RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/400  
 
31 October 2017  
(17-5914) Page: 1/16 
Dispute Settlement Body  
31 August 2017    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 31  AUGUST  2017 
Chairman: Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the item concerning the adoption of the Panel Report in the 
dispute: "European  Union – Countervailing Measures on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate from 
Pakistan" (DS486), was removed from the proposed Agenda following the decision by the 
European Union to appeal the Panel Report.  
Table of Contents  
1  SURVE ILLANCE OF IMPLEMENT ATION OF RECOMMENDAT IONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the  European  Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D.  European  Union – Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina: Status report 
by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  3 
E.  Canada – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe 
from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu: Status 
report by  Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  4 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  
OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE RECOMMENDATIO NS ADOPTED BY THE  DSB ...........  5 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
3   CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS F OR CERTAIN AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCTS  .................  5 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States  ................................ .............  5 
4   CANADA – MEASURES CONCERNING TRADE IN COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT  ....................  6 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil  ................................ .............................  6 
5   APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .............................  7 
6   APPOINTMENT OF APPEL LATE BODY MEMBERS: P ROPOSAL BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  12 
7   PROPOSAL REGARDING T HE APPELLATE BODY SE LECTION PROCESS  .......................  12 WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   CANADA - MECHANISM FOR DEVELO PING, DOCUMENTING AN D SHARING 
PRACTICES AND PROCED URES IN THE CONDUCT OF WTO DISPUTES  .............................  15 
A.  Statemen t by Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....15 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS 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.175)  
 
B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.150)  
 
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the  European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.113)  
 
D.  European  Union – Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina: Status report by the 
European  Union (WT/DS473/17/Add.2)  
 
E.  Canada – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe from the 
Separat e Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu: Status report by Canada 
(WT/DS482/7)  
 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were five sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU.  He recalled that 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 reas onable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about compliance efforts and to focus on new developments, 
suggestions and i deas on progress towards the resolution of disputes. He also reminded 
delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: 
"Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meetin g 
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". He then turned to the first status report 
under this Agenda item.  
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping me asures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.175)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.175, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implemen tation 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 had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 18  August 2017, 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 respec t to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had  yet to be addressed, 
the US  Administration would work with the US  Congress with respect to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his cou ntry thanked the United States for its statement 
and status report. Japan called on the United States to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in order to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this  matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 3 - 
 
  B.  United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.150)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.150, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 18 August  2017, in accordance with Article  21.6 of the DSU. The 
US Administration would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely 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 his delegation thanked the United  States 
for its status report and its statement. The EU referred to its previous statements on this matter 
and reiterated that it wished to resolve this dispute as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took no te 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.113)  
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.113, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.11.   The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation referred to its statement 
at the previous DSB meeting. In July  2017, the draft authorisations for two types of genetically 
modified soybean1 (for food and feed use) had been submitted for a vote  at the member States 
Committee, with a "no opinion" result. These measures would now be submitted for discussion and 
possible opinion to the Appeal Committee on 14  September  2017. The EU said that it remained 
committed to acting in line with its WTO oblig ations. More generally, and as it had stated 
previously on many occasions, the EU recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United States thanked the  EU for its 
status report and its statement  at the present meeting . The United States noted that EU measures 
affecting the approval of biotech products continued to involve prolonged, unpredictable, and 
unexplained delays at every stage of the approvals pr ocess. Numerous products, including corn 
and soybean event applications, remained stalled in the biotech approval pipeline. Some of these 
applications had been pending in the approval process for many years – and much longer than the 
time permitted by the EU's own measures. The United States urged the EU to take action to 
ensure that pending biotech applications were evaluated on the basis of scientific evidence, and 
that decisions were taken without further delay.  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  European  Union – Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina: Status report 
by the European  Union (WT/DS473/17/Add.2)  
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS473/17/Add.2, which cont ained the status 
report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning anti -dumping measures on biodiesel from Argentina.  
1.15.   The representative of the European  Union  said that, as had been notified to the DSB on 
9 August  2017 (WT/DS473/18), Argentina and the EU had mutually agreed to modify the 
reasonable period of time (RPT) in this dispute to expire on 28  September  2017. The review 
                                                
1 DAS-44406 -4 and FG72 x A5547 -127. WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 4 - 
 
  investigation was ongoing. The European Commission had disclosed it s intentions of amending the 
Implementing Regulation (EU No. 1194/2013) to Argentina and other interested parties, which had 
been given an opportunity to provide comments. The EU said that it intended to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings be fore the expiry of the agreed RPT.  
1.16.   The representative of Argentina  said that his country welcomed the status report submitte d 
by the EU pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. Argentina regretted that the EU had not 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and r ulings within the mutually agreed reasonable 
period of time which had expired on 10  August  2017. Nevertheless, Argentina had demo nstrated 
its flexibility and had  agreed with the EU to extend the reasonable period of time until 
28 September  2017. As an inte rested party to the review of the anti -dumping measures imposed 
on biodiesel from Argentina, initiated on 20  December  2016 by the EU pursuant to its "WTO 
Enabling Regulation ", Argentina was closely monitoring developments in these proceedings and 
was conce rned about the delays. Argentina hoped that the EU would publish its review findings on 
dumping and injury before the new expiry date of the reasonable period of time for 
implementation. In this regard, Argentina reiterated its firm belief that a review co nsistent with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute should result in full access to the European 
market for biodiesel from Argentina. Although Argentina remained concerned about the delays in 
implementation, it was confident that the Member  states of the EU would give priority to prompt 
compliance with WTO rules. Any further delay would be a very worrying sign for Argentina.  
1.17.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E.  Canada – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe 
from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu: Status 
report by Canada (WT/DS482/7)  
1.18.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS482/7, which contained the status re port 
by Canada on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning anti -dumping measures on imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe from the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  
1.19.   The represent ative of Canada  recalled that on 25  January  2017, the DSB had adopted the 
Panel Report in "Canada – Welded Pipe" (DS482). On 20  February  2017, Canada had informed the 
DSB that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings with regard to th is 
dispute. In this regard, Canada had filed a status report on 17  August  2017, which had been 
circulated in document WT/DS482/7. Regarding the DSB's recommendations and rulings relating 
to the Special Import Measures Act, amendments to that Act in respect  of exporters found to have 
a de minimis  margin of dumping had been passed into law in June  2017 as part of the Budget 
Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. With regard to the DSB's recommendations and rulings relating 
to the measures of the Canada Border Servi ces Agency (CBSA) and the Canadian International 
Trade Tribunal (CITT) in the investigation of certain carbon steel welded pipe from Chinese  Taipei: 
on 28  July 2017, the CBSA had initiated a review of its final determination of dumping and the 
CITT had ini tiated a review of its threat of injury finding s in that investigation,  having due regard 
to the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The CBSA would conclude its review on 
29 September  2017 and the CITT would issue its findings by 8  December  2017.  
1.20.   The repres entative of Chinese  Taipei  said that her delegation thanked Canada for its status 
report. Chinese  Taipei expressed its appreciation for Canada's efforts to complete its legislative 
process so quickly and to initiate reviews on the measures at issue. Chines e Taipei was now 
reviewing the legislative amendments and would continuously monitor any developments in the 
review proceedings. Chinese Taipei looked forward to working closely with Canada to resolve this 
dispute as soon as possible.  
1.21.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and invited the representative of the European  Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that, once again, his delegation requested the 
United  States to stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United States t o abide by its clear 
obligations under Article  21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports on implementation in this 
dispute. The EU would continue to include this item on the Agenda until the United  States 
implemented the WTO ruling.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada said that his country thanked the EU for placing this item on 
the DSB's Agenda. Canada shared the EU's view that the Byrd Amendment remained under the 
DSB's surveillance until it was no longer applied.  
2.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that, once agai n, her country thanked the EU for keeping 
this item on the DSB's Agenda. As one of the parties to the Byrd Amendment disputes, Brazil 
wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter. In particular, Brazil wished to refer 
to its previous stat ements regarding the continuation of illegal disbursements, which should cease 
immediately. Brazil renewed its calls on the United States to fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Until then, the United States was under an  obligation 
to submit stat us reports, pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU.  
2.5.  The representative of the United  States  said that, as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Cont inued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been enacted into law in February  2006. 
Accordingly, the United  States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The United States recalled, furt hermore, that the 
EU had acknowledged that the Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties 
collected on goods entered after 1  October  2007, over nine years ago. With respect to the EU's 
request for status reports in this matter, as the United States had already explained at previous 
DSB meetings, there was no obligation under the DSU to provide further status reports once a 
Member had announced that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings, 
regardless of whether the compl aining party disagreed about compliance. As the United  States had 
noted previously, the EU had demonstrated repeatedly that it shared this understanding, at least 
when it was the responding party in a dispute. Once again, for the present meeting, the EU ha d 
provided no status reports for disputes in which there was a disagreement between the parties on 
the EU's compliance.  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that the EU noted the state ment made by the 
United  States.  The EU did not agree with the p oint mentioned by the United States that the EU had 
not provided status reports in disputes in which there was a disagreement between the parties on 
compliance. In this regard, the EU reiterated that it had  provided status reports on all disputes 
that invo lved the EU (i.e. DS291 and DS473).  
2.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3  CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS F OR CERTAIN AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCTS  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS517/6)  
3.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communic ation from the United  States contained in 
document WT/DS517/6 and invited t he representative of the United  States to speak.  WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.2.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States recalled that all WTO 
Members, including China, were required to  administer tariff -rate quotas consistently with the 
obligations of the GATT  1994. Upon accession to the WTO, China had committed to administer its 
tariff-rate quotas consistently with additional obligations in its Accession Protocol and Working 
Party Repo rt. Regrettably, it appeared that China administered certain tariff -rate quotas for wheat, 
short- and medium -grain rice, long -grain rice, and corn inconsistently with its WTO commitments. 
In particular, China did not administer these tariff -rate-quotas con sistently with its commitments 
in its Accession Protocol and Working Party Report because China did not administer these 
tariff-rate quotas on a transparent, predictable, or fair basis, and did not use clearly specified 
administrative procedures and requir ements that would not inhibit the filling of each tariff -rate 
quota. Further, China administered each of the tariff -rate quotas inconsistently with GATT  1994 
Article  X:3(a) on reasonable administration, Article  XI:1 prohibiting import restrictions, and 
Article XIII:3(b) on providing public notice. Prior to initiating this dispute, the United  States had 
attempted to resolve these issues with China, both bilaterally and in the Committee on Agriculture. 
The United States and China had also held formal dispute settlement consultations in 
February  2017. However, these efforts had failed to resolve the US concerns. Accordingly, the 
United States requested that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set out in its panel 
request, with standard terms of refe rence.  
3.3.  The representative of China  said that her country regretted the US request for the 
establishment of a panel and that China could not accept the request at the present meeting. It 
said that it was particularly disappointed by the United States' conse cutive challenges to China's 
legitimate and WTO -consistent measures with respect to vital agricultural staples. These included 
rice, wheat and corn. China and the United  States had maintained smooth bilateral 
communications regarding agricultural issues fo r some time, particularly with regard to China's 
administration of import TRQs for agricultural products (both within multilateral and bilateral 
frameworks). During the consultations in Geneva on 9  February  2017, China had made an effort to 
clarify its pol icies and explain the measures at issue to the United States. China had expressed its 
willingness to engage in further consultations with the United States in order to seek an amicable 
solution. It was thus very disappointing for China  to learn that the Un ited States had now 
requested the establishment of a panel. China said that it did not believe that this was a mutually 
advantageous manner of resolving this dispute. China had always complied with WTO rules, and 
had been regulating trade in agricultural p roducts in a manner that was consistent with WTO rules. 
Since its accession to the WTO, China had fulfilled its commitments concerning the administration 
of TRQs for wheat, rice and corn. China had enacted laws, regulations and rules for the TRQ 
administra tion of agricultural products, and had consistently followed the principles of fairness, 
transparency and non -discrimination. Imports of agricultural products from WTO Members, 
including the United States, benefited from these practices. China said that, s hould the 
United  States continue to seek the establishment of a panel in this dispute, China would defend its 
interests and demonstrate the WTO -consistency of its measures.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
4  CANADA – MEASURES CONCERNING T RADE IN COMMERCIAL A IRCRAFT  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil (WT/DS522/6)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Brazil contained in document 
WT/DS522/6 and invited the representative of Brazil to sp eak. 
4.2.  The representative of Brazil  said that his country requested the DSB to establish a panel to 
examine numerous measures through which Canada had provided substantial subsidies to 
Bombardier and its suppliers to develop, launch, and preserve Bombardier' s C-Series aircraft 
program. Brazil considered that the support from Canada's federal, provincial and local 
governments to Bombardier and its suppliers for the C -Series program had caused significant 
distortions in the commercial aircraft market. Due to th e huge amount of government support, 
Bombardier had sold hundreds of aircraft at unfair prices causing serious prejudice to Brazil's 
export interests. Canada's support to Bombardier for the C -Series program included loans, grants, 
equity infusions, tax cre dits, and other financial contributions that were at odds with Canada's 
obligations under the SCM Agreement. To mention but a few examples, the Government of Canada 
had provided C$350  million and the Government of Quebec had provided C$117  million to 
Bomba rdier for commercial aircraft design and development. Moreover, through various research WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 7 - 
 
  and development programs, Canada and Quebec had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in 
funding to aerospace companies, including Bombardier, throughout the life o f the C -Series 
program. In 2015, when the C -Series program costs had been escalating and Bombardier had 
been facing severe financial difficulties, the Government of Quebec had agreed to invest 
US$2.5  billion in Bombardier. Earlier in 2017, on the day befor e Brazil had requested 
consultations, Canada had, once again, committed itself to support Bombardier by providing 
several hundred million dollars ' worth of additional subsidies. Without these and other measures, 
Bombardier's C -Series program would simply n ot have survived. More worrisome was that, as a 
consequence of these support measures, the conditions of competition unfairly favoured 
Bombardier and its suppliers. This scenario had caused, continued to cause, and threatened to 
cause more extensive prejud ice to the interests of the Brazilian aerospace industry, in clear 
violation of Canada's WTO obligations. Brazil also requested the DSB to initiate the procedures 
provided for in Annex  V of the SCM Agreement and designate a representative to serve the 
function of facilitating the information -gathering process, upon the establishment of a panel for 
this matter. Brazil hoped that the Annex  V procedure would result in a better understanding of the 
full scope of Canada's support measures. As such, Brazil intend ed to put forward suggestions as to 
the information that should be sought under this procedure once the panel was established. Brazil 
hoped that, following this panel request, Canada would make every effort to bring its measures 
into conformity with its WT O obligations in the shortest period of time possible, in order to 
re-establish fair conditions of competition in the market for commercial aircraft.  
4.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country was disappointed that Brazil had 
requested the establis hment of a panel with respect to certain Canadian measures concerning 
trade in commercial aircraft. Canada and Brazil had held consultations on 10  March  2017. During 
the consultations, Canada had engaged constructively and had provided responses to Brazil' s 
extensive questions. Canada was confident that its measures were consistent with its WTO 
obligations. Accordingly, Canada was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at 
the present meeting.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter.  
5  APPELLATE BODY MATTE RS 
A.  Statement by the Chairman  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that, under this Agenda item, he wished to make a statement regarding 
two issues: one issue related to the resignation of Mr. Hyun Chong Kim as an Appellate Body 
member and the second issue was to inform delegations of the results of his consultations 
concerning his proposal on Appellate Body selection processes. First, he informed the DSB that on 
1 August  2017, the Chairman of the Appellate Body had informed him of the resignation of 
Mr. Hyun Chong Kim which was made with immediate effect. The Chairman of the Appellate Body 
had transmitted a copy of the resignation letter he had received from Mr. Kim to the Chairman. In 
the letter Mr. Kim had tendered his resi gnation as an Appellate Body member effective as of 
1 August  2017. For transparency purposes, the resignation letter had been circulated to all 
delegations in document WT/DSB/73. Mr. Kim had been appointed as Trade Minister in the Korean 
Government on 4  August 2017. This event had created an unprecedented legal situation. Rule  14 
of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review provided that the resignation had to take effect 
90 days after the notification had been made unless the DSB, in consultation with th e Appellate 
Body, decided otherwise. At the same time, Article  17.3 of the DSU stipulated that Appellate Body 
members "shall be unaffiliated with any government". Mr. Kim had been appointed as Trade 
Minister only three days after tendering his resignation.  Therefore, pursuant to Article  17.3 of the 
DSU, he could not remain a member of the Appellate Body as of 4  August  2017. Thus his decision 
to tender his resignation with immediate effect had been consistent with Article  17.3 of the DSU. 
This had also creat ed an immediate vacancy on the Appellate Body. Members recalled that Mr.  Kim 
had been appointed by the DSB as Appellate Body member as of 1  December  2016 for a four -year 
term. This meant that, in accordance with Article  17.2 of the DSU, a person appointed to replace 
Mr. Kim whose term of office had not expired "shall hold office for the remainder of the 
predecessor's term". Therefore, the DSB was faced with three vacancies on the Appellate Body, 
one of which arose as of 12  December  2017. This brought the Ch airman to the second issue which 
he wished to share with Members, namely, his proposal to open three selection processes, as soon 
as possible, to be carried out by the same Selection Committee. The Chairman said that he had WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 8 - 
 
  been consulting on this with som e delegations. However, presently, further consultations were 
needed.  
5.2.  The representative of Korea  said that his country thanked the Chairman for his report 
regarding the Appellate Body matters. Korea recognized that a vacancy on the Appellate Body had 
arisen since Mr. Hyun Chong Kim had tendered his resignation on 1  August  2017, with immediate 
effect. He was then appointed as Korea's Trade Minister on 4  August  2017. Korea said that it 
believed that Mr. Kim had made his best effort to fulfil his obligations as an Appellate Body 
member until his resignation, which had been due to the unforeseen development of the 
establishment of a new administration in Korea. His country remained committed to the WTO 
dispute settlement system wherein the Appellate Body played  a crucial role. In this regard, Korea 
fully supported launching of the selection process as soon as possible. It was Korea's view that 
discussions to launch the selection process for the vacancy left by Mr. Kim should be dealt with 
together with the discu ssions regarding the selection process for the vacancy left by Mr.  Ramírez 
and the upcoming vacancy that would be left by Mr. Van den Bossche. Korea was ready to show 
flexibility as to how and when the three selection processes were to be launched, as long  as the 
period of vacancies could be minimized.  
5.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United  States appreciated the 
information the Chairman had provided , and that its comments under this Agenda item were also 
pertinent to Agenda items 6 an d 7 of the present meeting . The resignation of Mr.  Kim from the 
Appellate Body raised important systemic questions for the DSB to consider and resolve. At the 
time of Mr. Kim's resignation, he had been one of three members of the Appellate Body serving on 
the appeal in the dispute "EU – Antidumping Measures on Imports of Certain Fatty Alcohols from 
Indonesia" (DS442). The Chairman of the Appellate Body had informed the DSB that the Appellate 
Body expected to circulate its report in this dispute no later tha n Tuesday, 5  September  2017.2 
However, Members had been informed that, on 1  August  2017, Mr. Kim had "tender[ed] [his] 
resignation as an Appellate Body member, effective 1  August  2017".3 A WTO press release dated 
1 August  2017 reflected the view that "the resignation was with immediate effect".4 In light of that 
information, Mr. Kim was no longer an Appellate Body member as of 1  August  2017. Therefore, 
the report to be circulated on 5  September  2017 would not appear to be on behalf of three 
Appellate Body m embers. This raised concerns under Article  17.1 of the DSU, which stated that 
"three [members] shall serve on any one case".  
5.4.  Given Mr. Kim's resignation to become Korea's Trade Minis ter, the United  States considered it 
necessary and appropriate for his res ignation to have been effective immediately. However, the 
WTO press release was in tension with Rule  14(2) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, 
which stated that a "resignation shall take effect 90  days after the notification … unless the DSB 
decides otherwise". The United  States noted that the Appellate Body's rule as drafted would permit 
any appellate report on which the individual had been working to be issued before that resignation 
became effective. This reinforced that a person had to be a member of the Appellate Body when 
that report was circulated to the DSB. The United  States further noted that Mr. Ramírez was 
serving on this same appeal, although his second term had expired on 30  June 2017. This meant 
that, on the date the Appellate Body  report was to be circulated to the DSB, only one  signatory 
would appear to actually be an Appellate Body member. These were unprecedented circumstances, 
and the United  States considered that the DSB needed to consider the implications and decide how 
to handle this situation.  
5.5.  In addition to the "Alcohols" (DS442) dispute, Mr. Ramírez continued  to serve on two  other 
appeals. In a letter to the DSB Chairman, the Chairman of the Appellate Body had stated that 
Mr. Ramírez "has been authorized, pursuant to Rule  15, by the Appellate Body to complete the 
disposition of these appeals". Rule  15 only applied to "[a] person who ceases to be a Member of 
the Appellate Body".5 Under DSU Article  17.2, it was the DSB that had the authority to appoint and 
                                                
2 WT/DS442/8 (10 August 2017).  
3 Communication from the Appellate Body: Resignation of an Appellate Body Member, WT/DSB/73 
(2 August 2017).  
4 https://www.wto.org/english /news_e/news17_e/ab_01aug17_e.htm  
5 Working Procedures for Appellate Review , Rule 15, WT/AB/WP/6 (16 August 2010) ( "A person who 
ceases to be a m ember of the Appellate Body may, with the authorization of the Appellate Body and upon 
notification to the DSB,  complete the disposition of any appeal to which th at person was assigned while a 
member, and that person shall, for that purpose only,  be deemed to continue to be a m ember of the Appellate 
Body. "). WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 9 - 
 
  reappoint members o f the Appellate Body. The DSB had exercised that authority in reappointing 
Mr. Ramírez "for a second four -year term of office, starting on 1  July 2013".6 As had been decided 
by the DSB, his appointment as an Appellate Body member had expired on 30  June 2017. It was 
only by virtue of that DSB decision that WTO Members had been considering the issue of a 
selection process to replace him. But Members had not discussed how any continued service on 
appeals might affect that process. The United States said that i t appreciated that the approach of 
Rule 15 could contribute to efficient completio n of appeals. As a party in two  pending appeals, the 
United  States said that it would welcome Mr. Ramírez's continued service on the appeals to which 
he had been assigned as of 30  June 2017. Under the DSU, however, the DSB had a responsibility 
to decide whether a person whose term of appointment had expired, should continue serving, as if 
a member of the Appellate Body, on any pending appeals. The United  States considered that  the 
DSB should also discuss this issue so that it could take appropriate decisions. The United  States 
looked forward to consulting with the Chairman and other Members on these important systemic 
issues.  
5.6.  The representative of Pakistan , speaking in relation  to Agenda items 5, 6 and 7, said that his 
country was deeply concerned at the current delay in the appointment of Appellate Body members 
due to lack of consensus on procedural formalities. Pakistan wished to reiterate the importance of 
the Appellate Body,  which could not be overstated. The dispute settlement mechanism with its 
Appellate Body was often referred to as the "Jewel in the Crown" of the multilateral trading 
system. Pakistan said that it seemed that the "Crown Jewel" was getting eclipsed. The sys tem still 
had some room for improvement, but, in this world full of uncertainties, it was a good example of 
working multilateralism and it stood out as an important chapter in the evolution of international 
justice. The system was being used not only by ma jor trading nations, but increasingly by smaller 
and developing countries. Small economies had the opportunity to challenge measures from large 
economies, and Members had witnessed such challenges repeatedly. This high level of activity 
underscored the gre at measure of confidence that Members continued to place in the WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism. At the same time, these elevated levels of activity placed great strain on 
the system. Pakistan said that it expected that the Membership recognized the const raints that 
just one  empty seat, let alone three, placed on the Appellate Body and on the dispute settlement 
system as a whole. Therefore, acting swiftly to appoint new Appellate Body members would be 
beneficial to the Membership and would reinforce the le gitimacy of the dispute settlement system. 
Pakistan sincerely hoped that the differences among the Membership were bridged and overcome 
quickly, and urged Me mbers to work towards that end.  Pakistan hoped that the process of 
appointment of new Appellate Bod y members would be finalized by 22  November  2017.  
5.7.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, 
Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, thanked the Chairman for his report regarding the consultations on 
AB matters. Mexico deep ly regretted that, at this point, the DSB had not reached a consensus to 
fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. Mexico noted that, in addition to the vacancy resulting 
from the expiration of Mr.  Ramírez's term, another vacancy had been created by Mr.  Hyun Chong 
Kim's resignation on 1  August  2017. As a result, the DSB had to deal with two selection processes 
to fill the existing vacancies. Members should also avoid a delay in appointing Mr.  Van den 
Bossche's replacement as his term would expire in Decembe r 2017. Article  17.2 of the DSU 
stipulated that "Vacancies shall be filled as they arise." Members had an obligation to safeguard 
the Appellate Body and the multilateral trading system. They should not continue to reiterate their 
positions every month in t he DSB. Their concerns had to be matched by concrete actions that 
would enable the DSB to overcome the current impasse. By doing nothing under the 
circumstances, which were very serious, unprecedented and risked leaving the Appellate Body in a 
dysfunctiona l situation very soon, Members would send a signal that was contrary to one of the 
fundamental pillars of the WTO. Mexico recalled that many disputes would continue to be filled 
before the Appellate Body. This meant delays which would affect legitimate int erests of Members.  
                                                
6 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting Held on  26 March 2013 , WT/DSB/M/330 
(4 June 2013) ( "In his statement, the then Chair of the DSB had stated the following: 'Under Article 17.2 of the 
DSU the DSB shall appoint persons to serve on the Appellate Body for a four -year term, and each person may 
be reap pointed once '. The then Chair had continued to say that: 'the reappointment of Appellate Body 
members for a second term of office was not automatic and required consideration by, and a formal decision 
of, the DSB '. Therefore, consistent with those requirem ents, the Chair proposed that the DSB adopt, at the 
present meeting, a formal decision and agree to reappoint Mr. Ricardo Ramírez for a second four -year term of 
office, starting on 1 July 2013 '. The DSB so agreed. "). WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.8.  The representative of Canada , speaking in relation to Agenda items 5, 6 and 7, said that his 
country thanked the Chairman for his explanations and consultations. Canada was disappointed 
that those consultations had not resolved the prese nt dysfunctional situation and that the DSB had 
failed to discharge its duties to launch selection processes to fill vacancies on the Appellate Body. 
Canada reiterated that it would join a consensus to initiate a process or processes to fill any of the 
vacancies. That said, considering the time needed to complete a selection process or processes, 
Canada was of the view that it would be preferable to fill all three  vacancies concurrently.  
5.9.  The representative of the European  Union  said that his delegation than ked the Chairman for 
the information he had provided. The EU took note of Mr. Kim's resignation and wished to take this 
opportunity to thank him for his work on the Appellate Body. Regarding the vacancy that had 
arisen, as it had repeatedly stated in previ ous meetings, the EU fully supported the selection of 
new Appellate Body members without delay. This also applied to the most recent vacancy on the 
Appellate Body, which had arisen due to the resignation of Mr.  Kim. In view of the statement made 
by the Cha irman on the third vacancy, the EU proposed starting the process to fill that vacancy 
concurrently with the other vacancies as well. The EU therefore encouraged all Members to support 
its proposal under the next Agenda item, so that all of the selection pr ocesses could be launched 
at the present meeting.  
5.10.   The representative of Australia  said that her country thanked the Chairman for his efforts to 
resolve the impasse and for reporting to the meeting on the progress, or lack of progress, to date. 
Australia sa id that it wished to formally place on the record its grave concern at the impasse that 
Members had reached at the present meeting in relation to appointments to the Appellate Body. 
Australia found no compelling reason to delay commencing a selection proce ss for all three  
vacancies as soon as possible. Matters regarding the timing of the three processes could be 
resolved – if there was a genuine commitment to reaching a resolution. Australia, for its part, 
certainly had that commitment. Australia remained v ery flexible about the form of any selection 
process or processes to fill the existing and forthcoming vacancies. The key was to commence a 
process or processes without further delay. In Australia's view, the DSB should not be distracted 
from this importan t task by other issues relating to the proper functioning of the Appellate Body.  
5.11.   The representative of Japan , speaking in relation to Agenda items 5, 6 and 7, said that his 
country thanked the Chairman for his report on Mr. Kim's departure from the Appella te Body and 
for his efforts to launch the selection process or processes. As the Chairman had noted, the DSB 
had yet another vacancy to fill. Japan recalled that Mr. Ramírez's term of office had expired on 
30 June 2017 and Mr. Van den Bossche's term of off ice would  expire on 11  December  2017. With 
the departure of Mr. Kim, the DSB was now under an  obligation to fill three  positions out of seven. 
Given the time and resources needed for the DSB to select new members, it was all the more 
incumbent on the DSB t o launch a select ion process to fill these three  vacancies as quickly as 
possible. Like previous speakers, Japan said that it could  agree to launch the three  selection 
processes together. Thus it was unfortunate that the DSB was not in a position to launch  the 
selection process or processes at the present meeting. Appointing Appellate Body members was an 
important function entrusted to the DSB under the DSU. Japan urged all Members concerned to 
exercise flexibility and act in a constructive manner so that t he DSB could perform its functions as 
contemplated in the DSU, without further delay. Japan took  note of the United  States' statement. 
Japan was not a third party in the appeal the United States had referred to and was not familiar 
with the particular exch anges between the division hearing the appeal and the parties to that 
dispute. Japan did recognize, however, that Mr. Kim's sudden departure from the Appellate Body 
could potentially have negative impacts on the work in the two ongoing appeals he had been 
assigned to before his resignation. More generally, Japan understood the systemic concerns 
expressed by the United States with respect to the status of outgoing members of the 
Appellate  Body contemplated in Rule  15 of the Working Procedures for Appellate R eview and the 
legal implications of such status for the ongoing work of the Appellate Body. However, resolving a 
problem that could arise out of uncertainty in the status of outgoing Appellate Body members and 
selecting new members to replace outgoing Appe llate Body members were  two distinct and 
different tasks. Such tasks could be and had to be addressed by the DSB separately. Indeed, one 
could say that selecting a new Appellate Body member, as quickly as possible, could reduce the 
scope of uncertainty tha t could be created by the status of outgoing members  – at least in future 
appeals or disputes. Once again, Japan stressed that appointing Appellate Body members was an 
important function entrusted to the DSB under the DSU. All Members were responsible for 
ensuring that the DSB properly discharged this important function.  WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.12.   The representative of China , speak ing in relation to Agenda items  5, 6 and 7, said that his 
country thanked the Chairman for his report regarding the resignation of Mr. Kim as an Appellate 
Body member and for conducting the consultations with Members on this issue. China thanked 
Mr. Hyun Chong Kim for his contribution to the work of the Appellate Body and China thanked the 
proponents for, once again, revising their proposals and putting them  forward. China took note of 
the concerns expressed by some Members, and said that it fully understood their concerns 
considering that the DSB was faced with this unforeseen and unprecedented situation. China said 
that the DSB consisted of all Members and that all Members should work collectively, 
constructively and closely to resolve these issues. China referred to its previous statements on this 
matter and reiterated its serious systemic concerns over this issue. Since a new vacancy on the 
Appellate Body had arisen in August  2017, China was concerned that the Appellate Body had only 
five members and a heavy workload. Therefore, China called upon Members to show flexibility so 
that the vacancies could be filled as soon as possible.  
5.13.   The representative of Switzerland , speak ing in relation to Agenda items  5, 6 and 7, said that 
his country thanked the Chairman for his ongoing efforts regarding these matters. Switzerland 
shared the concerns expressed by other delegations about the developments during 2017 with 
regard to vacancies on  the Appellate Body. Only nine  months after the Appellate Body had 
regained its full complement in December  2016, following half a year with two vacancies, the DSB 
was faced with yet another crisis – even wider and more worrying this ti me. Switzerland reiterated 
that repeated and lengthy vacancies on the Appellate Body had the potential to seriously damage 
the functioning and credibility of the WTO's dispute settlement system, and of the multilateral 
trading system as a whole. Switzerlan d therefore welcomed the Chairman's proposal to launch 
concurrent selection processes for all three vacancies as quickly as possible and called on Members 
concerned to actively contribute to overcoming the current impasse with a sense of urgency.  
5.14.   The repre sentative of Brazil  said that his country wished to echo the previous speakers, in 
particular Mexico and Australia, and reminded Members that they all had a responsibility and a  
legal obligation under Article  17.2 of the DSU to fill vacancies as they arose . What was 
unprecedented was that, as of the present meeting, the DSB had not yet even launched a process 
to fill the vacancies. Any other discussion on procedural issues, such as those that had been 
mentioned by the United  States, as important as they may  be, could not prevent the responsibility 
to fill the vacancies on the Appellate Body . He recalled that the discussions on reappointment 
issues in a dedicated session held in 2016 had not been used to stop the reappointment of 
Appellate Body members. Brazi l hoped that, given the circumstances surrounding these processes, 
the DSB would not move from "a situation of crises" to a "situation of major crisis" . 
5.15.   The representative of Singapore , speak ing in relation to Agenda items  5, 6 and 7, said that 
his country  thanked the Chairman for his update on the Appellate Body matters as well as his 
consultations on the Chairman's proposal. Singapore also thanked the EU and the group of 
Latin-American proponents on their proposals. There were now two vacancies on the App ellate 
Body and there would be another vacancy arising at the end of 2017. The DSB had been 
discussing the issue of Appellate Body selection for several months without achieving any concrete 
outcomes. Singapore wished to highlight its deep and serious syst emic concerns and expressed its 
regret over the lengthy delay in launching an Appellate Body selection process. Singapore called 
on Members to show flexibility and to be pragmatic in order to reach consensus to launch the 
selection process, as soon as poss ible so that there would be a full complement of Appellate Body 
members to deal with the current workload of appeals.  
5.16.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her country thanked the Chairman for his 
report on recent developments, efforts to find consen sus on this important matter, and for the 
proposal outlined by the Chair.  New Zealand encouraged the Chairman to strengthen his efforts 
towards consensus in this regard. It also thanked the EU, and the group of Latin  American 
proponents for their updated p roposals. New Zealand said that it wished to underline its deep 
disappointment with the present situation. Members had now two vacancies in practice, and they 
were rapidly coming to a situation where it would be imposs ible to avoid a third one.  What was 
even more disappointing was that Members appeared to be no closer to remedying this situation 
by agreeing to a process or processes to select the new members. New  Zealand shared the grave 
concern that had been expressed by other speakers at the current impas se. It called on all 
Members to show flexibility to allow the launch and conclusion, as soon as possible, of a process or 
processes to fill all three positions.  WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.17.   The representative of Hong Kong, China , speak ing in relation to Agenda items  5, 6 and 7, 
said t hat her delegation thanked the Chairman for his efforts on these matters . Hong  Kong,  China 
shared the systemic concerns expressed by other Members on the current impasse on the 
launching of the Appellate Body selection process. Its preference and readiness  to join this 
consensus had been repeatedly expressed at previous DSB meetings. Hong  Kong, China therefore 
urged Members to exercise flexibility in order to reach agreement on the selection processes as 
soon as possible.  
5.18.   The representative of Chinese  Taipe i, speak ing in relation to Agenda items  5, 6 and 7, said 
that his delegation wished to thank the Chairman for his report and efforts regarding these 
matters. Chinese  Taipei referred to its previous statements on the issue of Appellate Body 
appointments. Cu rrently, the WTO had  two vacancies on the Appellate Body and faced an 
additional one arising in De cember  2017. Certainly, the system was facing resource constraints in 
carrying out its adjudicative tasks. These had already, and would continue to, jeopardiz e the 
dispute settlement mechanism's function. Given the urgency of this matter, Chinese  Taipei called 
on all Members to agree on the selection process or processes as soon as possible. Chinese  Taipei 
looked forward to working closely with other Members to  achieve a solution.  
5.19.   The representative of Norway , speak ing in relation to Agenda items  5, 6 and 7, said that her 
country wished to thank the Chairman for his report and his efforts through continuing 
consultations. Norway wished to reiterate its previous position. The well -functioning Appellate 
Body was in Norway's primary interest. Ensuring that all vacancies were filled as they arose was 
an important part of its considerations. Unfortunately, the DSB had failed to fulfil this obligation. 
Norway expressed  its serious systemic concern in this regard, especially considering the 
resignation of Mr. Kim. Norway thanked the proponents for their revised proposals. As it had 
mentioned during the last DSB meeting, Norway would be in a position to support any of the  
proposals that had been put forward. However, it had a preference for the proposal from the EU as 
that proposal seemed to provide for a more efficient process that could facilitate the selection of 
the three  new Appellate Body members within an agreed tim e-frame. Norway failed to understand 
why the DSB could not agree to launch the process for selecting the two new Appellate Body 
members for the seats that were already vacant. The process for selecting the third position that 
would become vacant later in 2 017 should be launched without delay. Norway urged all Members 
to show the utmost flexibility in order to ensure that the DSB surpassed this deadlock – for the 
benefit of the system.  
5.20.   The Chairman  thanked Members for their statements. He noted that the poin ts raised by the 
United  States deserved the DSB's consideration. He also noted the concerns expressed by many 
other delegations and said that he believed that, in order to give all Members an opportunity to 
discuss this matt er, he was ready to hold an  open-ended informal meeting as soon as feasible. At 
the same time, he said that he would make himself available for consultations and invited 
delegations with views and ideas on these matters to contact him directly.  
5.21.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
6  APPOIN TMENT OF APPELLATE B ODY MEMBERS: PROPOSA L BY THE EUROPEAN UN ION 
(WT/DSB/W/597/REV.3)  
7  PROPOSAL REGARDING T HE APPELLATE BODY SE LECTION PROCESS 
(WT/DSB/W/596/REV.3)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/597/Rev.3 and invited the representative of the European  Union to speak.7 
7.2.  The representative of the European  Union  said that the EU wished to refer to its statements 
on the issue of Appellate Body appointments made at previous DSB meetings. The EU fully 
supported the se lection of new Appellate Body members without delay. The EU encouraged all 
Members to support its proposal so that it would be accepted at the present meeting. Regarding 
the details of its proposal, the EU noted that the proposal strictly followed the mode ls of similar 
DSB decisions in the past. It incorporated the proposal made by the group of Latin American 
                                                
7 As indicated by the Chairman in his c oncluding remarks (paragraph 7.16) Agenda item s 6 and 7 were 
considered jointly.  WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 13 - 
 
  proponents but, in addition, it also provided for the launching of the selection process for the 
replacement of Professor Van den Bossche. Following t he statement made by the Chairman under 
the previous Agenda item, the EU amended its proposal to also include the launching of the 
selection process for the replacement of Mr. Hyun Chong Kim. Thus, the EU was proposing the 
launching of three selection proc esses at the present meeting. The proposal provided for the 
selection processes to be conducted and concluded as soon as possible. The EU invited Members to 
support its proposal to launch the selection processes at the present meeting.  
7.3.  The representative o f the United  States  said that, as had been mentioned under Agenda 
item 5, the United States was not in a position to support the proposed decision. The United  States 
considered that the first priority was for the DSB to discuss and decide how to deal with reports 
being issued by persons who were no longer members of the Appellate Body. Members should 
consider how the resolution of those issues might affect a selection process . An informal DSB 
meeting would be a good place to start.  
7.4.  The representative of Brazil said that his country would like to intervene briefly at this point 
since it had already made a statement under the previous Agenda item. With regard to the US 
statement, Brazil noted that it appeared that the United States linked the selection process es to 
the discussion of certain procedural issues. He recalled that this was not the case in the context of 
the discussions on reappointment of Appellate Body members held in 2016. Therefore, if Brazil's 
understanding was correct the current situations app eared to be worse as compared to the 
discussions on reappointments. The DSB was in a difficult situation  – with two vacancies on the 
Appellate Body and the third one arising in December  2017 – and now, in the middle of the road, 
there was a "huge stone" th at prevented the DSB from moving forward. Brazil said that working 
procedure for appellate review could be discussed in an informal open -ended meeting. These were 
important issues and Brazil was open to discussing them. However, there should be no linkage 
between systemic issues and the selection processes to appoint new Appellate Body members.  
7.5.  The representative of Canada  said that his country welcomed an informal meeting to discuss 
the procedural issues raised by the United States. While these issues were  important, linking these 
procedural issues with the appointment of new Appellate Body members, as the United  States did, 
exacerbated the problems that the United States had outlined. Canada did not see the logic in that 
linkage. To lessen those problems, the DSB should launch the selection processes. Canada asked 
the United States to reconsider the linkage that it had proposed. Canada fully supported an 
informal discussion to discuss those procedural issues, but it did not support any linkage between 
the two. 
7.6.  The representative of China  said that his country wished to echo the statements made by the 
previous speakers. China noted that the DSB was faced with two issues: (i) the systemic concerns 
expressed by a certain Member; and (ii) the delay in the launch  of the Appellate Body selection 
process.  China did not see any logic in linking these two issues. In previous DSB meetings, the 
majority of WTO Members had expressed their concerns over the second issue. As the Chairman 
had reported, Mr. Kim had resigned from the Appellate Body which had created a new vacancy. 
This made it even more important to solve the second issue. China took note of the United  States' 
concerns, but believed that these two issues should be addressed separately.  
7.7.  The representative of Australia  said that her country could be very flexible in relation to the 
process for appointing new Appellate Body members. Australia would be prepared to support the 
EU's proposal. It urged Members to consider how important it was to move ahead and ensure that 
the DSB was in a position to appoint new Appellate Body members in a prompt manner, and 
ensure the efficient and effective functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system. Australia also 
echoed the statements made by other Members regarding linking s ystemic issues and the 
appointment process of new Appellate Body members. These were distinct issues and had to be 
addressed separately. Australia considered that commencing a selection process would be helpful 
in addressing some of the concerns that the U nited States had raised. Australia did not understand 
the logic behind linking these issues and said that it would be interested in hearing further from 
the United  States as to its rationale.  
7.8.  The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to refe r to its statement made under 
the previous Agenda item. Japan was ready to engage in discussions with other Members on the 
systemic issues raised by the United States in a constructive manner. However, at the same time, WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Japan stressed, once again, that the  DSB had to launch the selection processes to fill the 
three  vacancies as soon as possible.  
7.9.  The representative of Cameroon  said that his country took note of the Chairman's statement 
on the vacancies within the Appellate Body and acknowledged the fact that  the current situation 
was worrisome. Cameroon believed that the process ought to be accelerated in order for these 
vacancies to be swiftly filled. The United States had raised an issue which needed to be taken into 
account. There were in fact several issu es regarding the Appellate Body matters and they should 
all be considered. Sometimes by considering problems together, solutions could be found. This was 
why Cameroon believed that consultations should be carried out so that no problems were 
overlooked and  to avoid the Appellate Body from being paralyzed. The DSB was presently facing a 
very critical situation.  
7.10.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, 
Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, said that at the 22  May, 19  June and 20  July 2017 DSB meetings, 
the Latin American proponents had proposed that a decision be taken to initiate the process to 
select a successor to Mr.  Ramírez. Due to the lack of consensus, thus far, the DSB had not able to 
make a decision on this matter.  This was the fourth attempt by the Latin American proponents to 
find a solution to this impasse. Mexico stressed that nothing in the DSU required a DSB decision in 
order to initiate the processes to fill vacancies in the Appellate Body. In fact, the DSU e xplicitly 
stipulated that vacancies "shall be filled as they arise". Thus, there was an obligation that the DSB 
and Members had to fulfil. For that reason, the proponents had submitted an updated proposal in 
this regard. The proposal was in line with past practice with regard to similar matters. The updated 
proposal took into account the urgency of this particular process and the incremental progress that 
the adoption of this decision would represent. The proposal comprised four elements: (i) to launch 
a selection process to replace Mr.  Ricardo Ramírez  Hernández, whose second term of office had 
expired on 30  June 2017; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 
29 September  2017 for submitting nominations of candidates; and (iv) to r equest the Selection 
Committee to circulate its recommendation by 22  November  2017 at the latest. Finally, the 
countries in question reiterated their readiness to work with other Members to appoint 
replacements for the vacancies in the Appellate Body that had to be filled in  2017. Finally, Mexico 
wished to know whether there was a consensus at the present meeting on the proposal put 
forward by the Latin American countries.  
7.11.   The representative of the United  States  said that the United States thanked Members f or 
their interventions and said that the United  States had been listening carefully. A number of 
Members had raised questions on the logic of linking the concerns the United States had raised 
under item  5 with the selection of Appellate Body members. There  also seemed to be some 
confusion regarding the United States' position. The United States said that it had further heard 
the concern that the DSB had the responsibility to address the systemic concerns raised. As 
Members were aware, the United States had a number of long -standing concerns frequently 
expressed in the DSB regarding the critical necessity of the DSB asserting the authority assigned 
to it under the DSU. The issue the United States had raised earlier at the present meeting 
concerning the contin ued service of former Appellate Body members was an important example of 
these concerns that the United States had been raising for some time. In the United States' view, 
simply moving forward with filling vacancies risked perpetuating and leaving unaddres sed the 
concerns that the United  States believed required the urgent attention of the DSB. The 
United  States  said that its view under Agenda item  6 also applied to the proposal that had been 
put forward under Agenda item  7 by Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, C hile, Guatemala, Mexico and 
Peru. 
7.12.   The representative of Chile said that his country thanked the Chairman for his efforts in 
finding a solution to this matter. Chile fully endorsed Mexico's statement made on behalf of the 
Latin American proponents. Chile be lieved that Members were facing a critical moment in the WTO 
as they had not been able to start a selection process to appoint new members of the Appellate 
Body. Each delegation was free to have its own position as to what was the best way to carry out 
the processes, or to propose necessary changes to improve the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system. Chile, like many other Members, would be ready to contribute to ideas and 
proposals in due course. But it was not appropriate or advisable to disrupt t he regular DSB work. 
The Appellate Body had currently two vacancies and the third vacancy was upcoming. Thus the 
Appellate Body's capacity was being dramatically reduced. Chile had a direct interest in this issue 
since it intended to present a candidate, o ne of Chile's best specialists and diplomats, to fill the WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 15 - 
 
  vacancy left by Mr. Ramírez. Chile was particularly concerned about the fact that the regular work 
of the DSB, which was at the centre  of the rules -based multilateral trading system, was being 
under mined. Chile said that a threat hung over the role of the WTO. That threat would materialise 
if the DSB was not able to keep one of the main bodies of the multilateral trading system running 
in an expeditious and seamless way and give security and predicta bility to all Members. Chile was 
committed to the WTO system. Chile's President had expressed this with clarity before the 
General  Council, and had pledged Chile's assistance towards the next Ministerial Conference in 
Buenos  Aires, to provide a strong poli tical signal in favour of the system. The lack of a solution to 
this impasse went in the opposite direction to what the world needed and to the WTO's purpose of 
maintaining open international trade, without protectionism or barriers. Chile said that it was  
necessary for the DSB, under the guidance of the Chairman to take concrete actions to find a 
solution. It would also be advisable to hold high -level consultations on this matter. Chile hoped 
that this issue should be resolved at the September DSB meeting so that Members could focus 
their efforts on the preparation for the next Ministerial Conference.  
7.13.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, 
Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, said that it was regrettable that for the fourth time, the DSB was not 
able to reach a consensus to initiate a selection process. This process should have begun over four 
months ago so that, as of June  2017, the Appellate Body would have six members. Currently, 
there were only five members o n the Appellate Body.  Mexico reiterated that the dispute settlement 
system was seriously harmed by the fact that the Appellate Body did not have all of its members. 
At the present meeting, Mexico asked the Chairman to hold high -level consultations on these 
matte rs and called upon the Director -General and the Chairman of the General Council to use their 
good offices to help overcome this impasse. Mexico also requested that an informal open -ended 
meeting be held in an effort to finding a solution.  
7.14.   The representativ e of the Russian  Federation  said that her country wished to thank the 
Chairman for his ongoing efforts in resolving this situation. Russia referred to its previous 
statements made on this matter. Russia wished to join other Members in urging all parties 
involved to take all steps necessary to ensure compliance with the DSU provisions and avoid 
creating new obstacles so that all three Appellate Body vacancies could be filled as they arose. 
Russia said that it remained flexible regarding the modalities  thereo f, as long as they were 
launched without undue delay.  
7.15.   The representative of the Dominican  Republic  said that, in view of the seriousness of this 
situation, the Dominican Republic supported the statements made by Chile and Mexico.  
7.16.   The Chairman  said that Age nda item  6, the proposal by the European Union contained in 
WT/DSB/W/ 597/Rev.3, and Agenda item  7, the proposal by seven  Latin American countries 
contained in WT/DSB/W/596/Rev.3 had been considered jointly at the present meeting. He noted  
that there was no  consensus on either of the proposals submitted at the present meeting. He 
regretted that the DSB had not been able to launch a process or processes to fill the vacancies on 
the Appellate Body. He noted that the United States raised systemic concerns, whic h required the 
DSB's consideration. However, the points raised by the United States had also raised serious 
concerns on the part of many other delegations. The Chairman reiterated that, in order to give all 
Members an opportunity to discuss th ese matter s in depth , he was ready to hold an  open-ended  
informal  meeting as soon as feasible. At the same time, he invited any Members with views or 
ideas to contact him directly.  
7.17.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
8  CANADA - MECHANISM FOR DEVELO PING, DOCUMENTING AN D SHARING PRACTICES 
AND PROCEDURES IN TH E CONDUCT OF WTO DIS PUTES (JOB/DSB/1)  
A.  Statement by Canada  
8.1.  The representative of Canada , speaking under "Other Business", said that at the 20  July 2017 
DSB meeting, his country had brought the DSB's attention to fou r new practice documents that 
had been developed by Members and circulated under the Mechanism for Developing, 
Documenting, and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO disputes. Recently, 
Canada had circulated an update to the Practice Mecha nism's endorsements document, which set WT/DSB/M/400  
 
- 16 - 
 
  out which Members had endorsed each practice document. The symbol of the updated document 
was JOB/DSB/1/Add.1/Rev.1. Canada said that it was encouraged by the endorsements that had 
been highlighted in this document a nd it considered that they reflected the endorsing Members' 
commitments both to developing and sharing good practices in the conduct of WTO disputes and 
to making incremental improvements to the operation of the dispute settlement system. Canada 
suggested that Members take note of the slight revisions to the procedure set out in paragraph  3 
through which Members could make further revisions to the endorsements document. It invited 
any Members with questions about the Practices Mechanism to pose them to Cana da. 
8.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement.  
__________