of the Members had 
committed to the reforming process of the dispute settlement system because of their willingness 
to solve the problem of the Appellate B ody blockage. In this regard, the Russia n Federation  
consider ed that the core issue for successful outcome remain ed the restoration of the two -tiered 
system with the Appellate Body. The current text addresse d a lot of technicalities but still did not 
resolve the main problem. The restoration of the Appellate Body was still its priority, but the Russian 
Federation was forced to state that little progress, if any, had been achieved on this issue  with only 
4 weeks left before MC13.  Without restoring the two -tier system, the consideration of other elements 
that were currently on the table seem ed to be meaningless.  Bearing this in mind, the Russia n 
Federation  expect ed that the appropriate paragraph to launch the formal process under the auspices 
of the WTO Workin g Bodies would be included in the Ministerial Declaration, giving the right impetus 
for fully -fledged discussions. At the same time, the Russian Federation wished to avoid a situation 
where the drafting of the paragraph concerning DS reform in the Ministerial Declaration would be 
made by Ministers themselves at MC13. Therefore, the Russian Federation urged the DSB Chair to 
start the drafting process of the relevant paragraph as soon as possi ble.  
2.19.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to thank Mr. Marco Molina for 
his tireless commitment and, above all, for his excellent management of the process. Switzerland 
had participated constructively in the plenary meetings held  in January 2024 and welcome d the 
progress made. It was essential that Members  continue d in this vein, as both the Chairman and 
Mr. Molina ha d requested . This was not the time to slow down, certainly not for procedural reasons. 
Switzerland recall ed that their mandate was to have a fully functioning dispute settlement system 
by the end of 2024, and Members had an opportunity to contribute to the success of MC13 . Dispute 
settlement discussions ha d never been so efficient. These discussions were open, inclusiv e and 
allowed for solutions to be sought. It would therefore be counterproductive to formalize the process 
before Members had a text that they could all support. This text reflect ed nearly two years of 
high-quality legal work and it had to be upheld. Each line ha d been discussed and calibrated, many 
times if necessary, to take into account the different sensitivities of a large part of the Membership. 
Switzerland call ed on all Members to act in good faith and ask ed them to be pragmatic so that  they 
"did not throw the baby out with the bath water ". To conclude, Switzerland reiterate d its view that 
it was crucial for the dispute settlement mechanism, once reformed, to continue to defend the 
rules-based multilateral trading system and to protect ag ainst power dynamics . 
2.20.   The representative of Thailand  said that T hailand ha d been apart of the WTO since 1995  and 
was one of the users of the dispute settlement system. Thailand fully support ed the appointments 
of Appellate Body members and the restoration of the two -tier system by 2024 . Thailand  wished to 
thank Mr . Marco Molina for his time and tireless effort s in facilitating this informal process in his 
personal capacity. Thailand had joined this long journey with the rest of the Member ship, but it saw 
that the consolidated text , as it stood now, still need ed a lot of work . There were a number of WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 15 - 
 outstanding issues, most importantly the appeal review mechanism, which was extremely important 
for Thailand . Thailand  realize d that the current informal process still lack ed of some important 
elements and wished to highlight some points in order to improve the effectiveness of the discussion : 
(i) Thailand wished to see more inclusive engagement and participation on the part of all Members 
in this reform process. As a developing country, Thailand did not have a lot of manpower and found 
it very challenging for those who could not join the onsite discussion s because they ha d only one or 
two delegates for all issues of the WTO. The s chedules of discussion s should not overlap with other 
negotiations, forcing Members to choose to participate in other discussion s deemed more urgent 
than this one ; (ii) Transparency during the discussion . Comments from all of Members should be 
reflected in  the text. This is for two reasons , first, Members needed to be transparent with their 
capital s so as to keep them on the same page  and s econd, this track record should serve as a 
drafting history. Thailand called for the adjustment of how Members worked on the consolidated text 
so as to be similar to other negotiations within the WTO. It should incorporate and reflect Members  
inputs  so that capital could understand what was going on ; (iii) A ccessibility , all Members should be 
able to access the discussion either onsite or through remote access. Again, for delegations that ha d 
limited human resources, participation should be available for capital -based  officials , too. Thailand 
wished to express its interest on drafting the te xt for the outcome document. Thailand  support ed 
the role of the DSB Chair to lead this process  and believed  that under the Chair's  leadership , all 
Members would  be able to participate equally and in an inclusive and transparent manner.  
2.21.   The representative o f Canada  said that Canada thanked the Chairman for his report on the 
consultations he had conducted. Canada wished to again thank  Mr. Marco Molina for his dedication 
and hard work to advance discussions on DS reform. As Members  approach ed the one -year 
anniversary of the first meeting of the informal process, it was worth reflecting on the significant 
progress that ha d been made in this time toward fulfilling the MC12 mandate of having a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. The informal process 
had focused on identifying the interests and concerns of all Members and then sought  solutions to 
address those interests and concerns. All Members ha d had the opportunity to present their interests 
and put forward pro posed solutions. All Members had had access to all documents relating to the 
process. All Members were invited to the discussions and ha d had the opportunity to contribute 
either at meetings or in writing. It was Canada's view that the contributions of Members had been 
heard and taken into account. The informal process ha d resulted in a well -advanced consolidated 
draft text, drafted by the Members and focused on interests and concerns, but it remain ed subject 
to some outsta nding issues, on which Members were making important progress. Canada  also 
recognize d and hear d the concerns regarding access to the meetings and documents and the 
challenges for some delegations, particularly smaller delegations from developing countries.  As 
noted by Mr. Molina and others, efforts had been made to address these challenges, and Canada 
remain ed open to ideas to ensure full participation in the process, but Members must not lose the 
momentum and progress they had achieved through that process . Recalling the direction of their 
Senior Officials to actively participate in the ongoing process on DS reform with the view to achieving 
tangible outcomes at MC13, Canada's view was that the best chance of achieving a complete package 
of reform and meeti ng their objective for MC13 was to continue to focus their efforts through the 
ongoing informal process.  At the same time, Canada  recognize d that the outcome of the informal 
process would  have to be formalized before a decision could  be made by Ministers. While Members 
were quickly approaching that time, Canada  agree d with the Chairman's comments, that Members 
had to intensify their efforts in the coming weeks. Members had to  press on to try to resolve the 
remaining issues and concerns and complete the exce llent work they started a year ago in time for 
MC13 . 
2.22.   The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to thank the Chairman and Mr . Marco 
Molina for the ir respective  report s. Finding a multilateral solution which would enable to restor ation 
of a fully functioning, two -tier dispute settlement system continue d to be of great importance for 
Mexico and it would continue to support the process underway facilitated by Mr . Molina . Mexico 
wished to express its deep recognition for his commitment and relentless work. Mexico consider ed 
that this process ha d been, since its very start, multilateral, transparent and inclusive . The work ha d 
progressed  and the process ha d also adapted , the text was translated  into the three official 
languages and simultaneous interpretation of the discussions  was available . At the beginning 
January , Mexico had had the possibility of participating remotely , however, it recognize d there were 
fundamental issues that were still pending, particularly the one relating to the appeal review 
mechanism . Members had to reali ze that , for the first time since the paralysis of the Appellate Body, 
they had suggestions on the table which would help them design a solution so as to reactivate the 
appeal  review mechanism and Mexico consider ed that Members had to give an the process an WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 16 - 
 opportunity so that they could continue to work in the coming weeks up to MC13 . However, Members 
had to be realistic  and consider what would happen if they did not achieve a full package to submit 
to Ministers, a package that offers a mechanism or a solution for the appeal  review  mechanism , 
which would work for all Members. Regardin g the formalization  of the process , Mexico was open to 
consider the different options that the Chair had put forward as a result of his consultations, 
however, Mexico consider ed that Members had to be pragmatic and had to provide a solution which 
would enable them to continue building on the work carried out during the informal process. Mexico 
was committed to continue working constructively so as achieved a dispute settlement system that 
was fully functioning and accessible to all Members by 2024.  
2.23.   The rep resentative of Australia  said that Australia first wished to thank the Chair for the 
opportunity to provide views on the formali zation of the DS reform discussions, and for his report 
made at the present meeting . Australia also wished to thank Mr . Marco Molina for his efforts to 
facilitate the discussions. As Mr . Molina had outlined in his report, through the multilateral informal 
process, over the last nearly 12 months, and building on the conversations before tha t, Members 
had engaged in interest -based discussions to identify reforms to ensure the system operate d in all 
Members ' interests. The fruit of those discussions – the draft text – had to  be the basis for their 
work going forward, as Members  strive d to addr ess the remaining issues and reach a package 
acceptable to all Members. It was incumbent on any Member suggesting that it was not to explain 
how they could then deliver on their MC12 mandate to fix the system this year. If Members were 
going to have any ch ance to meet this shared objective, they could not afford to lose the significant 
gains they had made. The Chair's consultations  had confirmed that Members continue d to see 
DS reform as a priority issue. Australia consider ed that the informal process shoul d be formali zed at 
the right time and in the right way. In taking that step, Members had to ensure that they did not 
jeopardi ze their goal of restoring a fully  functioning system accessible to all Members as soon as 
possible. Australia  support ed the Chair 's proposal that Members  continue to allow the informal 
process to do as much work as possible.  
2.24.   The representative of Türkiye  said that , first, Türkiye wished to thank the Chairman and 
Mr. Marco Molina for their respective  reports. Re -establishing a "fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system " that was "accessible to all Members " by 2024 was a clear mandate that Members 
had received from their Ministers at MC12 . As one of the participants of the facilitator -led inf ormal 
DS reform discussions, Türkiye 's motivation in participating in this process ha d been to safeguard 
the achievements of the multilateral trading system, and contributing into a lasting and successful 
reform efforts to the mutual benefit of all WTO Mem bers. Türkiye acknowledge d the efficiency of the 
informal process as participating Members had been able to come up with a 50-page draft decision, 
even if there exist ed important discrepancies among the number of issues, including those on some 
key and hig hly critical ones. It should be acknowledged that carrying out negotiations – be it formal 
or informal  – in such an area with so many implications for the smooth functioning of the multilateral 
trading system as well as the very system itself, was a succes s given the complexities involved. For 
this reason, Türkiye wished to thank its colleagues and Mr. Molina for their tremendous efforts and 
commitment. However, it should also be put on record that the informal discussions had been far 
from being completely  fruitful and satisfactory for all the participants, let alone non -participants. To 
put it more clearly, Türkiye, regrettably, wished to echo that certain concerns raised by developing 
Members during the informal meetings, including those raised by Türkiye , had not been adequately 
addressed and reflected in the draft outcome documents without any convincing reason. The fact 
that many WTO Members – even those who  had announced themselves to be part of this process  – 
could not take part in this process for th is or that reason also raise d additional and important 
question marks as to the wider ownership of the process. There was no doubt that any outcome had 
to be balanced and take into account the interests of all. Türkiye 's fundamental objective in the 
reform process was to make the Appellate Body functional again and to maintain the two -tier 
multilateral dispute settlement system. An informal process could  not achieve any concrete progress 
on any of these matters, and it was unlikely that it would  do so before MC13.  Türkiye was of the 
view that the next step should be to carry forward the outcomes so far achieved to  a multilateral 
platform , such as formaliz ing the informal discussions under the auspices of the DSB. The u pcoming 
Ministerial  Conference  offered an indispensable opportunity for any such mandate to do so as well 
as setting a clear deadline for formal discussions to conclude. Accordingly, to achie ve the targeted 
objectives, it should be noted that Türkiye would  continue to remain in collaboration for the 
successful conclusion of the current informal discussions on the DS Reform.  WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 17 - 
 2.25.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore wished to thank  the Chair man and 
Mr. Marco  Molina  for their respective reports. As the Chair  had gathered in his consultations, 
delivering on the MC12 mandate to have a well and fully  functioning dispute settlement system 
accessible to all by 2024 collectively remain ed Memb ers top priority. Singapore reiterate d its deep 
appreciation to Mr. Molina  for his dedicated and tireless stewardship of the discussions on DS reform. 
There were important issues, including the appeal review mechanism, to be addressed in the short 
time left to MC13, and Singapore  noted that there were promising ideas on the table to be explored. 
Singapore believe d that discussions in a setting that facilitate d frank exchanges while maintaining 
the current mome ntum would give Members  the best chance of reaching the finishing line. Singapore 
was committed to and look ed forward to the pragmatic engagement of all Members conducted with 
a sense of utmost urgency in the remaining time.  
2.26.   The representative of Peru said that Peru wished to echo the statements made recogni zing 
the excellent work carried out by Mr. Marco Molina . Peru also wished to reiterate its support for the 
informal process of discussions on DS reform. Peru value d that th e discussions were trying to take 
on board the concerns of Members that ha d been put on the table on the basis of ideas discussed at 
length. In Peru's view, these informal discussions were being carried out in an open, transparent 
and inclusive manner . Peru also wished to recognize the  different improvements , for instance, 
including interpretation, the translation of texts and remote participation of Geneve -based delegates. 
Furthermore, it was also important to highlight that there were still some key pendi ng issues for 
Peru, namely  a two -tiered dispute settlement system that guarantee d the protection of the 
multilateral trading system, which  was vital to create a level playing field for all. Finally, although 
Peru did consider that Members had to formali ze the process in the near future, it was necessary to 
be cautious so as not to as scrap the progress they had made during  this informal process.  
2.27.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thanked the Chair man for his constructive 
engagement and re port. Korea welcome d the comprehensive report made  by Mr. Marco Molina and 
appreciate d all the dedicated efforts made. Korea note d that the current process had been open, 
transparent and inclusive to all Members. With the constructive  engagement of all Members to date, 
Korea aim ed for discussions to advance as much as possible so that Members achievements would  
be acknowledged as a meaningful outcome at  MC13 , providing  momentum for ongoing discussions.  
2.28.   The representative of Colombia  said that Colombia thank ed the Chair man and Mr. Marco 
Molina for their respective reports. Colombia great ly value d the effort s made by  Mr. Molina and 
encourage d him to continue. Colombia recogni zed and value d the progress made thus far.  During  
these negotiations, despite its limited capaci ty, Colombia had been heard and its views had been 
taken on board in the discussions . Colombia of course was not able to participate in all meetings . 
However, Colombia's  contributions were discussed and were reflected in the texts. The ongoing 
availability of Mr. Molina to push forward the discussions was invaluable. Furthermore, Member s 
now had simultaneous interpretation, access to the texts in all official languages, and could also 
participate online, which made their work easier. Colombia consider ed that the process had been 
transparent, open and inclusive and was able to rely on the openness and participation of all 
Members. Colombia value d the openness and commitment of all participants  and hope d that this  
work would move forward . Colombia was encourage d by the progress made, which in turn  
strengthen ed its commitment to work towards effective solutions.  
2.29.   The representative of Cambodia  said that Cambodia wished to thank Mr. Marco Molina for  the 
progres s report o n the informal DS reform discussions and his effortless dedication. Cambodia 
wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this important Agenda  item. Cambodia  echoed 
and support ed the statement made by Bangladesh. Dispute settlement reform was one of the top 
priorities for Members , including Cambodia,  to ensure a full y and well -functioning two -tier dispute 
settlement system accessible to all by 2024. Like other delegations, Cambodia was also of the view 
that the informal process was useful. However, Cambodia's  challenges to participate in this informal 
process remain ed critical since the MC12 mandate deadline was fast approaching. Therefore, to 
ensure the inclusive participation of all Members , especially in addressing the challen ges of  LDCs 
and small delegation s and importantly to ensure transparency, inclusiveness and greater 
participation of all Members, the informal discussion should be formally multilaterali zed at the 
earliest  time possible. Cambodia fully support ed the DSB Chair in leading this formal process.  
2.30.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements made. He then propose d that the 
DSB take note of the respective reports and the statements made, which would be reflected in the 
minutes of the present meeting. WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 18 - 
 2.31.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT (HONG KONG, CHINA)  (DS597)  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States.  He said that before he would invite the representative of the United States to 
speak, he wished to refer to Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings regarding the need 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on the matter that h ad already been debated 
previously. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States refer red back to its previous 
statements regarding its position on essential security and its reason for placing this item on the 
DSB Agenda.  The United States would not repeat those points in detail.3 As a consequence of Hong 
Kong, China 's decision to bring this matter to the DSB, the United States consider ed it appropriate 
to update the DSB on factual developments since the circulation of the panel report that reinforce d 
US concern with those findings.  Today, the United States would again draw attention to the alarming 
and deteriorating circumstances regarding human rights and freedom of speech in Hong  Kong, 
China. In December  2023, the United States had issued a statement condemning the issuing of cash 
bounties on individuals, including a US citizen and other individuals in the United States, as an act 
of transnational repressi on and encouraged the international community to condemn this act.4 
Specifically, the United States had rejected China 's attempt to use cash awards to threaten and 
harass those advocating for freedom and democracy, and urged Hong Kong authorities to respe ct 
the protected rights and freedoms enumerated in the Basic Law.5 In previous DSB statements, the 
United States had also highlighted the harassment of family members of these activists by Hong 
Kong authorities. The United States also note d that December 2023 marked the beginning of pro -
democracy advocate and media owner  Jimmy Lai 's national security trial and his third year in prison.  
During that time he ha d been denied his choice of legal representation.6 The United States had urged 
China and Hong Kong authorities to respect press freedoms in Hong Kong, China, and to immediately 
release Jimmy Lai and all others imprisoned for defending their democratic rights guaranteed in 
Hong Kong, China 's Basic Law. 7  
3.3.  As noted in several of its previous statements, the United States was not the only government 
that was vocal in its concern with respect to the egregious attacks on free speech in Hong  Kong, 
China.  Members of the Media Freedom Coalition, including the Governments of Australia, Austria, 
Canada, the Czech  Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the 
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States had issued a statement in December  2023 
condemning the National Security Law and the chilling effect it ha d on press freedoms in Hong Kong, 
 
3 See Statements by the United States at the January 27, 2023, DSB Meeti ng, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/01/28/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-january -27-2023-dsb-
meeting/ ; Statements by the United States at the March 31, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov /2023/04/03/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-march -31-2023-dsb-
meeting/ ; Statements by the United States at the April 28, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/05/02/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-april-28-2023-dsb-
meeting/ ; Statement by the United States at the July 28, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/07/28/statement -by-the-united -states -at-the-july-28-2023-dsb-meeting/ ; 
Statements by the United States at the October 26, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmissi on.gov/2023/10/27/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-october -26-2023-dsb-
meeting/ ; Statements by the United States at the December 18, 2023, DSB Meeting, available at  
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/12/19/statements -by-the-united -states -at-the-december -18-2023-dsb-
meeting/ .  
4 United States Department of State press statement (December 15, 2023), available at 
https://www.state.gov/on -hong-kong-authorities -transnational -repression/ . 
5 United States Department of State press statement (December 15, 2023), available at 
https://www.state.gov/on -hong-kong-authorities -transnational -repression/ .  
6 United States Department of State press statement (December 17, 2023) available at 
https://www.state.gov/trial -of-jimmy -lai-under -the-hong-kong-national -security -law/.  
7 United States Department of State press statement (December 17, 2023) available at 
https://www.state.gov/trial -of-jimmy -lai-under -the-hong-kong-national -security -law/.  WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 19 - 
 China.8 The Media Freedom Coalition had issued a similar statement before, as the United  States  
had noted during the dispute proceedings.9 In December  2023, the UK Foreign Minister had met 
with Jimmy Lai 's son Sebastien Lai to discuss his father 's trial, and stated that the National Security 
Law was a "clear breach of the Sino -British Joint Declaration " and ha d significantly eroded the rights 
and freedoms in Hong Kong.10 The United States noted that Jimmy Lai was a UK citizen.11 The foreign 
ministries of France and Germany had also expressed support for freedom of expression and 
democracy in Hong Kong b y awarding the Franco -German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of 
Law 2023 to currently detained lawyer and activist Chow Hang -Tung.12 The award was given to 
lawyers, journalists or activists that work ed to "defend the alienable rights of each and every human 
being. "13 Chow ha d been arrested and detained since September 2021 over her ties to a group that 
organized annual vigils.14 As the United States ha d previously explained, these types of facts 
demonstrate d the pattern of human rights abuses and the er osion of autonomy in Hong Kong, China, 
that motivated the US measure at issue in this dispute.  These facts also demonstrate d the error in 
the WTO panel finding that such a pattern did not "meet the requisite level of gravity to constitute 
an emergency in i nternational relations under Article XXI(b)(iii). "15 Again, the United States 
fundamentally disagree d with the panel 's approach, which suggest ed a WTO Member ought to defer 
consideration of its essential security interests until after a breakdown in relati ons with another 
Member.  A WTO Member c ould not be expected to wait until it was too late to act, or be required to 
sever all relations with another Member as a prerequisite for action it consider ed necessary to 
safeguard its essential security interests. The United States reiterate d that, in order to prevent 
further undermining of the WTO, Members need ed to clarify and adopt a shared understanding of 
the essential security exception, which was a cri tical element in the international trading system and 
permit ted Members to take on trade commitments to each other.  
3.4.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that t his was the eighth time the US had put the 
DS597 dispute on the Agenda of a regular DSB me eting to further their smear campaign. As a friend 
of the system, Hong Kong, China  saw it important for Members to uphold the rules -based multilateral 
system by adhering to the agreed trade rules. Ever since the US had lodged an appeal against the 
DS597 pa nel findings a year ago, Hong Kong, China ha d repeatedly made clear its readiness to have 
the case heard by the Appellate Body. While Members had  heard colleagues from the US stat e on 
various occasions that they were keen to improve the efficiency of the W TO and prioritize  DS reform 
in this respect, but what Members saw at DSB meetings was the exact opposite. Putting this item 
on the DSB Agenda was once again a total disregard of the intended purpose of DSB meetings , in 
facilitating the resolution of trade disputes, and enforc ing Members ' rights and obligations under the 
WTO covered agreements. The so -called "transnational repression " mentioned by the U nited States 
was a distorted portrayal of a common legitimate feature of national security laws around the world 
to regulate acts pertaining to national security offences that took place outside a sovereign territory 
and/or by non -nationals. The extraterritoriality of nati onal security of these national security laws 
was derived from the "Personality Principle " and the "Principle of Protective Jurisdictions " that 
 
8 Media Freedom Coalitio n Statement on the Second Anniversary of the Closure of Stand News and 
Media Freedom in Hong Kong (December 29, 2023) available at  https://www.state.gov/media -freedom -
coalition -statement -on-the-second -anniversary -of-the-closure -of-stand -news-and-media -freedom -in-hong-
kong/   
9 U.S. Opening Statement at Second Videoconfe rence with the Panel, para. 3 (WT/DS597), available at  
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/DS/DS597/US.Opening.Stmt.2.(As.Delivered).fin.pdf.  Media 
Freedom Coalition Statement on Closure of Media Outlets in Hong Kong, Office of the Spokesperso n, U.S. 
Department of State (February 9, 2022) ( https://www.state.gov/media -freedom -coalition -statement -on-
closure -of-media -outlets -in-hong-
kong/#:~:text=Media%20Freedom%20Coalition%20Statement%20on%20Closure%20of%20Media%20Outlet
s%20in%20Hong%20Kong, -.  
10 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign -secretary -statement -on-jimmy -lais-national -security -
trial.  
11 https://www.cecc.gov/media -center/press -releases/chairs -ask-british -prime -minister -to-take-action -
on-behalf -of-jimmy -lai.  
12 https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country -files/germany/events/article/franco -german -prize-for-
human -rights -and-the-rule-of-law-2023-12-12-23#:~:text=promoting%20human%2 0rights. -
,The%20Franco%2DGerman%20Prize%20for%20Human%20Rights%20and%20the%20Rule,and%20peace%2
0around%20the%20world .  
13 https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country -files/germany/events/article/franco -german -prize-for-
human -rights -and-the-rule-of-law-2023-12-12-23.  
14 Bail denied to Hon g Kong rights lawyer in landmark security case , Reuters (December 21, 2023) 
available at https://www.reuters.com/world/china/bail -denie d-hong-kong-rights -lawyer -landmark -security -
case-2023-12-21/.  
15 US – Origin Marking Requirement , WT/DS597/R, para. 7.353.  WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 20 - 
 provide d exceptions to the "Territorial Principle ". Details of the two exception principles had applied 
in the H ong Kong National Security Law and the security laws of the said overseas jurisdictions could 
be found in Hong Kong, China's statement at the 28 July 2023 DSB meeting, and would not be 
repeated . As for all the unfounded allegations about the case of Jimmy Lai, given that the legal 
proceedings were ongoing, it was inappropriate for any person to comment on the details of the 
case. Suffice to say, the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong SAR was independently responsible 
for criminal prosecutions, free from  any interference. Their decision to prosecute would  only take 
into consideration the applicable laws and the admissible evidence to justify instituting proceedings. 
The prosecution ha d the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of an offen ce 
before a defendant might  be convicted by the court. The Judiciary of the Hong Kong SAR also 
exercise d its judicial power independently. The courts decide d on cases strictly in accordance with 
the evidence and all applicable laws. Any attempt to interfer e with the judicial proceedings in Hong 
Kong in order to procure a defendant 's evasion of the criminal justice process, was simply a blatant 
attempt at undermining the rule of law of the Hong Kong SAR. Quoting from the Chief Justice of the 
Hong Kong SAR, s peaking at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year on 22 January  2024, "Under 
Article 3 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the Judiciary has a duty to effectively prevent, 
suppress and impose punishment for any act or activity endangering national se curity in accordance 
with law. The Judiciary takes this duty seriously. Of course, this does not mean that the courts will 
blindly convict all defendants or mete out the heaviest punishments possible on conviction. Rather, 
the courts will fully respect all  fundamental rights, as required by Articles 4 and 5 of the National 
Security Law, in administering justice strictly and fairly in accordance with the provisions of that Law 
as well as other applicable laws. The courts will not yield to any pressure to con vict or acquit, nor 
pay heed to harassment or threats of any kind. Just like all other types of criminal cases, where guilt 
is proven, conviction and punishment will follow accordingly. Where it is not so established, a 
defendant will be set free. If an er ror is made or is said to have been made and an appeal is brought, 
the appellate courts will carefully review the decision below in accordance with the law and procedure 
applicable. This is how our justice system has always, and will always, work. " Freedom  of speech 
and freedom of the press in Hong Kong were protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill 
of Rights. Article 4 of the Hong Kong National Security Law also stipulate d that such freedoms should  
be protected in accordance with the law in safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong SAR. 
The legally protected rights of the media to comment on and critici ze government policies remain ed 
unchanged. Hong Kong, China wished to point out that the pan el of the DS597  dispute , as well as 
the panels of the DS544, DS552, DS556 and DS564  disputes , etc. ha d all dismissed the US claim 
that interpretation of Article XXI of the GATT 1994 was entirely self -judging. It was not up to the US 
to replace the panel 's interpretation and application of the WTO agreements with its own. Hong 
Kong, China  regret ted the US total disregard of the rules -based dispute settlement system in the 
WTO. Their misuse of DSB meetings for political smearing was objectionable.  
3.5.  The representative of China  said that China was  deeply disappointed with the US eighth  request 
to reintroduce this fully and repeatedly debated item on the DSB Agenda. China wished to register 
its serious systemic concerns about this action, which it believed was in contradiction with Rule  27 
of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings.16 Particularly in the context of the WTO reform, China 
wonder ed how such behavior could reconcile with the US call for more efficient operation of and 
more meaningful discussions in the WTO bodies. Coming back to the dispute at issue, as a third 
party to this dispute , China appreciate d the Panel 's impartial and objective rulings and 
recommendations. It was clear f rom the text, the context, the object and purpose and the 
negotiating history that the security exception under GATT 1994 was not entirely self -judging, as 
correctly found by this panel and six previous panels. Should the U nited States have concerns on 
the panel ruling, it should work with Members in a more proactive and constructive manner to restore 
the appeal mechanism so that the US appeal could be heard. China firmly believe d that the restored 
appeal mechanism was the proper place to correct the possib le errors , if any , made by the panel 
rather than repeatedly putting the issue on the Agenda of DSB meeting. Furthermore, China  reject ed 
in the strongest terms the US false allegations and unilateral judgement and interference of other 
Members ' internal aff airs. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism was a forum to resolve trade 
disputes rather than a place to discuss political issues. Any Member, regardless of its power and 
size, shall refrain from taking unilateral and protectionist measures in the name of "national 
security ", or using it as a vehicle to disregard the core principles of the WTO or to interfere with 
 
16 Rule 27 of Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council (when convened as the Dispute 
Settlement Body) provides that Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full 
debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been fully debated in the past and on which there 
appears to have been no change in Members' posi tions already on record. (See WT/L/161 and WT/DSB/9) . WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 21 - 
 other Members ' internal affairs. China urge d the United States to faithfully honor its multilateral 
obligations, and avoid taking any further acti ons which impair ed the rights of other WTO Members 
and undermine d the core principles of this organization.  
3.6.  The representative of the United States  said that it was, of course, not the United States that 
had brought these circumstances into the WTO. It had been Hong Kong, China's choice to challenge 
a US national security action and to encourage the WTO panel to review the US invocation of the 
essential security exception. Hong Kong, China stated at the present meeting that it did not see how 
it would he lp resolve the dispute for the US to present its arguments at DSB meetings, and that the 
matter should be left to adjudicators. The representative of the United States said that the United 
States did not agree that adjudicators should hear and decide issue s of essential security. These 
were questions reserved for Members to decide, and this was precisely why fundamental dispute 
settlement reform was needed . 
3.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  APPELLATE BODY  APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA ; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; 
CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; 
CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA ; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; 
EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; 
GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; 
INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LAO PEOPLE 'S 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ; L ESOTHO ; L IECHTENSTEIN ; M ADAGASCAR ; M ALAWI ; 
MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF 
MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; MYANMAR ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; 
NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; 
PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES ; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SAINT 
KITTS AND NEVIS ; SAINT LUCIA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; 
SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, 
PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; 
UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBAB WE ( WT/DSB/W/609/REV .26) 
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Guatemala , on behalf of a number of delegations . He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 26 and invited the representative of Guatemala  to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of Guatemala,  speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.2 6, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 6 September  2023 to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body  members . On behalf of those 1 30 Members, Guatemala wished to 
state the following . This Agenda item and the extensive  number of  Members submitting the joint 
proposal reflected a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body  and, more generally, 
in the functioning of the dispute settlement system . The joint proposal sought to : (i) start seven 
selection processes ; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee ; (iii) to set a deadline of 30  days for the 
submission of candidacies ; and (iv)  to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates . The co -sponsor s 
invited and urged all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement and 
multilateral trading systems . 
4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that, b efore beginning with its statement, the 
United States recall ed that the  United States and other Members had jointly issued WT/GC/244 , 
"The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine with the Support of 
Belarus ," which condemn ed Russia 's actions as a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and 
fundamental principles of international peace and secu rity. The United States reiterate d its support 
for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time.  The United States paid  tribute to the heroism of 
the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and Leaders. Turning to this Agenda item, Members were WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 22 - 
 aware of th e long -standing US concerns with WTO dispute settlement.17 Those concerns remain ed 
unaddressed, and the United States did not support the proposed decision.  Under the previous 
Agenda item, Members ' statements had focused on the future of the dispute settle ment system; 
under the current Agenda item, Members continue d to look back.  It might be that some Members 
prefer red the status quo.  But let the US be clear: the old system had not been working for the 
United  States and it had not been working for many other Members.  In contrast, investing in dispute 
settlement reform present ed an opportunity to build a new system that would overc ome the 
problems of the past and the United States welcomed Members ' efforts in this regard.  As Members 
engaged on reform, they had to bear in mind that re -launching the Appellate Body selection process 
would  not address the concerns – and calls for the restoration of the Appellate Body undermine d 
their collective efforts for reform. As WTO Members continue d their efforts to better understand each 
other 's interests in WTO dispute settlement, the United States remain ed focused on achieving a 
reformed system that met the interests of all Members to the greatest extent possible.  The 
United  States ha d been working wi th Members to advance this goal, and look ed forward to continued 
engagement.  
4.4.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made by Guatemala on 
behalf of 130 co -sponsors. China wished to refer to its previous statements  made  on this urgent 
matter, and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. China reiterate d its firm commitment 
to an independent, impartial two -tier dispute settlement system, which ha d not only facilitated 
prompt and fair resolu tion of disputes between Members , but had 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 pr ocess es and fill 
the vacancies for the Appellate Body  members . China would continue its constructive engagement 
in the ongoing discussion s on DS reform, and call ed upon all Members to engage in this exercise 
with a pragmatic  and outcome -oriented spirit. For now , China encourage d more Members to join the 
MPIA as a contingent measure to safeguard Members' right to appeal. China stood ready to discuss 
with and provide further information to any interested Members.  
4.5.  The representative of Bangladesh  said that Bangladesh thank ed Guatemala for presenting the 
proposal o n AB appointment s contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26 . The two -tier dispute 
settlement system was an indispensable feature of the WTO and part of the foundational principles 
of the W TO that their Ministers had affirmed at Paragraph 3 of the MC12 Outcome Document. For 
the restoration of the Appellate Body, Bangladesh, as a co -sponsor of the AB proposal, was 
requesting that the DSB take a decision to launch the selection processes immed iately to fill the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body. In order to ensure the security, predictability, and proper 
functioning of this multilateral trading system, Members should  launch the process for Appellate 
Body appointments as a top priority. Bangladesh  request ed that Members engage in discussions on 
Appellate Body appointments without further delay.  This was an urgent matter as  expressed by 
Ministers at MC12  and Bangladesh look ed forward to working constructively with other Members on 
this crucial topic.  
4.6.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associated with the 
statement made  by Guatemala on the proposal for Appellate Body appointments and thanked 
Guatemala for its statement  made  on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa also support ed the 
statement to be made by Nigeria,  on behalf of the African Group and reiterate d its previous 
statements made regarding the urgency of this matter. When Members had agreed to bind 
themselves to the Uruguay Round Agreements, it had been on the understanding that their rights 
would be protected by a predictable , binding rules -based order underpinned by two -tier dispute 
settlement mechanism. The assurance that their tr ade relations would be subject to rules rather 
than soft power was a fundamental element of the bargain that was struck, and the continued 
dysfunctionality of the Appellate Body undermine d the consensus reached in the Uruguay Round and 
imperil led the multi lateral trading system. A fully functioning Appellate Body was a top priority for 
WTO reform and it was crucial for the effective operation of the multilateral trading system. As 
Members inched closer to MC13, South African remind ed them of the commitment undertaken during 
MC12 for a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system  accessible to all Members by 2024. 
South Africa would work actively and constructively with all Members towards finding a lasting 
solution to the current im passe.  
 
17 U.S. Trade Representative Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (February 
2020), available at https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/DS/USTR.Appellate.Body.Rpt.Feb2020.pdf.  WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 23 - 
 4.7.  The representative of Australia  said that, first,  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 Russi a's actions were a violation of international 
law, and the fundamental international norms on which organi zations such as the WTO were based. 
Australia stood in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call ed on Russia to withdraw its troops. 
Turning to t his Agenda item, Australia wished to acknowledge the Membership 's efforts, creativity, 
and spirit of collaboration in working towards meeting their MC12 dispute settlement reform 
mandate. With MC13 less than a month away, Members had to  maximi ze progress i n the little time 
they had left. Australia encourage d all Members to seize this opportunity and maintain the 
momentum so that they could deliver, as soon as possible, a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system, accessible to all Members. While negotiations were ongoing, it was important to 
ensure that Members could continue to have confidence in the enforcement of WTO rules. The  best 
way to guarantee this was through increased participation in the Multi -Party Interim Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) . Australia  encourage d all Members who ha d not yet joined to 
consider doing so.  
4.8.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said th at the United Kingdom continue d to support 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body. The United Kingdom wished to refer 
to its previous statements made  on this matter  and continue d to encourage all remaining Members 
to join in support. The United Kingdom  continue d to condemn President Putin 's war against Ukraine 
in the strongest terms. The United Kingdom  again recall ed that Russia 's actions were a repudiation 
of the principles of the UN Charter and of the purpose and principles of this Organization. The 
United  Kingdom stood with Ukraine and would continue to do everything it could to support Ukraine 's 
heroic resistance to this assault on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
4.9.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by 
Guatemala, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, supported by 
130 Members. A fully functioning two -tier dispute settlement system accessible to all Members was 
critical to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading system and for the credibility of the WTO as 
a rules -based organization  and was a top priority for Norway. Norway wished to refer to its previous  
statements made under this Agenda item and to its statement made under Agenda item  2 of the 
present meeting.  Norway wished to use this opportunity to remind Members of the Multi -Party 
Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) . The MPIA wa s open to WTO Members to join for as 
long as the system remain ed unable to function fully. As the work of the DSB directly concern ed the 
upholding of rules -based international order, Norway  also found it appropriate and 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, the rules -based system which also underpin ned this Organization  and the wor k of 
the DSB.  
4.10.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand continue d to condemn 
unequivocally Russia 's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Th ose actions were egregious and 
unlawful: the use of force to change borders was strictly prohibit ed under international law, as was 
the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory 
had deep implications for global peace, security, and economic stability. New Zealand continue d to 
stand firmly alongside its Ukrainian partners and again call ed on Russia to withdraw its forces. 
Turning to this Agenda item, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal co -sponsored by 
130 WTO Members and referred  to its previous statements  made. Restoration of a fully and well -
functioning dispute settlement system remain ed a key reform priority for New Zealand. New Zealand 
urged all Members to continue engaging constructively and pragmatically in order to advance this 
ahead of MC13, consistent  with the shared priority placed in restoring a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system accessible to all Members. Like others New Zealand also took this 
opportunity to invite those Members who ha d not joined the MPIA to consider doing so. The  MPIA 
provide d an avenue to safeguard access to an appeal level of review, while Members  worked 
collectively towards reform.  
4.11.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of 130 co-sponsors , to call f or the selection of new Appellate Body members without further 
delay and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda item.  
4.12.   The representative of Canada  said that, first, Canada continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's 
unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. These hostile acts were a flagrant violation of WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 24 - 
 international law and the rules -based international system, upon which organizations such the WTO 
were based. Canada express ed its solidarity with the Ukrai nian people. Ukraine 's sovereignty and 
territorial integrity had to be respected, and the Ukrainian people had to be free to determine their 
own future. Canada call ed on Russia to immediately cease all hostile and provocative actions against 
Ukraine, and t o withdraw its military forces from the country. Turning to this Agenda item, Canada 
support ed the AB proposal and thank ed Guatemala for its statement  made  on behalf of the co -
sponsors. The critical mass of WTO Members supporting this proposal clearly demo nstrate d the 
importance Members all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral part of the 
dispute settlement system. Canada would continue to participate actively in discussions aimed at 
finding solutions to the current situation. Canad a's priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting 
solution for all Members. In the meantime, as others ha d noted, the Multiparty Interim Appeal 
Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), provide d access to binding dispute settlement that include d the 
possibili ty of appeal in disputes between its participants. Currently, 53 WTO Members endorsed the 
MPIA. Canada had witnessed the positive impacts of this arrangement in the context of several 
disputes and invite d all WTO Members to consider participating in the MPIA. Canada was  available 
to discuss its details with any interested Members.  
4.13.   The representative of Indonesia  said that, w hile referring to its previous statement  made  on 
this matter , Indonesia wished to reiterate the importance of the restoration of the Appellate  Body 
as the ultimate result of any DS reform process. At the same time , as proposed by 130 WTO 
Members,  the Appellate Body  members  should be appointed in accordance with Article 17.2 of the 
DSU, which stipulated that:  "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". Indonesia would continue to 
work with Members for a holistic DS reform process, one that include d the restoration of a two-tier 
dispute  settlement system that safeguard ed the predictability a nd security of the multilateral trading 
system . 
4.14.   The representative of Pakistan  thank ed Guatemala and the other c o-sponsors for the 
statement made and their continuous commitment towards the appointment process of 
Appellate  Body members . Pakistan support ed the proposal and reiterate d its stance that the dispute 
settlement system should address  the issues and challenges identified and faced by Members 
without compromising on agreed principles  and a dysfunctional system would not serve the 
rules-based system in the current environment which require d certainty and predictability. Pakistan 
strongly urge d Members to take a positive step towards the resolution of th is matter, as mandated 
under Paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document to have fully functional and accessible dispute 
settlement system . 
4.15.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wishe d to thank Guatemala for presenting 
the joint proposal on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors to launch the selection process es for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.26 . Malaysia 
wished to reiterate the importance of the immediate launch of the selectio n process es and the 
prompt filling of vacancies for the Appellate Body . As Malaysia had firmly stated at previous 
DSB meetings, as well as in other related meetings, it was crucial to restore the fully functioning 
dispute settlement system, in particular t he two -tiered dispute settlement system , as it was the 
cornerstone of this Organization . This system had consistently demonstrated its effectiveness in 
facilitating the prompt and fair resolution of disputes among Members, thus inculcating a sense of 
secur ity and predictability within the multilateral trading system. To complement all the tireless 
effort s and commitment s in our informal discussions , Malaysia wished to urge all Members who ha d 
yet to endorse this proposal to promptly lend their support. Such  collective support was essential to 
expedite the commencement of the selection process es without any further delay. Malaysia also 
referred to its previous statements made on this matter.  
4.16.   The representative of Japan  said that,  first, Japan wished to touch upon the situation in 
Ukraine. Japan strongly condemn ed Russia 's aggression against Ukraine and its attacks against 
civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. Japan strongly urge d Russia once again to stop the 
aggression and w ithdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized 
borders immediately. Turning to th is Agenda item, Japan wished to refer to its statements  made  at 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan wished to r efer to its statement made 
under A genda item 8 of the 18 December 2023 DSB meeting , Japan absolutely shared the sense of 
urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system and had set as the utmost priority to achieve 
a reform. For that purpose, Japan welc omed the intensive discussions in the informal DS reform  
process. 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 . WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 25 - 
 4.17.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  wished to thank 
Guatemala for its statement  regarding the proposal on Appellate Body  appointments  of which they 
were co-sponsors. The African Group reiterate d its support for a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system that was accessible to all Members by 2024 , in accordance with the mandate from Ministers 
at MC12. The fact that the Appellate Body could not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The 
African Gr oup urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU, which was to fill vacancies 
as they ar ose, so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system. This would  maintain the 
security, credibility and predictability of the multilateral tra ding system. The critical mass of Members 
asking for the launch of the selection process es indicate d the importance that Members attach ed to 
having a fully functioning dispute settlement system for the multilateral trading system. The African 
Group therefo re urge d the DSB to promptly launch the selection process es. Finally, the African Group 
stood ready to engage constructively in any negotiations regarding DS  Reform in a formal setting in 
order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Members by 
2024, as agreed at MC12.  
4.18.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union reiterate d its resolute 
condemnation of the Russian Federation 's war of aggression against Ukraine, which deliberately 
violate d the UN Charter and disregard ed the rules -based international order. It undermine d 
international security and stability,  and ha d no place in the 21st century. The European Union 's 
support for Ukraine 's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of self -defence was 
unwavering.  The European Union called on the Russian Federation to stop its acts of aggression and 
withdraw its troops from Ukraine. Russia had to cease actions endangering th e civilians and respect 
international humanitarian law. The European Union was firmly committed to ensuring full 
accountability for war crimes and other crimes committed against Ukraine and its people.  The 
European Union wished to refer to its previous sta tements made on this issue and thank ed all 
Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the  AB appointment processes. Since 
11 December  2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent and 
impartial resolution of trade disputes.  A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was crucial. 
That was evidenced by the large number of Members co -sponsoring the present proposal. The 
European Union believe d that restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system and appo inting 
members of the Appellate Body was a key priority. This task was a shared responsibility of 
WTO Members. The European Union  treated very seriously the commitment, made at MC12, of 
having a fully and well -functioning system by 2024 and was committed t o continuing to work towards 
meeting that goal. As already stated under Agenda item 2 , the European Union welcome d the 
progress that ha d already been achieved in the ongoing discussions and hope d that Members could 
continue constructive discussions with a view to finalising a full package of reforms that would 
address the issue of appeal review. In the meantime, the European Union was concerned with the 
impact that the absence of a fully functioning dispute settlemen t system was having on the 
international trading order, as illustrated by the discussion under Agenda item 2 of the present 
meeting . In that context, the MPIA ha d been put in place as an interim arrangement to preserve a 
fully functioning dispute settlemen t system among its participants and to support rules -based trade. 
The MPIA was open to any WTO Member , and the European Union invite d any WTO Member to join 
as long as a solution to this impasse ha d not been found.  
4.19.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to thank Guatemala for presenting 
the AB proposal on behalf of 130 co -sponsors. Thailand wished to confirm its position ,  as stated 
under Agenda item 2 and b elieve d in a two-tier system. Thailand continued to support and sponsor 
this proposal. Thailand urged the appointment of Appellate Body members as soon as possible to 
return the two -tier system to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.  
4.20.   The representative of Cambodia  said that, a t the outset, Cambodia wished to be associated 
with the statement made by Guatemala on behalf of the co -sponsors. Cambodia wished to refer to 
its previous statements made on this important and long -standing Agenda  item, and once again 
called on more Member s to co -sponsor the AB proposal. The immediate launch the selection 
process es was vital and a top priority for Cambodia for 2024 . A fully function al WTO dispute 
settlement system wa s crucial. Cambodia stood ready to continue the constructive engagement on 
the Appellate Body restoration discussion multilaterally.  
4.21.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that, a s the result of the blockage of the 
Appellate Body appointments process , Members witness ed again another example of disputes  in 
which  the out come remain ed uncertain. If the problem with the Appellate Body appointments was 
not fixed, the number of unresolved appeals and , as consequence , of unresolved disputes would WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 26 - 
 continue rising . In this vein, the Russian Federation wished to refer to its previous statements  made  
on this matter  and thank ed Guatemala and the co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful 
commitment to the appointment processes of Appellate Body members. The Russia n Federation  
reiterate d its strong support for launching the appointment processes immediately as a vehicle to 
the restoration of the well and fully functioning, two -tiered dispute settlement system. The 
Russian  Federation also wished  to address certain pol itical statements made by certain Members, 
and with respect to them unfortunately the Russia n Federation was  forced to remind Members that 
the DSB had its own tasks and mandate s, as expressed in the different provisions of the DSU. The 
political issues rai sed by some WTO Members neither concern ed any of the issues listed in the 
Agenda to the present meeting, nor were within the competence of the DSB. Most importantly, the 
WTO was not a political organization and Members should refrain from trying to address  these issues 
here that were not in the competence of the organization. In contrast, under Article 17.2 of the DSU , 
the DSB ha d not just the mandate, but obligation. Accordingly, the situation with the blockage of 
the Appellate Body appointments was the on e to be addressed here, the solution to which would 
strengthen the multilateral trading system. Hence, the Russia n Federation  encourage d 
WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and not create new ones.  
4.22.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea echoed other delegation s and reaffirm ed its 
consistent position on Russia 's aggression that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
independence of Ukraine should be respected. With regard to this Agenda item, Korea thank ed 
Guatema la and the co-sponsors for their continuous support in favour of launching the 
Appellate  Body selection process es. Korea reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and referred 
to its previous statements made on this issue.  The WTO dispute settlement sy stem ha d enhanced 
the security and predictability of the multilateral  trading system in response to the needs of 
WTO Members. With that in mind, Korea welcome d Member s' continuous engagement  in the ongoing 
discussion s for DS reform and very much appreciate d all the efforts that they were making  to 
materialize the mandate of the MC12 Outcome Document in achieving a fully  and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system  accessible to all Members by 2024. Once again, Korea wished to 
emphasize its hope that the c ollaborative efforts of  Members would  be duly recognized as a 
meaningful outcome at MC13.  
4.23.   The representative of Viet Nam  said that Viet Nam wished to echo other Members and thank ed 
Guatemala and the co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment 
processes of Appellate Body members. Viet Nam  participat ed in the discussion on DS reform  and 
reiterate d its support for launching the appointment processes as soon as possible and  encourage d 
all Members to join t his proposal in order to restore a full y functioning , two-tier dispute settlement 
system that could be accessible to all by 2024. Viet Nam hoped that this issue w ould also be 
addressed in the discussion on DS reform.  
4.24.   The re presentative of Switzerland  said that, f irst, Switzerland condemn ed Russia 's military 
aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. It was a flagrant violation of international law, 
most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of  the territorial integrity of States. 
Switzerland call ed on Russia to take military de -escalation measures, end hostilities and immediately 
withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian territory. Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect 
international law, in particular humanitarian international law. With regard to the Appellate Body 
appointments, Switzerland  thank ed Guatemala for presenting the proposal and wish ed to refer to 
its statements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings. As stated under Agenda item 2, 
Switzerland's priority remain ed, of course, finding a multilateral solution that w ould ensure that the 
dispute settlement system was fully functio ning. However, Switzerland took this opportunity to 
encourage all Mem bers to join the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA). The 
MPIA was a pragmatic and effective way to preserve Members ' rights until the Appellate Body 
impasse was resolved.  
4.25.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, Ch ina wished to thank 
Guatemala for the statement  made  on behalf of the co-sponsors. 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 Me mbers to restore a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system by 2024 as mandated in the MC12 Outcome Document.  
4.26.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Guatemala presenting the AB 
proposal which it strongly support ed. First, Singapore reiterate d its previous statements  made  on 
this Agenda item. Additionally, Singapore noted  that the US comment that the appeal mechanism WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 27 - 
 had not been working for many other Members was surprising and appear ed unsupported in the face 
of the number of co -sponsors of this Agenda item, which stood at 130. Finally, while the 
Appellate  Body impasse persist ed, Singapore encourage d Members to join the MPIA as an interim 
solution that preserve d their right to appeal.  
4.27.   The representative of Guatemal a said that Guatemala, on behalf of the 130 co -sponsors, 
regretted that for the seventy -third occasion, Members had not been able to launch the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body. Thus, Members continued to fail fulfilling their 
duties as Members of the WTO. Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated  that: "vacancies shall be filled 
as they arise ". Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arise. Guatemala noted with deep concern that by 
failing to launch the selection processes at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue 
to be unable to perform its functions, against the best interest of all WTO Members.  
4.28.   The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their statements. As in the past, the DSB would take 
note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected in th e minutes 
of the present meeting.  
4.29.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
5  STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES REGARD ING THE DISPUTE ON: "TURKEY – 
ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES " (DS561)  
5.1.  The representative of the United States , speaki ng under "Other Business", said that following  
the positive outcome in the panel report circulated in August 2023 in the "China – Additional Duties" 
(DS558) dispute, the United States welcomed the findings of the Panel in this report, recognizing 
that the US Section 232 actions on steel and aluminum were security measures, and that Türkiye 
had violated WTO rules by adopting retaliatory tariffs disguised as "safeguard" measures. 
Specifically, the Panel had found that Article  8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguard s and Article 
XIX:3(a) of the GATT 1994 did not apply to Türkiye's additional duties measure. This was because 
the US measures were sought, taken, or maintained pursuant to provisions of the GATT 1994 other 
than Article XIX – namely, the security exception  at Article XXI of the GATT 1994. The United States 
also welcomed the Panel's rejection of Türkiye's argument that the Panel should not make findings 
on Türkiye's bound rates for certain tariff lines in assessing the US claims under Article II of the 
GATT 1994. Türkiye's ongoing transposition process was entirely separate from the Panel's 
assessment of Türkiye's commitments as reflected in its certified Schedule, which formed an integral 
part of the GATT 1994. Türkiye's decision to pursue its own dispute on  the US Section 232 measures 
highlighted the contradiction of both suing the United States in the WTO and at the same time 
unilaterally retaliating with tariffs. The Panel had rightly rejected Türkiye's argument that the US 
Section 232 actions were safegua rd measures that might be "rebalanced" under WTO rules. Türkiye's 
use of the WTO dispute settlement system to challenge the US Section 232 national security actions 
undermined the WTO. The WTO did not have the authority to second -guess a WTO Member's 
respo nse to threats to its security, and WTO reform had to ensure that issues of national security 
could not be reviewed in WTO dispute settlement. The United States looked forward to engaging 
further with Members on this important issue . 
5.2.  The representative of Türkiye  said that Türkiye was grateful for the opportunity to comment 
on its appeal in the dispute " Turkey – Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United  States " 
(DS561 ). As was well-known, this dispute was not a "stand -alone " dispute.  The tariffs challenged by 
the United States had been  Türkiye 's direct reaction to the US Section 232 import restrictions on 
steel and aluminum , imposed in 2018.  In 2022, the US Section 232 measures had been ruled by no 
less than four panels – in disputes  DS544, DS552, DS556, and DS564 – to be inconsistent with the 
United States WTO obligations and not to be justified under the national security provision under 
Article XXI of the GATT 1994.  These rulings notwithstanding, the United States continue d to mainta in 
these measures in effect, in violation of its WTO obligations.  Because the US Section 232 measures 
were safeguard measures in all but name, Türkiye had considered that it had been  entitled to rely 
on the rebalancing provisions under the WTO safeguard di sciplines in Article XIX of the GATT 1994 
and Article 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  To Türkiye 's disappointment, the Panel in this dispute 
had rejected this argument.  Instead, it  had ruled that the United States measures had been  in the 
nature of "national security " measures.  From there, the Panel went on to find that Türkiye 's 
measures had not been rebalancing measures, but instead free -standing tariff measures whose link WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 28 - 
 to the US Section 232 measures should apparently be disregarded. The Panel 's anal ysis and 
conclusions were flawed, leaving Türkiye with no choice but to appeal.  The reasons underlying 
Türkiye 's appeal were set out in greater detail in the Notification of Appeal that Türkiye had filed on 
26 January 2024 . As this Notification explain ed, the Panel had failed to focus on the objective 
characteristics of the United States measures, thus violating consistent WTO d ispute settlement 
practice since 1995.  Instead, the Panel had uncritically accepted concepts and labels from 
United  States domestic law as well as from United States notifications to the WTO, according to 
which the measures had been "national security " measures.  But labels under domestic law and in 
WTO notifications c ould not dictate the applicability of multilateral disciplines. The Panel 's decision 
set a concerning precedent:  If a safeguard measure bec ame a national security measure just 
because a Member said that the ultimate goal of that measure was to pursue national security 
objectives, what were the limits to this doctrine?  Agricultural tariffs, any kind of subsidies, the 
collection of customs duties or internal taxes, any kind of regulation of servic es - all of those could 
become national security measures based on nothing but the regulating Member 's declarations about 
its ultimate subjective motivations.  This would  fundamentally undermine disciplines and the rule of 
law in virtually any field of WTO disciplines. Given these and other important flaws in the Panel 's 
analysis, Turkey saw no option but to appeal the Panel report. Türkiye was of course well aware that 
the Appellate Body was currently not functional and that, for this reason, Türkiye 's appe al could not 
be immediately adjudicated.  This was regrettable, but it could not be a reason for Türkiye to 
renounce its right to appellate review.  This was especially so in a case of fundamental importance 
for the entire multilateral trading system.  Finally, Türkiye recall ed that, in the parallel disputes 
concerning the US Section 232 measures, the United States had also appealed the Panel reports, 
thereby preventing their adoption.  Moreover, the United States maintain ed its WTO -inconsistent 
Section 2 32 measures in effect to date.  For these reasons, too, Türkiye was left with no choice but 
to appeal this panel report.  Türkiye recall ed that it ha d consistently supported proposals for the re -
activation of the Appellate Body.  Türkiye was hopeful that the current DS reform discussions would 
yield a satisfactory outcome in the very near future and that this outcome would  also include a 
re-invigorated Appellate Body that would  be able to hear this appeal.  
5.3.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished t o take this opportunity to address 
systemic considerations pertaining to Türkiye 's appeal of this Panel report.  Canada note d that, since 
11 December  2019, the Appellate Body ha d effectively been non -functioning.  Article 3.10 of the DSU 
provid ed that, when a dispute arises, Members would engage in dispute settlement procedures in 
good faith and in an effort to resolve the dispute. The inability of the Appellate Body to carry out its 
appellate review responsibilities ha d undermined the established  process under the DSU for dispute 
settlement.  But the obligation in Article 3.10 to make good faith efforts to resolve the dispute still 
stood . No Member should seek to take unfair advantage of the current impasse. In the context of 
specific disputes, opt ions exist ed to allow for completion of procedures as envisioned in the DSU. In 
particular, parties to the dispute might agree to use procedures such as those set out in Annex 1 of 
the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA)  to supplement  the appeal process.  
Canada believe d it was essential that all parties to the dispute fulfill ed their good faith commitment 
under Article 3.10 of the DSU by making every effort to find an acceptable solution. In the long run, 
no Member would benefit from a  situation where disputes remain ed unresolved. In closing, as 
mentioned under Agenda item  4, Canada invite d all Members to consider joining the MPIA in order 
to safeguard binding dispute settlement with access to appellate review.   
5.4.  The representative of th e European Union  said that the European Union reiterate d one of the 
points made at the 19 September 2023 DSB meeting  in relation to a panel report on a virtually 
identical dispute against China. The point had also been made on 27 January 2023 ( WT/DSB/M/475 , 
paragraph  5.12) in relation to other panel reports which had likewise found, in the reports on the 
US Section 232 measures, that those measures d id not constitute safeguard measures. The 
European Union strongly disagree d with the Panel's finding that the US Section  232 measures were 
not safeguard measures. The Panel purport ed to support its finding with a reasoning that was not 
convincing, not the least because the Panel again entirely omit ted the crucial point, i.e. that rights 
for other Members to rebalance under Article 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards flow ed from a 
measure being a safeguard.  Hence, that characterisation ha d to be an objective exercise, based on 
the nature of the measure, and could not depend on the Member 's unilateral d eclaration. It was not 
defendable for a panel to rely so heavily on the characterisation of the measure given in the domestic 
legal system of the US. Especially because such characterisation (namely "national security " in the 
US system) found  no correspond ence in the WTO Agreement, neither in terms of terminology nor 
substance. An international adjudicative body had to rule on the basis of international law, not 
national law.  The European Union was  seriously concerned by the fact that this report le nt suppo rt WT/DSB/M/48 7 
- 29 - 
 to the idea that an importing country c ould protect a suffering domestic industry against imports 
without incurring the consequences of recourse to safeguards, just by claiming that there was a 
different reason for its measures, in this case a security reason.  
5.5.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that in order to avoid a lengthy repetition on 
the subject matter , the Russian Federation wished to refer to its statement made during the regular 
DSB meeting on 19 September 2023 with respect to the report of the panel in the dispute " China – 
Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States " (DS558).  The Russia n Federation  
reiterate d its comments made , which were relevant for the panel repor t in the dispute "Turkey – 
Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States " (DS561).  
5.6.  The representative of India said that India wished to take  this opportunity to reiterate its 
principal position on the right of Member s to appeal to a permane nt standing Appellate Body. 
5.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________