RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 74 
15 February 2023 
(23-1097) Page: 1/17 
Dispute Settlement Body  
20 December 2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 20 DECEMBER 20221 
 Chairperson : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely. Subsequently, the Chair  recalled a 
few technical instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegates. She said that i f a Member 
was unable to t ake the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the delegation could 
inform the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the 
floor. In the alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the mee ting would proceed to the 
next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been 
resolved. If a technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the 
statement to the Secretariat with the req uest that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that 
delegation during the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the 
meeting; and (ii) the Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda 
of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members 
recalled, that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair's 
consultations with each interested party regarding that Agenda item. At th e present meeting, she 
wished to inform delegations that, like the previous Chair of the DSB, she continued to consult with 
each interested party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoing.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a. 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .... 4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ .............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  CHINA – MEASURES CONCERNING TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES  ..........................  6 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union  ................................ ...... 6 
3  CHINA – ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS  ................................ ... 6 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union  ................................ ...... 6 
4  UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASU RE ON IMPORTS OF LARGE 
RESIDENTIAL WASHERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 
A. Joint request by the Republic of Korea and the United States for a decision by 
the DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
5  STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN 
THE DISPUTE: "INDONESIA – MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS" 
(DS592)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA F ASO; 
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; ESWATIN I; THE 
EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA 
BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; 
ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; LIECHTENSTEIN; 
MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MA URITANIA; 
MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; 
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 BOLIVAR IAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.23)  ................................ ................................ ............................  10 
 
 
 
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 Unite d States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 34) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.209) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.172) 
 
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.56) 
 
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.48) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.43 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.43) 
 WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
1.1.  The Chairperson  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 recalled , 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of t ime and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, she invite d delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also  remind ed delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the R ules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members ' 
positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 34) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 34, 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 had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 8 December 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings w ith respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress wi th respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed on the United States 
to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copy right Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 209) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 209, 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 8 December 2022, 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 previou s 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 . WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 4 - 
 
  C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 72) 
1.10.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 172, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendation s and rulings. The E uropean Union 
continue d to propose for vote authori zations for genetically modified organisms that, in the 
European  Food Safety Authority 's (EFSA)  risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. On 
8 December 2022 the European Commission had presented to the Appeal Committee a draft decision 
renewing the authorisation of genetically modified soybean A5547 -127. The vote resulted in 
"no opinion ". It was now for the Commission to decide on the adoption of  that implementing decision. 
On 14 December 2022, the European Commission had presented to the Standing Committee a draft 
decision authorising genetically modified oilseed rape MON 94100. The vote had resulted in 
"no opinion "' and the draft measure w ould be referred to the Appeal Committee of January 2023.   
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States  continued to engage with the 
European Union on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how 
the European Uni on could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States 
had described those problems in detail and noted its concerns with the European Union's biotech 
approval procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semiannual US -EU biotech c onsultations, 
including through their most recent consultations in October 2022. The United States again 
requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that had completed 
science -based risk assessments at the European Food  Safety Authority (EFSA), including those 
products that were with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee. The United States noted 
the European Union's recent move to issue approvals on a rolling basis and welcomed that 
improvement .  
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. 56) 
1.14.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 56, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large reside ntial 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 8 December 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce publishe d 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 impl ementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this d ispute . 
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue 
in this dispute.  
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada wishe d to recall its statement made  under this 
Agenda item at th e 26 October 2022  DSB meeting.  
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 5 - 
 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 48) 
1.19.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 48, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning cer tain 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 8 December 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of th e DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and the statement made at the present meeting . However, it was very disappointing 
that more than four years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had 
still fail ed to implement any adopted rulings or recommendat ions in this dispute. China  therefore 
once again urge d the United States t o meet  its obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity 
without further delay . 
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 43 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 43) 
1.23.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 43 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 43, 
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 was subm itting this report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Indonesia was fully committed to implementing the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB in these disputes and had taken note of New Zealand and the U nited States ' 
concerns  raised  at previous DSB meet ings. Indonesia ha d completely removed Measure 18 related 
to self -sufficiency in the relevant Laws that were found to be inconsistent with WTO rules , through 
the enactment of Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation. On Measure s 1-17, Indonesia ha d also 
conducted a  series of significant and substantial amendments of the related Ministerial Regulations , 
with the removal of disputed measures  including , inter alia : harvest period restriction ; import 
realization requirement ; six-months harvest requirement ; reference price ; and domestic purchase 
requirement. Furthermore, Indonesia wished  to reaffirm that the Commodity Balance was a 
procedural mechanism to provide complete, detailed, and accurate data in a transparent manner to  
simplify the permit process. The Commodity Balance w ould be supported by an integrated national 
database system , to provide certainty of doing business , and d id not have any limiting effects on 
trade flow. Finally , Indonesia was commit ted to engaging with  New Zealand and the U nited States 
in addressing their concerns . 
1.25.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. With respect to Measures 1 -17, the 
United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently comprised 
Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect those 
regimes. The United States continued to review Indonesia's commodit y balance mechanism in an 
effort to understand better how the mechanism would simplify and streamline the permit process, 
and provide for greater business certainty. The United States looked forward to learning more from 
Indonesia on this aspect. The Unite d 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. Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and New Zealand  remain ed 
concerned about a number of measures. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 6 - 
 
  information provided, including in relation to the objective of I ndonesia 's Commodity Balance 
mechanism as well as the impact of the Constitutional Court 's ruling on the Law on Job Creation 
(No. 11/2020). New Zealand was  assessing th at information and w ould revert with any additional 
questions on th ose and other matters . Like the United States, New Zealand would also appreciate 
understanding better the regulations that presently  underpin ned Indonesia 's import licensing 
regimes, as well as any regulations that were forthcoming. New Zealand look ed forward to further 
constr uctive engagement with Indonesia on the outstanding issues.  
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  CHINA – MEASURES CONCERNING TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS610/8)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS610/8 and invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that s ince at least December 2021, China ha d 
applied discriminatory and coercive measures against exports from or to Lithuania and against 
exports of EU products containing Lithuanian content. Th ey had included  rejections of Lithuanian 
imports by Chinese customs authorities, import restrictions affecting multinational companies that 
use inputs from Lithuania,  and a cut in Chinese exports to Lithuania. China had also suddenly 
formali sed complete import bans on al cohol, beef, dairy, logs, and peat shipped from Lithuania as 
part of the same group of measures, using phytosanitary arguments for doing so. When asked for 
explanations, China had failed to prove that th ose bans were justified. Chinese customs statistics 
showed that trade from Lithuania to China dropped 80% from January to October 2022 as compared 
with the previous year. China 's measures restricting trade from Lithuania not only impact ed on 
Lithuania but also affect ed intra-EU trade and intra -EU supply chai ns and impact ed the functioning 
of the EU internal market. This was something that went to the heart of the E uropean Union . The 
consultations that had taken place on 14 and 15 March 2022 did not bring about a satisfactory 
solution.  The European Union wa s entitled to protect its member States against China's 
discriminatory measures, which the European Union consider ed to be in breach of WTO rules. To 
that end, the European Union request ed the establishment of a panel to examine  the measures.  
2.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that the E uropean Union had decided to 
request a panel to be established  in this dispute. China was  not in a position to support such a 
request. China attache d great importance to the WTO rules and its relevant commitments. China 
had administered its foreign trade with other WTO Members, including with the E uropean Union , in 
a consistent manner , which was transparent, non -discriminatory , and compatible with the WTO 
rules. China had held consultation s with the E uropean Union  in good faith and had continued to 
engage after the consultation s, with a view to exploring the possibility of resolving the dispute in an 
amicable way. China  recall ed that the E uropean Union  considered the consultation s to be 
construc tive. For these reasons,  China believe d it was premature to establish a panel in this dispute.  
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
3  CHINA – ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS611/5)  
3.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS611/5 and invited the representative of the European Union  to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that at the present meeting the European Union  
was requesting the establishment of a panel in the dispute with China on measures that unduly 
restrict ed the possibility to enforce intellectual propert y rights. Th ose measures were inconsistent 
with China 's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. They effectively deprive d patent holders of the 
possibility of exercising and enforcing their patent rights as required by the TRIPS  Agreement. The 
situation was the following: other WTO Members ha d granted patents in line with the TRIPS WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Agreement, for example on 3G, 4G , and 5G mobile communication technologies. Chinese courts ha d 
prohibited the owners of those patents from going to the courts of those WTO Members  that had 
granted the patents to enforce their rights in line with the TRIPS Agreement. The E uropean Union 
had raised the issue of China 's measures a number of times bilaterally, as well as in the WTO TRIPS 
Council and during China 's Trade Policy Review , unfortunately without solving the problem. The 
European Union had  requested consultations with China on this matter on 18 February 2022. 
Consultations had taken place on 6, 7 , and 12 April 2022. The consultations had been  useful in 
clarifying a certain numb er of points  but had failed to solve the problem. The E uropean Union  urged 
China to bring its measures into line with its WTO obligations. To th at end, the European Union 
request ed the establishment of a panel to examine  the measures.  
3.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted and was puzzled that the E uropean Union 
had decided to request the establishment of a panel in this dispute. China was  not in a position to 
support that request. China attache d great importance to the p rotection of intellectual property 
rights and ha d been maintaining a sound environment for innovation through various efforts , 
including effective intellectual property rights  protection.  Regarding  the issue in this dispute, it was 
clear that China was neither the creator nor the major user of anti -suit injunction s. Domestic courts 
of many Members, in particular the E uropean Union and its member States, ha d issued a 
considerable number of injunctions in standard essential patents -related litigations. In th at regard, 
China was strongly dissatisfied that the E uropean Union was bringing decisions of Chinese courts in 
individual cases before the WTO dispute sett lement system. Th at would not be helpful to resolv e the 
underlying disputes in a positive manner. China ha d fully engaged with the E uropean Union  in good 
faith and had elaborated its positions and perspectives during the consultation s. China  recall ed that 
the European Union had considered the consultation s to be constructive. Regret tably, the E uropean 
Union had chose n to request the establishment of  a panel rather than continuing its engagement 
with China bilaterally. Given the overall circumstance s, China believe d it was premature to establish 
a panel in this dispute. China remain ed open to further engage ment with the E uropean Union  if the 
European Union  was willing to communicate through appropriate channels.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
4  UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF LARGE RESIDENTIAL 
WASHERS  
A. Joint request by the Republic of Korea and the United States for a decision by the  
DSB (WT/DS546/11)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to the joint communication from Korea and the United States 
contained in document WT/DS546/11 and invited the representative of Korea to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea was currently working with the United States to 
effectively resolve the issues pertaining to th is dispute, and expect ed further progress to be made 
by extending the date for adoption of the Panel Report  in this dispute.  
4.3.  The representative of the United States  thanked Korea for its statement. As noted, the United 
States and Korea had jointly requested that the DSB agree to provide additional time for the adoption 
or appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute by adopting the draft decision circulated to WTO 
Members in document  WT/DS546/11. The United States considered that the draft DSB decision, if 
adopted, would facilitate the resolution of this dispute. The United States welcomed the ongoing 
engagement with Korea on the way forward in this dispute. The United States apprecia ted the DSB's 
support for the draft decision . 
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4.5.  The Chairperson  proposed that : "the DSB agree that, upon a request by Korea or the 
United  States, the DSB shall no later than 27 February  2023 adopt the Panel Report in the dispute 
United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Large Residential Washers , contained in document 
WT/DS546/R, unless: (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) either party to the dispute 
notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursua nt to Article 16.4 of the DSU ". 
4.6.  The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 8 - 
 
  5  STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE 
DISPUTE: "INDONESIA – MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS " (DS592)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  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.  
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to thank the 
Panelists  for their thorough and comprehensive examination of the evidence and arguments 
submitted by the parties in the case Indonesia – Raw Materials  (DS592). The European Union  also 
thank ed the WTO Secretariat for its hard work on this matter. The European Union  was conscious 
that the Covid -19 pandemic had imposed additional challenges in the handling of this dispute for the 
panel, the Secretariat and the parties. The European Union appreciate d the efforts to advance the 
proceedings efficiently and in a manner co nsistent with the DSU, safeguarding the rights of parties 
and third parties at all times. The European Union welcome d the Panel Report in this dispute and 
noted the Panel's clear findings that: (i) Indonesia 's export ban and domestic processing requirement  
on nickel ore were inconsistent with the prohibition o n export prohibitions and restrictions in 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT 1994; (ii) Indonesia 's measures were not covered by the exemption of 
Article  XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994 because they d id not constitute a prohibition or restriction 
temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages of products essential to Indonesia; and  
(iii) Indonesia 's measures were not justified by the exception in Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 
because they were not necessary to secure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The 
European Union also note d the Panel's clear recommendation that Indonesia bring its measures into 
conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994. The European Union took note that, on 
8 December 2022, Indonesia had notified the WTO Secretariat and the European Union of its decision 
to appeal the Panel Report . The European Union disagree d with all of Indonesia 's allegations of errors 
of law and legal interpretation in the Panel Report . To be clear, a ppeal was a right under the DSU 
provisions  and the European Union recognized Indonesia's  right to appeal what it consider ed to be 
errors of law in the Panel Report . Moreover,  Indonesia was not responsible for the absence of a 
functioning Appellate Body. In fact, Indonesia was one of the co -sponsors (that currently  account ed 
for more than three quarters of the Membership ) of the proposal to launch at last the selection 
procedures for Appellate Body members. However, the European Uni on deeply regret ted that 
Indonesia ha d not availed itself of the opportunities – offered repeatedly by the European Union – 
to have th is appeal adjudicated upon through appeal arbitration. As Members were aware , a working 
alternative to the non-functioning Appellate Body exist ed. It serve d precisely to preserve the rights 
of both parties in disputes  – particularly the right to have the dispute resolved through adjudication 
and the right to have the Panel Report reviewed on appeal. In those ci rcumstances, Indonesia 's 
decision to appeal before a non -functioning Appellate Body effectively deprive d the European Union  
of its right to have the dispute resolved through adjudication. This demonstrate d, once again, the 
grave consequences of the blockag e of Appellate Body appointments. The European Union was 
concerned that without a fully functioning dispute settlement system  it would see  the rules -based 
system eroding. As Members  observed , the temptation to use the blockage of the system to be able 
to maintain WTO -inconsistent and protectionist measures m ight sometimes be too strong to resist. 
For that reason , the European Union  reiterate d its call to intensify dispute settlement reform 
discussions, so that Members had a fully and well -functioning system  by 2024. In the meantime, 
the European Union  invite d all Members to avail themselves of the existing opportunities, such as 
the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement  (MPIA) , if they truly wish ed to exercise their 
right to appellate review.  
5.3.  The representative of Indonesia  extended Indonesia 's appreciation to the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their effort and hard work in relation to the Panel proceedings between Indonesia and 
the European Union on raw materials  (DS592 ). While noting the Panel Report on 30 November 2022 
and, subsequently, the E uropean Union 's letter , dated 12 December 2022, Indonesia w ished to 
express its views and raise important points related to the Panel 's rulings in this dispute.  Indonesia 
believe d that its policy remain ed in compliance with the WTO agreements. Throughout the Panel 
proceedings, Indonesia ha d provided the Panel with compelling facts and evidence to demonstrate 
the factual condition of the critical shortage of nickel ore in Indonesia a s well as the contribution of 
nickel ore to the national economy. Those facts formed the rationale behind the measures at issue 
and the basis to appropriately manage relevant  resources. Indonesia  also considered that the Panel 
had committed several legal e rrors throughout its findings, rulings, and recommendations, as the 
Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XI:1, XI:2(a), and XX(d) of the GATT 1994. 
For the reasons set forth above, Indonesia, on 8 December 2022, well within its legi timate rights 
under Article s 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, had appealed erroneous legal findings developed by the Panel WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 9 - 
 
  in its Report, and had requested the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel 's findings in this dispute. 
Indonesia believed  that the Appellate Bod y remain ed the appropriate forum to address this matter. 
Indonesia st ood ready to communicate with the European Union and the Secretariat regarding the 
procedures for appeal , in accordance with Article 17 of the DSU and the Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review.  
5.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to take the opportunity to  address 
systemic considerations pertaining to Indonesia 's appeal of this Panel Report. Canada note d that 
since 11 December  2019, the Appellate Body ha d effect ively been non -functioning. Article 3.10 of 
the DSU provide d that when a dispute ar ose, Members w ould engage in dispute settlement 
procedures in good faith and in an effort to resolve the dispute. The inability of the Appellate Body 
to carry out its appell ate review responsibilities ha d undermined the established process under the 
DSU for dispute settlement.  However , the obligation under  Article  3.10 to make good faith efforts to 
resolve the dispute still st ood. No Member should seek to take unfair advantag e of the present  
impasse. In the context of specific disputes, options exist ed to allow for completion of procedures 
as envisioned in the DSU. In particular, the parties to the dispute might  agree to use procedures 
such as those set out in Annex 1 of the M PIA to supplement the appeal process. Canada believe d 
that it was essential that all parties to the dispute fulfil led 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 
Membe r would benefit from a situation where disputes remain ed unresolved. A Member acting in 
good faith should find no comfort in an unfair and short -term advantage that ha d arisen because of 
the absence of a functioning Appellate Body. Canada  reiterate d its invitation to Indonesia to consider 
joining the MPIA in order to safeguard binding dispute settlement with access to appellate review in 
disputes with other MPIA participants.   
5.5.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  as the result of the  blockage of the 
Appellate Body appointments process , Members had witnessed again another example of an appeal 
into the void. The Russian Federation reiterate d its concern about the situation, in which  the number 
of appeals addressed to the Appellate Body was rising,  while the problem of Appellate Body 
appointments was not yet fixed.  The consequence of this status quo was that disputes were left 
unresolved.  The Russian Federation wishe d to highlight that such situation threaten ed the 
effectiveness of the di spute settlement mechanism and inevitably undermine d confidence in the 
WTO.  
5.6.  The representative of China  said that China did  not take a position on this specific dispute. 
However, China wished to take this opportunity to express its grave  concern with the defunct 
Appellate Body, which ha d now left 25 panel decisions including this one in limbo. It was more 
worrisome that there w ould be more to come if the situation remain ed intact. China , therefore, 
strongly urge d the early restoration of the two -tier dispu te settlement system so that Members ' 
rights and obligations could be preserved and the security and predictability of the multilateral 
trading system guaranteed. In addition, China  called upon more Members to join the MPIA as an 
interim arrangement during the dysfunction of the Appellate Body.  
5.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 10 - 
 
  6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSW ANA; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; 
CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; 
CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; 
DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; 
ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; 
GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; 
ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; 
MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; 
MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW 
ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; 
PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; 
RWANDA ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA 
LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; 
TOGO; TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; U NITED KINGDOM ; U RUGUAY ; 
THE BOLIVARIAN  REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 23) 
6.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations . She then drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 12 September  2022, to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members.  On behalf of those 12 7 Members, Mexico wished to  state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of  its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a sec ond 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree  Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office  had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term h ad expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission o f 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Me mbers should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
6.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the longstanding US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States believed that fundamental reform 
was needed to ensure a well -functio ning WTO dispute settlement system. A well -functioning dispute 
settlement system supported WTO Members in the resolution of their disputes in an efficient and 
transparent manner, and in doing so limited the needless complexity and interpretive overreach th at 
had characterized dispute settlement in recent years. The United States felt strongly that the first 
step towards reform was to better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute 
settlement. Properly followed, an approach centred on the inter ests of Members could facilitate 
greater mutual understanding without resorting to the same positions that had slowed the reform 
discussion for many years. The United States was not prejudging what that reformed system would 
look like – and had asked other  Members to likewise approach the conversation with an open mind. WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 11 - 
 
  The United States believed that this approach – working collectively towards a system that met the 
needs of all Members – provided Members with the greatest chance of achieving durable, last ing 
reform. The United States was committed to working towards an improved system and looked 
forward to engaging further with those Members that were also seeking an improved and reformed 
dispute settlement system .  
6.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustified and 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President Putin. His plans to annex Ukrainian territory were 
devoid of legitimacy and w ould never be recognized.  Those hostile acts were a flagrant violation of 
international law and the rules -based international system. Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial 
integrity had to  be respected and the Ukrainian people had to  be free to determine their own future.  
Canada urge d Russia to immediately cease all acts of hostility  and provocation against Ukraine and 
withdraw its forces . Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for three years the 
Appellate Body ha d no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. Canada 
support ed the statement made by Me xico at the present meeting  on behalf of the co-sponsors. 
Canada  invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 
127 Members requesting the launch of the selection process. The critical mass of WTO Members 
supporting th e proposal clearly reflect ed the importance that Members  all attach ed to a fully 
operational Appellate Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada w ould 
continue to actively participate in solution -oriented discussions on  the present  situation. 
Canada's  priority remain ed to find a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including the 
United States. In the meantime , Canada and 50 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the MPIA as an 
emergency measure. Th at measure s ought  to safeguard  their rights to binding dispute settlement, 
including the possibility of appeal in disputes among thems elves. The MPIA was open to all WTO 
Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute 
settlem ent rights to the maximum extent possible until they collectively f ound a lasting solution to 
the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any interested 
Member.  
6.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico  for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co -sponsors and refer red to its previous statements made under this Agenda 
item. Having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system was a top priority for Brazil as 
a means to ensure the rules -based multilateral trading system. Brazil  continue d to engage 
constructively in informal discussions taking place in Gene va, which it hoped would  contribute to th e 
positive  outcome, within the deadline set by Ministers at MC12. Finally, Brazil recall ed that, while 
the impasse with the appointment of Appellate Body members was not resolved, WTO Members 
could ensure a final an d binding resolution of their disputes by joining the MPIA. Brazil encourage d 
Members to do so, and was ready to discuss the MPIA with any delegation that wishe d to learn more 
about the MPIA and its functioning.  
6.6.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , thank ed Mexico for its 
statement regarding the proposal on Appellate Body member appointments of which the African 
Group  members  were co-sponsors. The African Group reiterate d its support for a fully functioning 
dispute settlem ent system that was accessible to all Members , in accordance with the directive from 
Ministers at MC12. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. 
The African Group 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 -tiered dispute settlement system. The critical 
mass of Members asking for the launch of the selection process indicate d the importance of having 
a fully functioning dispute settl ement system for the multilateral trading system. Finally, the African 
Group  stood ready to engage constructively in future discussions so as to address the specific 
concerns raised against the functioning of the Appellate Body , with a view to finding a solution.  
6.7.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on behalf 
of 127 co -sponsors and call ed on more Members to join th e proposal. China  referred to its previous 
statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent, impartial , 
two-tier dispute settlement system. Such  a system ha d been proven to not only facilitate prompt 
and fair resolution of disputes between Members regardless  of their size and power, but also provide d 
security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. Bearing th at in mind, China welcom ed 
the recent informal discussions on dispute settlement reform, and was open to ideas that could 
improve the present system while maintaining its core features. China  would continue working 
constructively with all Members to find solutions to break the selection impasse, and to restore a 
fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system at the earliest date , as mandated by Ministers WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 12 - 
 
  at MC12. China also encourage d more Members to join the MPIA as a contingen cy measure to 
safeguard their right to appeal until they collectively f ound a lasting solution to the Appellate Body 
impasse.   
6.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union  condemned in the 
strongest possible terms the Russian Federation's unprovoked and unjustified military aggression in 
Ukraine. That aggression grossly violated international law and undermined international security 
and stability. War crimes committed against Ukrainians and  the continuous destruction of civilian 
infrastructure were gross violations of international law. The European Union similarly condemned – 
and unequivocally rejected – the illegal attempted annexation by Russia of some regions of Ukraine. 
Russia's unilate ral decisions deliberately violated the United Nations (UN) Charter and blatantly 
disregarded the rules -based international order. The European Union called on the Russian 
Federation to end immediately its acts of aggression, to withdraw its troops from Uk raine, and to 
fully respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence within its internationally 
recogni zed borders. The European Union would stand firmly by Ukraine and its people for as long as 
it took. On the Appellate Body appointm ents proposal , the European Union  referred to its previous 
statements made on this issue and thank ed all Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to 
launch the appointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO had no longer guarantee d 
access to a bi nding, two -tier, independent , and impartial resolution of trade disputes. As reflected 
in the large number of Members co -sponsoring the present proposal, a fully functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system and for the credibility of 
the WTO as a rules -based institution. Th at was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d 
finding an agreed basis to restore such a system and proceeding to the appoint ment of the members 
of the Appellate Body. Th at task should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union  had 
consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve th at issue as soon as 
possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies , as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean 
Union  agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at objective. The European 
Union  would continue to engage constructively in finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the 
current situation regarding appointments to the Appellate Body. The E uropean Union  was 
participating in the ongoing discussion process in Geneva. The European Union  treated very seriously 
the commitment, made at MC12, on having a fully and well -functioning syst em by 2024. The 
European Union wa s keen to see reform discussions accelerating in the New Year, moving as fast as 
possible to a new phase focused on a limited set of specific issues, paving the way for text -based 
discussions that should start before Summer  2023 and reach agreement by MC13. The European 
Union would engage in any reform effort s that respect ed the core features of the dispute settlement 
system , which include d the right to appeal review before a standing adjudicative body.  
6.9.  The representative o f Norway  said that  since the DSB work directly concern ed the upholding of 
the rules -based international order, Norway found  it pertinent to address the situation in Ukraine at 
the present meeting.  Norway continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on 
its neighbour Ukraine. Russia 's war of aggression against Ukraine constitute d a gross violation of 
international law  and the rules -based system , which underpin ned the WTO  and the work of the DSB. 
Turning to Appellate Body appointments , Norway thanked Mexico for presenting th e joint proposal, 
which  Norway fully support ed. Norway  very much welcome d the ongoing informal discussions among 
Members and was participat ing constructively in th ose discussions  to address the present impasse.  
Those discussions should, however, not prevent Members  from launching the process for 
appointments to the Appellate Body. At the present meeting, Members  had unfortunately again seen 
another Panel Report being appealed into the void. Norway fully echoe d the concerns and sense of 
urgency expressed by other Members under the previous  Agenda item. Norway also wished to refer 
to its previous statements made under this Agenda item.  
6.10.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea strongly condemn ed Russia 's armed invasion of 
Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter and international law.  The use of force that 
cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any circumstances.  Ukraine 's sovereignty, 
territorial integrity , and independence should be respected. As for the item at hand, Korea thank ed 
Mexico for its statement and reiterate d its support for the join t proposal.  Korea  also refer red to its 
previous statements on this issue. The WTO dispute settlement was a central element in providing 
security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. In this regard, Korea very much 
welcome d the relevant di scussions that were currently  underway on dispute settlement reform and 
highly value d the MC12 outcome document as paving the way for ensuring a fully and 
well-functioning system by 2024. Korea st ood ready to constructively engage in relevant discussions WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 13 - 
 
  on a durable solution to enhance the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system with a view 
to accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  
6.11.  The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements regarding the 
importance and urgency of this matter. Singapore was committed to participating constructively and 
with an open mind in ongoing discussions on dispute settlement reform and urg ed all Members to 
consider how to focus and mainstream th at discussion in order to achieve the objective of having a 
fully and well -functioning system by 2024.  
6.12.  The representative of Indonesia  said that  Indonesia thank ed Mexico for presenting the joint 
proposal on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors. Indonesia wished  to reiterate the importance of resolving 
the present impasse of the Appellate Body , to restore predictability and security to the multilateral 
trading system. Indonesia urge d that, as mandated by paragraph 4 of the MC12 outcome document, 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 should be Members'  common priority for WTO 
reform , in order to maintain the relevance and credibility of the WTO. In light of th is, Indonesia was 
of the view that Members should intensify the discussion s to resolve the Appellate Body crisis. 
Indonesia st ood ready to work together with all Members and invi ted all Members to engage in a 
constructive manner to find a permanent solution and to restore a fully functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system within the mandated time -frame.  
6.13.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China join ed other Members 
under the previous Agenda item and under this Agenda item to reiterate its grave concern about the 
Appellate Body impasse. Hong Kong, China  was committed to continuing to work with all WTO 
Members to restore a fully and well -functioning dispute set tlement system as early as  possible and, 
in any case, by 2024 as mandated in the MC12 Outcome Document.   
6.14.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished  to touch upon the situation in Ukraine. 
Russia 's aggression against Ukraine clearly infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial 
integrity, constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting the use of force, and was a 
grave breach of the UN Charter. Japan strongly condemn ed Russia 's aggression against Ukraine.  
Currently , much of Ukraine 's energy infrastructure was being  destroyed by Russia 's attacks, causing 
massive blackouts across the country. Th ose attacks were unacceptable. Japan strongly urge d 
Russia,  once again , to stop its aggression and withdraw its forces from the te rritory of Ukraine,  
within its internationally recognized borders , immediately. Japan w ould also continue to work firmly 
on the two pillars of imposing strong sanctions against Russia and supporting Ukraine, in cooperation 
with the international community.  With regard  to Agenda item 6 , Japan wished to refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings and support ed the joint AB proposal. Every WTO 
Member, as the owner of the system, had to take seriously the current  situation of the Appellate 
Body. Japan absolutely share d a sense of urgency for reform of the dispute settlement system and 
had set as its utmost priority to achieve a reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to 
the structural and functiona l problems of the dispute settlement system. Members should discuss 
the reform, including on how to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan spare d 
no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members in the discussions to that end. In relation  to that, 
Japan welcome d the informal reform discussions presently  led by Members and wishe d that they 
would  be developed into a formal process in the coming year.  
6.15.  The representative of Peru said that Peru wished to thank Mexico for its statement made on 
behalf of the c o-sponsors and reiterate d its position that in order to protect security  and the 
predictability of the multilateral trading system, it was important to ensure that the DSB was fully 
functioning. The high priority that Peru attached  to that issue was shared by many Members , as 
seen during the discussions  in the General Council. Peru value d the efforts that Members were 
making in other settings , which ha d allowed to make  signifi cant progress to be made . As such , there 
was greater  clarity of  Members ' concerns.  Peru hoped that th at exercise w ould allow Members  to 
institutionalize the system with concrete proposals. However, Peru consider ed that the exercise d id 
not justify Members'  failure to re -establish the Appellate Body . Until th at delicate situation was 
resolved, Peru recognize d and support ed the MPIA as a provisional mechanism. Members  had just 
added another case to the long list of appeals and unfortunately th at would continue to be the case 
until they could  reinvigorate the Appellate Body . Peru reiterate d its commitment to work 
constructively with all Members  in order  to meet the MC12 mandate to have a fully functioning  
dispute settlement  system by 2024  so as to safeg uard the credibility and relevance of the WTO . WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 14 - 
 
  6.16.  The representative of Australia  said that  Australia join ed others in continuing to condemn in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. As Australia 
had stated before, it continue d to raise this issue in this forum because Russia 's actions were a 
violation of international law, and the fundamental international norms on which organisations such 
as the WTO were based. Australia  continue d to stand in solidarity with the  people of Ukraine and 
called on Russia to withdraw its troops. With regard  to Agenda item 6, this last DSB meeting of 2022 
present ed a perfect  opportunity to affirm Members'  priorities heading into 2023, setting the tone for 
what will be a pivotal year for the dispute settlement system.  Australia  would  continue to reiterate 
that there was no greater WTO reform priority than achieving a fully and well -functioning dispute 
settlement system by 2024, in line with the mandate agreed by Ministers at MC12.  There were real 
costs, both commercial and systemic, due to the  present  impasse. It was vital that in 2023 Members  
harness ed the momentum and goodwill generated in 2022  to ensure that they  remain ed on track to 
deliver th at mandate. Australia  encourage d all Members to approach dispute settlement reform in 
2023 with renewed commitment and resolve. Australia  looked forward to engaging constructively 
and working with all  Members  to deliver on th at important objective.  
6.17.  The representative of New Zealand  said tha t New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were egregious and unlawful  – the act of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law, as was the targeting of civilians. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory 
had implications for global peace, security, and economic stability , deeply undermining the work of 
the DSB  and the multilateral cooperation that underpin ned it. Furthermore, New Ze aland  stood firmly 
against any steps by Russia that risk ed a further escalation in th at conflict. In relation to Agenda 
item 6, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the proposal co -sponsored alongside 126 other WTO 
Members and refer red to its previous st atements  on this matter. Restoring and strengthening the 
dispute settlement system remain ed a priority for New Zealand. New Zealand  welcome d the 
Ministerial Declaration achieved at MC12 committing Members to discussions to have in place a fully 
and well -functioning system accessible to all Members by 2024. New Zealand  urged all Members to 
engage in discussions constructively and pragmatically in order to address this situation as a priority , 
in line with the direction of their Ministers.  
6.18.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation unfortunately 
had to address certain political declarations made by some WTO Members at the present meeting, 
with respect to which it stressed the following. First, Members should keep to the Agend a of the 
meeting, circulated on 16 December 2022 in document WT/DSB/W/711 and adopted at the present 
meeting. The political discussions suggested by some WTO Members did not concern any of the 
issues listed on the Agenda. Second, the DSB had its own tasks and mandate expressed in different 
provisions of the DSU. None of the political issues raised by some WTO Members was within the 
competence of the DSB. Third, and ultimately, the WTO was not a political organization and Members 
should refrain from trying t o address issues in the WTO that were not in the competence of the 
Organization. Russia considered that some of the root causes of the crisis in the multilateral trading 
system that Members were facing were the actions that blocked the Appellate Body appoi ntments 
as well as the attempts to politicize the WTO that Members had heard at the present meeting. Russia 
encouraged WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and not creating 
new ones, unless any WTO Member had an intention to cont inue to destroy the multilateral trading 
system further. With regard to the issue of the Appellate Body appointments, the Russian Federation 
wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and thanked Mexico and the co -
sponsors for their con tinuous and faithful commitment towards the appointment processes of the 
Appellate Body members. Russia reiterated its strong support for launching the appointment 
processes immediately. In that vein, considering the WTO Members' commitment expressed in 
paragraph 4 of the MC12 outcome document, as of 17 June 2022, Russia called upon all Members 
to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully functioning dispute settlement system 
as soon as possible. Such discussions should be transparent, inclu sive, and had to address the 
interests of all Members .  
6.19.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and wished to refer to its previous 
statements made on this issue. Members  had to  deliver on their s hared ambition to achieve a fully 
and well -functioning system as soon as possi ble, and by 2024. The United Kingdom  encourage d 
Members to progress ongoing discussions on reform with focus, urgency , and pragmatism. Th at 
process had to be about reaching consensus on the reforms necessary  to achieve a fully and well -
functioning system t hat could  command the support of all Members. The United Kingdom w ould WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 15 - 
 
  continue to approach this with an open mind and prioritise th at work. As Members  discuss ed these 
issues concerning how  to ensure that rules are respected, the United Kingdom  could not sit by and 
ignore the egregious violations of international law and the UN Charter committed by one WTO 
Member against another.  The United Kingdom unreservedly condemn ed President  Putin's outrageous 
and illegal war of aggression.  What happen ed in Ukraine matter ed to the work of the WTO  and 
matter ed to all Members . Russia's actions were leaving Ukrainian citizens without food, light, energy , 
and water.  Its actions w ould have a prolonged negative impact on the global economy, would have 
global co nsequences (including on world trade ), and  would  jeopardise prospects for peace. The 
United Kingdom  and the international community ha d made it clear to President Putin that his attack 
on the Ukrainian people had to  stop, and that he had to  withdraw from U kraine and restore regional 
and global stability.  
6.20.  The representative of Iceland  said that a  fully functional dispute settlement system was 
directly connected to the upholding of the rules -based international order, which ha d been seriously 
undermined by the unprovoked attack by the Russian Federation on Ukraine. Russia's  action s 
violate d international law , the UN Charter and undermine d the international order and norms . With 
regard to Agenda item 6, Iceland,  as one of the man y co-sponsors of the proposal, was concerned 
over the long -standing lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body. Iceland view ed 
a two -step, independent , and impartial WTO dispute settlement system as a key feature providing 
predictabili ty and securing a fair playing field for all participants of the multilateral trading system. 
Iceland  welcome d the MC12 commitment to purs ue reform with the aim of having a fully functional 
dispute settlement system in place by 2024 , as well as the ongoing  discussion s taking place in 
Geneva. Iceland  encourage d all Members to engage constructively to solve th e impasse without 
further delay.  
6.21.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia continue d to support the proposal to launch 
the selection process of the Appellate Body members. Malaysia  thank ed Mexico for presenting th e 
proposal on behalf of the 127 co -sponsors and support ed the statement made by Mexico. Malaysia 
wished to refer to its stateme nts made  at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . Malaysia 
reiterate d its strong view that the dispute settlement system, including the Appellate Body, was the 
most critical matter that require d the urgent attention of all Members . Malaysia st ood ready to 
support the work to restore a functioning dispute settlement system and to proceed with the 
appointment of Appellate Body members.  
6.22.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand thank ed Mexico for the statement made on 
behalf of the co -sponsors , which Thailand  fully support ed. Having a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system was essential to preserving the rights and obligations of Members under the WTO 
Agreements, including the right to have a panel report review ed on appeal. Thailand wished to refer 
to its previous statements made under  this Agenda item and called on Members to intensify their 
good faith  reform efforts in order to fulfil the mandate given by Ministers at MC12  in a prompt and 
pragmatic manner.  
6.23.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine continue d to share the collective  support of 
the joint proposal for the Appellate Body appointments, and would  make  every further effort to be 
engaged in the process of discussions on the reform of the dispute settlement mechanism, which 
was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. The present meeting  marked  the 300th day 
of Russia's  full-scale war again st Ukraine, which had  affected its entire territory, caused numerous 
human casualties and heavy damage to Ukraine 's infrastructure and economy. Russia 's unlawful 
invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory ha d the most significant implications for global pea ce, 
security, economic stability , and trade – deeply undermining the work of the DSB  and the multilateral 
cooperation that underpin ned it. Ukraine  drew Members' attention to the  unprecedented situation in 
which  one WTO Member through its brutal and unprovo ked act of aggression reduce d the benefits 
of another WTO Member as a part of the multilateral trading system. Ukraine  express ed its deep 
gratitude to the WTO Members who stood with Ukraine in these terrifying times, for their  collective  
support.  
6.24.  The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa wished to be associate d with the 
statement made  by Mexico on the joint proposal fo r Appellate Body appointments and thank ed 
Mexico for its statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors. South Africa  also support ed the 
statement made  by Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group. South Africa  reiterate d its previous 
statements regarding the u rgency of this matter. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals remain ed a concern. Members ha d a shared responsibility to safeguard and preserve WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 16 - 
 
  the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system and the multilateral trading system. It was the 
duty of Members to proceed without further delay with the launching of the selection process for the 
Appellate Body members. South Africa  therefore urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under 
the DSU, which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose and to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement 
system. Th at would  ensure predictability within the multilateral trading system. A fully functioning 
Appellate Body was the top priority for reform of the WTO and South Africa  welcome d the 
commitment by M embers undertaken during MC12 for a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement 
system accessible to all Members by 2024. Th at commitment was reiterated during the recent 
informal discussions on WTO reform. South Africa w ould work with all Members to find a lasting 
solution that would ensure an effective dispute settlement system.  
6.25.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switz erland remain ed committed to ensuring 
respect for international law, in particular international  humanitarian  law, and call ed on all actors to 
respect both. Switzerland continue d to condemn Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in the 
strongest term s. Th at act of aggression blatantly violate d international law, most notably the 
prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland 
called upon Russia to take military de -escalation measures, end hostiliti es, and immediately 
withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. Regarding Appellate Body appointments, Switzerland 
wished  to refer to the statements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully operational 
dispute settlement system was in everyo ne's interest. Switzerland w ould continue to engage 
constructively in the ongoing discussions, and urge d all Members to commit to ensuring a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, as set out in the MC12 Outcome Document.  
6.26.  The representative o f Colombia  said that Colombia thank ed Mexico for placing this item on 
the Agenda of the present meeting. Colombia was very concerned by the blocking of Appellate  Body 
appointments as well as the non -functioning of the A ppellate Body.  Like other Members, Colombia  
also call ed on  those who ha d not done so to join the MPIA , which was currently hearing its first case , 
between the European Union  and Colombia. Beyond the  substance, the MPIA ha d also shown that it 
could appropriately function and that it c ould effectively resolve disputes and could potentially lead 
Members  out of the impasse. Finally, and as Colombia had  stated the previous day  in the General 
Council, Colombia support ed the E uropean Union's proposal to move forward in 2024 towards a 
more concrete discussion on improving the dispute settlement mechanism  with text -based 
proposals , which w ould allow Members  to have decisions ready for MC13.  
6.27.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States and other Members had 
jointly issued document WT/GC/244, " The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation 
against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus ", which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time and paid 
tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian pe ople, their armed forces, and Leaders . 
6.28.  The representative of Guatemala  said that Guatemala also support ed the rules -based 
international order, the launching of the selection process of Appellate Body members , and looked 
forward to continue working construc tively with all Members with a view to fully restoring the 
functioning of the dispute settlement system. 
6.29.  The representative of Panama  said that Panama thank ed Mexico for placing  this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting. Panama was one of co-spons ors of the joint proposal.  
6.30.  The representative of Honduras  said that Honduras w ished to thank Mexico for placing t his 
item on the  Agenda of the present meeting,  which ha d been co -sponsored by Honduras since the 
outset.  Much time ha d passed since then a nd Honduras  hoped that the efforts that Members had 
made w ould bring them to a good conclusion  before 2024.  
6.31.  The representative of Moldova  said that Moldova  wished  to thank Mexico for its continuous 
leadership on this initiative and many others across the W TO, and was confident that Mexico's efforts 
and hard work, especially with regard to dispute settlement , would show results in the near future, 
and hopefully prior to  the 2024 deadline. Regarding the appointment of Appellate Body members,  
Moldova wished to refer to its statements made  on this matter at previous DSB meetings. 
Unfortunately, the situation was becoming alarming and appealing into the void was dangerous for 
the WTO. Moldova wished  to encourage Members to resist the temptation of appeal ing into the void WT/DSB/M/47 4 
 
- 17 - 
 
  and to maintain  fair play before Members unblock the current situation. In addition , Moldova wished 
to reiterate its strong support for Ukraine,  whose people continue d to courageously fight against 
Russia's illegal and unprovoked war. Moldova called on Russia to stop th at war and destruction and 
withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory immediately and unconditionally.  
6.32.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 7 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the sixty-first occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
the WTO . The fact that a Member  may have concerns about certain aspects of the functioning of the 
Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of the DSB  and dispute 
settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current  blocking of  the selection 
processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to ope rate fully and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to act 
at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its functions 
against the  best interest s of all Members.  
6.33.  The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. The Chair  said that , as in the 
past, the DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould 
be reflected in the minutes of the present meeting. Once again, the Chair said that she wish ed to 
take the opportunity to recall Members' commitment at MC12 to conduct discussions with the view 
to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by  2024. 
It was her  understanding that informal discussions on this matter, at the expert level, were currently  
ongoing. She also recall ed that on 10  November 2022, an informal meeting on WTO reform had 
taken place, which covered dispute settlement  reform as  well. The Chair  hoped that, going forward, 
Members would  be able to find a solution to this matter. The Chair  propose d that the DSB take note 
of the statements made under this Agenda item.  
6.34.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________