RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 65 
28 July 2022 
(22-5701) Page: 1/14 
Dispute Settlement Body  
31 May 2022  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 31 MAY 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 . First, the Chair  wished to recall a 
few technical instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegations . If a Member was unable 
to take 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. 
Hopefully, any technical issue would q uickly be resolved. In the alternative, the item would remain 
open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert 
to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a technical issue remained 
unresolv ed, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with the request 
that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the 
statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting;  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 would recall, that matter had been removed from the 
proposed Agenda to allow time  for the Chair 's consultations with each interested party regarding 
that Agenda item. At the 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 those 
consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda.  
 
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  ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States  ................................ .........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status repor t by the United States  ................................ ..............  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indo nesia ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 2 - 
  2 COSTA RICA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF FRESH 
AVOCADOS FROM MEXICO  ................................ ................................ ...............................  6 
A. Report of the Panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 
3 EUROPEAN UNION – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS  ...............  7 
A. Report of the Panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
4 PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 
NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
5 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; 
BOTSWANA; 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; 
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; M ALI; 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; 
SENEGAL; SE YCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; 
TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TÜRKIYE ; UGANDA; UKRAINE; 
UNITED  KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VI ET NAM; 
ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.21)  ................................ ......................  9 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measur es on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 27) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.202) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.165) 
 
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.49) 
 
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.41) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.36 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.36) 
 
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 required that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or r ulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, the Chair invited deleg ations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts. She 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 meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' 
positions already on record."  WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 3 - 
  A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products fr om 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 27) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 27, 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 19 May 2022, in accordance  with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendatio ns of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for  the most recent  
status report and the statement  made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 202) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 202, which contained  the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 19 May 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  
wished to refer to its previous statements  and repeated that it wished  to resolve this case as soon 
as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by th e European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 65) 
1.10.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 165, 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 
European Union's  approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The 
European Union  continue d to propose for vote authori sations for genetically modified organisms that, 
in the European F ood Safety Authority 's (EFSA) risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. To 
update the WTO Members  concerning the progress of the applications throughout the authorisation 
process, the European Union  noted the following. First, the European Commission  had authorised 
on 19 May 2022 two genetically modified crops (one soybean, and one maize)2 and renewed the 
authorisation for one genetically modified cotton crop for food and animal feed uses. All of these 
GMOs ha d gone through a comprehensive and string ent authorisation procedure, including a 
favourable scientific assessment by the EFSA . Secondly, on 16 May 2022, the European Commission 
 
2 GM soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788  and GM maize NK603 × T25 × DAS -40278 -9. WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 4 - 
  presented to the Standing Committee a draft decision authorising genetically modified maize DP4114 
× MON 810 × MIR604 ×  NK603. The vote resulted in 'no opinion ' and the draft measure was referred 
to the Appeal Committee of 9 June 2022 . 
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 in good faith on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several 
occasions as to how th e European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. 
The United States had described these problems in detail, continued to be concerned with the 
European Union's biotech approval procedures, and had noted its concerns monthly in the  DSB and 
during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultations. 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, i ncluding those products that were with the 
Standing Committee and Appeals Committee .  
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 49) 
1.14.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 49, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 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 19 May 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6  May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocati on 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 this action, the United States had 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute . 
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt 
and appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue 
in this dispute.   
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada wishe d to refer to its statement made  under 
this Agenda item at the 27 April 2022  DSB meeting.  
1.18.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 41) 
1.19.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 41, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceed ings 
involving China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 19 May 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained in 
that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB . WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 5 - 
  1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and its statement made at the present meeting . It was disappointing that m ore than 
three years after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States had still fail ed to 
implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States 
to honour its obligation by bringing its measures into conformity as soon as possible.  
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 produ cts, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 36 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 36) 
1.23.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 36 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 36, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the imp lementation 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 submitting its status  report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia w ished to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes. On measure 18, as reported in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found inconsistent 
with WTO rules through  the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With respect to 
measure s 1–17, Indonesia w ished to reassure that significant adjustments, in complying with the 
recommendations and r ulings of the DSB, ha d been carried out through the amendments of the 
relevant Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade  Regulations. Those adjustments include d the 
removal of disputed measures, inter alia : harvest period restriction, import realizatio n requirements, 
six–months harvest requirement, and reference price. Indonesia was commit ted to engaging with 
New Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  
1.25.  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 a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand  wished to refer to questions posed at previous meetings of the DSB, 
and invite d Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible. This include d information related 
to the impact of recently issued import regulations on the implementation of Indonesia 's new 
Commodity Balance mechanism, as well as the impact of the Constitution al Court 's ruling on the 
Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020). New Zealand look ed forward to receiving further details from 
Indonesia as soon as possible.  
1.26.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's  new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
As stated at the previous DSB meeting, the United States understood that Indonesia's Constitutional 
Court had ordered the government to revise the Omnibus Law on Job Cr eation (No. 11/2020). 
The United  States would appreciate further confirmation of how that ruling affected Indonesia's 
implementation of the DSB recommendation concerning measure 18. With respect to 
measures  1-17, the United States would still appreciate fu rther clarity on which regulations presently 
comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect 
the regimes. In particular, the United States understood that Indonesia had issued Presidential 
Regulation No.  32/2022 on Commodity Balances. The United States would welcome an explanation 
of how this regulation affected Indonesia's import licensing regimes, as applied to beef and to 
horticultural products. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve 
this dispute . 
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 6 - 
  2  COSTA RICA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF FRESH AVOCADOS FROM 
MEXICO  
A. Report of the Panel (WT/DS524/R and WT/DS5 24/R/ADD.1)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that at its meeting on 18 December 2018, the DSB had established a 
Panel to examine the complaint by Mexico pertaining to this dispute. She also wished to recall that 
the Report of the Panel contained in document WT/DS5 24/R and Add.1 had been circulated on 
13 April 2022 as  an unrestricted document. She said that the Panel Report was now before the DSB  
for adoption at the request of Mexico. This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right of 
Members to express their views on the Panel Report.  
2.2.  The representative of Mexico  said that Mexico thank ed the Panel, the technical experts and the 
WTO Sec retariat for their hard work during the dispute settlement proceedings that had been  
initiated by Mexico against Costa Rica,  following the introduction of phytosanitary measures 
restricting Mexican exports of fresh avocados for consumption. Mexico  recogniz ed the flexibility 
shown by all those concerned, and the Panel's efforts to ensure that the proceedings were conducted 
efficiently , in accordance with the DSU  provisions , without prejudice to the rights of the parties or 
third parties, taking into consider ation the challenges arising from the COVID -19 pandemic. Mexico  
also thank ed the third parties in this dispute for their interest and participation, and the DSB for 
allowing Mexico  to present its views at the present meeting . Mexico recognize d, and confirm ed, the 
sovereign right of all WTO Members to adopt sanitary and phytosanitary measures to protect human, 
animal or plant life or health, provided that such measures were consistent with the WTO obligations 
established for th at purpose. Mexico welcome d the outcome of the Panel Report, as it made an 
appropriate analysis of the measures adopted by Costa Rica and determined that th ose measures 
were not consistent with provisions of the SPS Agreement, in particular, because: (i) they were not 
based on a risk as sessment appropriate to the circumstances; and (ii) they constitute d disguised 
restrictions on trade. Mexico had  closely followed up on Costa Rica's recent actions since the report 
had been  circulated to the Membership. Mexico welcome d Costa Rica's decisio n to publish, on 
18 May 2022, Resolution DSFE 004 2022 establishing phytosanitary requirements for the 
importation of fresh avocados for consumption (Persea americana Mill) from Mexico and other 
countries and repealing Resolutions DSFE 003 2018 and DSFE 00 2 2018 of 29 January 2018. Mexico 
acknowledge d and appreciate d Costa Rica's efforts in this regard, which s ought  to ensure compliance 
with the recommendations and rulings of the Panel Report and fulfil led its commitment to the 
multilateral system.  
2.3.  Mexico also wished to  take this opportunity to highlight the Panel's analysis and interpretations 
in respect of the following . First, with regard to the analysis of the risk assessment , the Panel had 
focused on determining whether the risk assessment was supported by coherent reasoning and 
sufficient scientific evidence and was, therefore, objectively justifiable. Mexico had been  emphatic 
in this regard . Consequently, Article 5.1 require d consideration of: (i) whether there was a risk 
assessment, as appr opriate to the circumstances, taking into account risk assessment techniques 
developed by relevant international organizations; and (ii) if there was a risk assessment, whether 
the measure at issue was based thereon. While it was true that Members ha d a certain degree of 
flexibility to ensure that measures were based on a risk assessment appropriate to the 
circumstances, this flexibility d id not exempt Members from complying with the requirements of 
Article  5.1. The Panel had agreed with Mexico regarding th e phrase "appropriate to the 
circumstances" and also considered that it was necessary to know whether the factors listed in 
Article  5.2, such as available scientific evidence and the prevalence of specific diseases or pests, 
were taken into account when co nducting the risk assessment, and whether the economic factors in 
Article 5.3 were taken into account with a view to achieving the appropriate level of protection from 
such risk.  Second, regarding claims of discrimination , the Panel noted that Article 5.5 did not prohibit 
countries from imposing the same appropriate level of protection (ALOP) for different risks, since it 
was the prerogative of the importing Member to establish its ALOP. Depending on the level of risk 
that each situation involve d, measures to address the respective risks for the purpose of achieving 
the ALOP m ight differ. Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Article 5.5, the following 
elements had to be present: (i) the Member imposing the measure ha d adopted its own appropriate 
levels of protection in several different situations; (ii) those levels of protection exhibit ed arbitrary 
or unjustifiable distinctions in the treatment of different situations; and (iii) the arbitrary or 
unjustifiable distinctions result ed in discriminatio n or a disguised restriction on international trade. 
In this regard, if the distinction in levels of protection between the two situations c ould not be 
considered scientifically justified, such distinctions would be considered arbitrary or unjustifiable in  WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 7 - 
  the treatment of th ose two different but comparable situations. With regard to Article  2.3, the 
obligation in the first sentence consist ed of the following elements: (i) the measure discriminate d 
between the territories of different Members, or between th e territory of the Member imposing the 
measure and that of another Member; (ii) the discrimination was arbitrary or unjustifiable; and 
(iii) identical or similar conditions prevail ed in the territory of the Members compared. Lastly, the 
Panel had recognize d that there was a "close link" between Articles 2.3 and 5.5. In sum, Mexico 
welcome d the Panel's recommendations to the DSB that Costa Rica bring its measures into 
conformity with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. Mexico's  authorities were in the p rocess 
of analysing the measures adopted by Costa Rica to verify that it had  compl ied with the DSB's 
recommendations in accordance with the WTO Agreements and allow ed for the effective resolution 
of this dispute.  
2.4.  The representative of Costa Rica  said that Costa Rica wished  to thank Mexico for including this 
item on t he Agenda of the present meeting. Likewise, Costa Rica thank ed the Panel in this dispute 
for its valuabl e work, the Secretariat team assisting it , and the Members who participated as third 
parties for their contributions. For Costa Rica, a country with a small economy that was highly 
integrated in international trade, the WTO dispute settlement system was essential to ensuring legal 
certainty and certainty and predictability in trade relations. Costa Rica also attache d the utmost 
importance to compliance with the obligations and commitments under the WTO Agreements.  
Costa  Rica was respectful of th e dispute se ttlement system  and underst ood that prompt compliance 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB was  essential. In this regard, and in accordance 
with Article 21.3 of the DSU, Costa Rica wished to inform  the DSB that it had immediately complied 
with t he recommendations of the Panel Report . To th at end, Costa Rica had decided to issue State 
Phytosanitary Service Resolution No. DSFE -004-2022 establishing phytosanitary requirements for 
the importation of fresh avocado (Persea americana Mill) fruit for con sumption. This Resolution was 
notified to the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on 20 May  2022 in document 
G/SPS/N/CRI/247. This Resolution lift ed the Avocado sunblotch viroid (ASBVd) measures at issue in 
this dispute, thereby facilitating t he importation of avocados from Mexico. Cost Rica had been 
informed that a shipment of avocados from Mexico was due to arrive in Costa Rica, following the 
issuance of th at Resolution. To conclude, Costa Rica wished  to emphasize that the WTO dispute 
settlem ent mechanism had bee n crucial for Members to resolve their trade differences, ensuring 
legal certainty and certainty in trade relations. Costa Rica wished  to take this opportunity to 
underline  the importance of restoring the full functions of this mechani sm, as a priority for all 
WTO Members, without exception, so that it continue d to play this crucial role.  
2.5.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States welcomed the agreement 
of the parties on a way forward in this dispute through adoption of the Panel Report. The aim of 
dispute settlement under the DSU was to facilitate the prompt settlement of a dispute between 
Members. Adop tion of the Panel Report at the present meeting showed that WTO dispute settlement 
had provided support to Mexico and Costa Rica as they sought a resolution of their dispute .  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that t his was the first of two dis putes on  the 
Agenda of the present meeting that ha d benefited from arrangements whereby the parties had 
agreed not to appeal before the non -functioning Appellate Body – which would have made the 
adoption of Panel Reports at the present meeting impossible – while at the same time preserving 
their right to an independent appeal review in the WTO through appeal arbitration pursuant to 
Article  25 of the DSU. The European Union considered  the right to appellate review as essential  but 
this, of course , did not me an that it had to be exercised in each and every dispute.  
2.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in WT/DS524/R 
and Add.1.  
3  EUROPEAN UNION – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS  
A. Report of the Panel (WT/DS595/R a nd WT/DS595/R/ADD.1)  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that at its meeting on 28  August 2020, the DSB had established a 
Panel to examine the complaint by Türkiye  pertaining to this dispute. She also wished to recall that 
the Report of the Panel contained in document WT/DS595/R and Add.1 had been circulated on 
29 April 2022 as an unrestricted document. She said that the Panel Report was now before the DSB WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 8 - 
  for adopt ion at the request of Türkiye . This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right of 
Members to express their views on the Panel Report.   
3.2.  The representative of Türkiye  said that Türkiye  wished to thank the Panel and the 
WTO Secretariat staff for th eir work on this dispute. Türkiye  welcome d the Panel 's conclusion that 
the EU steel safeguard measures were inconsistent with the GATT 1994 and with the Agreement on 
Safeguards. The Panel Report ha d substantially upheld Türkiye 's claims. It ha d confirmed t hat, in 
imposing the safeguard measures on certain steel products, the European Union had acted 
inconsistently with the GATT and the Agreement on Safeguards. In its Final Report, the Panel had 
correctly found that the European Union violated its obligation s under Article XIX:1(a) of the 
GATT  1994, as the European Commission did not establish a logical connection between the 
unforeseen developments and the increase in imports  because the European Commission 's 
determinations lacked the required explanation an d evidence in support of its determinations. The 
Panel had also concluded that the European Union failed to identify the obligations the effect of 
which resulted in the increase in imports. Furthermore, the Panel had correctly concluded that the 
European C ommission's threat of serious injury determination was inconsistent with Article  4.1 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards. In particular, the Panel had concluded that the European 
Commission 's findings that the domestic industry was in a fragile and vulnerable p osition and that a 
further increase in imports volume in the future would bring about serious injury lacked any factual 
basis. This was found to be so, in particular, because the European Commission failed to take into 
account the impact on the situation o f the Union industry of the anti -dumping and countervailing 
measures in place on imports covered by the EU steel safeguard measures. Although Türkiye  was 
disappointed by the Panel 's extensive exercise of judicial economy and a lack of detailed and 
sometime s appropriate legal analysis in some parts of its Report, Türkiye  welcome d the Panel 's 
findings that the safeguard measures applied by the European Union on steel products f ell short of 
essential substantive requirements laid down in the GATT 1994 and in t he Agreement on Safeguards. 
In particular, the Panel 's findings that the European Commission 's threat of serious injury 
determination and establishment of a logical connection between the unforeseen developments and 
the increased imports were fundamentally  deficient indicate d a serious failure by the European Union 
when imposing the provisional and definitive safeguard measures. Türkiye  expect ed that the 
European Union w ould promptly and fully implement the Panel 's findings. Given that those findings 
fundamentally affect ed the legality of the EU safeguard measures, any review by the European Union 
should lead to a substantial amendment or even the withdrawal of the safeguard measures at issue.  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said tha t the European Union  thank ed the Panel for 
the Report, as well as the Secretariat for its support. This Panel had made an important contribution 
to the resolution of this trade dispute between Türkiye  and the E uropean Union . Its Report was also 
an importan t contribution beyond the dispute between Türkiye  and the E uropean Union, and it 
therefore deserve d the Membership 's attention. The E uropean Union  was overall satisfied with the 
Panel's Report because, in the E uropean Union's view, the most important quest ions were resolved 
in the E uropean Union 's favour , namely,  that the Panel had confirmed the European Union's approach 
and the legality of the EU safeguard measure. The Panel Report  had clarifie d WTO rules on 
safeguards and had confirm ed the actual availability of the safeguards instrument to protect a 
domestic industry when it was seriously injured or threatened with serious injury caused by 
increased imports. By not appealing, both parties indicated that they consider ed the Panel Report a 
sufficiently good outcome and that it was not worthwhile to appeal. Indeed, appellate review had 
been made possible in this dispute through an ad hoc  agreement between Türkiye  and the E uropean 
Union on appeal arbitration pursuant to Article 25 of the DS U. This not only guaranteed an effective 
right to appellate review, which the E uropean Union  consider ed essential. It also guaranteed a 
binding dispute settlement system that c ould not be jeopardised by appealing under Article 17 of 
the DSU to the non -functioning Appellate Body. Finally, the European Union wished  to thank the 
Panel, the WTO Secretariat, and also Türkiye  and the third parties for navigating this dispute 
settlement procedure successfully through the pandemic. All this show ed how dispute settl ement 
could function successfully, as it should.  
3.4.  The representative of the United States  said that as under the previous Agenda item, the United  
States welcomed the agreement of the parties on a way forward in this dispute through adoption of 
the Panel Rep ort. The aim of dispute settlement under the DSU was to facilitate the prompt 
settlement of a dispute between Members. Adoption of this Panel Report at the present meeting 
similarly showed that WTO dispute settlement provided support to Türkiye  and the Eur opean  Union 
as they sought a resolution of their dispute . WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 9 - 
  3.5.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea welcome d the parties ' decision to adopt  the 
Panel Report and thank ed both parties for the ir efforts during the Panel proceedings.  However, Korea 
urged the European Union to take prompt and appropriate steps to implement the Panel Report and 
to reconsider its safeguard measures on steel products.  
3.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in WT/DS595/R 
and Add.1.  
4  PROPOSED NOMINATION FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND NON -
GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS (WT/DSB/W/69 8)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/698 which contained a new 
nomination proposed by Kazakhstan for inclusion on the Indicative List of Govern mental and 
Non-Governmental Panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU. She proposed that the DSB 
approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/698.  
4.2.  The DSB so agreed . 
5  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; 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 ; 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; E CUADOR ; E GYPT ; E L SALVADOR ; E SWATINI ; 
THE EUROPEAN  UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA 
BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; 
KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBL IC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; 
MALAWI ; M ALAYSIA ; M ALDIVES ; M ALI; M AURITANIA ; M AURITIUS ; M EXICO ; 
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 ; 
SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; 
TANZANIA ; T HAILAND ; T OGO; T UNISIA ; TÜRKI YE; U GANDA ; U KRAINE ; 
UNITED  KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; VIET NAM ; 
ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 21) 
5.1.  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 drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
5.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 21, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 17 February  2022 to launch the selection  processes for the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body . On behalf of those 12 3 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 B ody 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 sys tem. 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 p rocess to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy resulted from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van d en 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 expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term h ad expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace 
Mr Thomas  Graham whose second term had 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 WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 10 - 
  the submission of candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The pro ponents 
were flexible in the determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should 
consider the urgency of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this 
proposal in the interest of the dispute settleme nt and multilateral trading systems . 
5.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the long -standing 
US concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the 
United  States did not support the proposed decision. The United States supported WTO dispute 
settlement reform and was working to achieve durable, lasting reform. The first step towards reform 
was to better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. A true reform 
discussion should aim to ensure that WTO dispute settlement reflects the real interests of Members, 
and not prejudge what a reformed system would look like. The United States was prepared for 
continued and deepened engagement with Members on this important i ssue.  
5.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal on 
behalf of its many co-sponsors  and wished to refer to its previous statements  made under this 
Agenda item . Like other Members, Brazil was prepared to engage with an open mind, in good faith 
in discussions about a reform of the WTO dispute settlement system. This , however , should not be 
a reason to impede the functioning of the system as it presently stood . This proposal show ed that 
the vast majority of WTO Mem bers, including Brazil, was prepared to immediately restore the 
functioning of the system , as set out in the DSU. Brazil hope d that Members f ound a solution  to this 
impasse as a matter of urgency.   
5.5.  The representative o f Canada  said that  Canada strongly condemn ed the unjustified and 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine ordered by President Putin.  Those attacks were having a 
considerable humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of innocent people.  
This was not only about an attack on Ukraine. It was about an attack on international law, including 
the Charter of the United Nations  (UN Charter) , as well as on democracy, freedom and human rights.  
With regard to dispute settlement, th ose attacks were preventing Ukraine from participatin g in 
disputes as it should be able to do  so. Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for 
over two 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 Mexico and share d the concerns expressed at 
the present meeting  by other Members regarding the Appellate Body's inability to function. The 
support expressed for th is proposal clearly reflect ed the importance that they 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 with regard to  the present  situation.  
Canada's  priority remain ed finding a multilateral and lasting solution for all Members, including 
the United  States. Meanwhile, Canada and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party 
Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as an emergency meas ure. Th at measure s ought  to 
safeguard their rights to binding dispute settlement, including the possibility of appeal in disputes 
among themselves. At the present meeting, Members had  witnessed the adoption of two Reports 
concerning disputes in which the p arties had adopted appeal arbitration agreements respecting the 
principles established in the model contained in Annex 1 of the MPIA. Furthermore, Canada observe d 
that the first appeal arbitration procedure respecting the principles established in the MPIA  was 
initiated on 25 April 2022 . In short, Members had before them  concrete examples that demonstrate d 
the benefits of the MPIA. The appeal arbitration agreements that respect ed the principles laid down 
in the MPIA provide d Members with the possibility to appeal a panel's ruling and to obtain a final 
ruling that b ound the parties. The MPIA was open to all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all 
WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement rights to the 
maximum extent possible until  Members  collectively f ound a permanent solution to the impasse in 
the Appellate Body. Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
5.6.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made by Mexico on behalf 
of all the  co-sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. China  referred to its 
previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent, 
impartial and two -tier dispute settlement s ystem. The paralysis of the Appellate Body ha d posed 
serious challenges to the multilateral trading system. More than 20 cases ha d been appealed into 
the void up to the present moment , and the figure w ould continue to grow if no swift and concrete 
actions were taken. This severe situation not only deprive d Members  of their  right to defend their 
interests, but also jeopardize d the security and predictability of this rules -based organization. Having 
said that, China  sensed with pleasure the positive momentum during the past few months and ha d WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 11 - 
  been actively engaging in the relevant discussions. China was  of the view that it was in the interest 
of the entire Membership if the discussions could be targeted, solution -oriented, and conclusive to 
breaking the selection impasse and restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system at the 
earliest possible  date. China st ood ready to do its part in th at process.  
5.7.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  at previous DSB meetings with regard to similar Agenda  items . Indonesia again avail ed itself 
of this opportunity to encourage all Members to be committed  to provide  their substantive 
contribution s with regard to the effort of immediately launching the appointment of the 
Appellate  Body members.  
5.8.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to condemn 
the Russian Federation 's unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine.  It was a gross violation 
of international law and the UN Charter, and a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d 
committed to uphold.  Pertinent to the work of  this body, it demonstrate d a flagrant disregard for the 
rules-based system , which also underpin ned the WTO. Concerning this Agenda item, the United 
Kingdom continue d to support the launch of the process for appointments to the Appellate  Body, 
and wished t o refer to its previous statements made on this matter.  Resolving the challenges facing 
the dispute settlement system remain ed an utmost  priority for the United Kingdom and it welcome d 
the start of sustained and substantive discussions by Members.  A fully  functioning dispute settlement 
system, which was compulsory, binding and impartial was to the benefit of all  Members . It was the 
best means of ensuring the fair resolution of disputes, that the rules Members had  negotiated were 
enforceable, and of preventi ng recourse to unilateral measures.  The United Kingdom look ed forward 
to further work with Members in th ose discussions and to playing its part to achieve a successful 
outcome.  
5.9.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and thank ed Mexico and the co-sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. 
Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching  the appointment processes immediately. Russia 
called upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards  a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system as soon as possible . 
5.10.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China thank ed Mexico for the 
statement and many other Members for the co -sponsorship  of the proposal.  While Hong Kong, China  
welcome d the commencement of the long -awaited dialogue on dispute settlement matters in the 
previous  month and st ood ready to parti cipate constructively, Hong Kong, China  saw that the 
proposal in question still r ang true as the Appellate Body impasse w ould continue to fundamentally 
undermine the WTO 's dispute settlement function, until  and unless  any reform ha d come to fruition. 
Hong Kong, China wished  to emphasise yet again the importance of restoring as soon as possible a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system in the WTO.  
5.11.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, t he unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were a grave breach of international rules; the use of force to change borders was strictly 
prohibited under international law. Russia 's invasion ha d implications for global peace, security, and 
economic stability , deeply undermining the work of this Body and the multilateral cooperation 
underpinning it. In relation to Agenda Item 5, New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and referred to its previous statements. New Zealand  continue d to urge all 
Members to constructively engage on the issues with a view to addressing this situation as a priority, 
in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possi ble. 
5.12.  The representative of Australia  said that  like Canada, the United Kingdom,  and New  Zealand, 
Australia continue d to condemn in the strongest terms Russia 's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which 
was inconsistent with the rules and norms on which the WTO  was based. Australia  continue d to call 
for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and continue d to stand in solidarity with the people 
of Ukraine. In relation to  Agenda  item 5, given the priority Australia place d on dispute settlement 
reform, Australia welcome d the ongoing efforts to have substantive discussions on dispute 
settlement reform. Australia  looked forward to working positively and constructively with Members 
to restore a fully functioning dispute settle ment system accessible to all Members by MC13 . WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 12 - 
  5.13.  The representative of Norway  said that t he work of the DSB directly concern ed the upholding 
of the rules -based international order. Like several speakers before him, he would  first address the 
situation in Ukr aine. Norway continue d to condemn Russia 's egregious attack on its neighbour 
Ukraine. Norway was  appalled by Russia's  continued aggression, causing extensive human suffering, 
civilian casualties, enormous damages, and a possible global food crisis . With regard  to this Agenda 
item, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 
123 Memb ers, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body  and wished to refer to 
its previous  statements in this regard. Norway would continue to engage in urgently needed 
discussions to address the present  impasse.  
5.14.  The representative of Switzerlan d said that  Switzerland join ed others in condemning Russia's 
military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest terms. Such aggression blatantly violate d 
international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of the territo rial 
integrity of States. Switzerland call ed on Russia to honour its international obligations, reconsider 
its actions, withdraw its troops and help de -escalate the situation. Switzerland call ed on all actors to 
respect international law, in particular int ernational humanitarian law. Regarding the Agenda item 
in question, Switzerland wished  to refer to the statements it made on this matter at previous DSB 
meetings. A fully functional dispute settlement system was in everyone's best interest, and it was 
vital that constructive discussions t ook place without delay, so as to find concrete solutions to resolve 
the impasse in which Members had  been stuck for far too long. Switzerland st ood ready to take steps 
to achieve th at objective and call ed on all other Memb ers to do the same.  
5.15.  The representative of Japan  said that, a t the outset, Japan wished  to echo other colleagues 
condemning Russia. 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. Any unilateral change of the status quo by force 
was totally unacceptable. This was an extremely serious situation that shook the foundation of the 
international order not only in Europe but also in Asia. Japan condemn ed these actions in the 
strongest terms. Further, the atrocious and inhumane acts of Russia ha d been revealed , one after 
another, in Bucha, near Kyiv, as well as other a reas of Ukraine. The mass killing of innocent civilians 
was a grave breach of international humanitarian law and constitute d a war crime that was 
absolutely unacceptable. Russia had to be held strictly accountable for such atrocious acts. Japan 
remain ed in solidarity with Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and continue d to cooperate with the 
Members of the international community , including G7 members , to normalize the situation. In 
relation to Agenda item 5, Japan  noted that the DSB  had adopted two Panel Reports at the present 
meeting . This prove d that the dispute settlement mechanism continue d to serve the aim of securing 
positive solution s to dispute s, which was an important function of the WTO. With regard to the 
proposal made by Mexico and the co -sponsors, Japan wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal . Japan absolutely share d a sense of urgency 
for reform of the dispute settlement system. Every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, had 
to take  seriously the current  situation of the Appellate Body. Japan's  utmost priority was to achieve 
a reform that would contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and functional problems 
of the dispute settlement system. In this respect, Japan wished  to welcome ongoing discussion s on 
reform to that end. Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members towards MC12 and 
thereafter.   
5.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea wished to express its deep concern about  
Ukraine 's inability to ful ly participate in WTO dispute settlement processes , and join ed others in 
strongly condemning Russia 's armed invasion against 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. With regard to  item 5, Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d 
its support for the joint proposal.  Korea  also refer red to its previous statements on this matter . The 
WTO dispute settlement system ha d been long regarded as a central element in providing security 
and predictability to the multilateral trading system.  Korea was ready to engage constructively in  
relevant discussions to find a solution to enhance the functioning of the dispute settlement system 
with a view to accommodat ing the needs of WTO Members.  
5.17.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States took note of the statements 
by m any Members at the present meeting regarding  Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the 
United  States joined in condemning Russia's actions. The United States and other Members had 
jointly issued WT/GC/244, "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Fede ration against WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 13 - 
  Ukraine with the Support of Belarus," which condemned Russia's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time. The 
United States paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and Leaders . 
5.18.  The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements made on this matter. 
Restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible was in the interest of all 
Members. Singapore welcome d the commencement of discussions on dispute settlement reform and 
was committed to participating constructively and with an open mind in th ose discussions.  
5.19.  The representative of the European Union  said that in relation to this Agenda item  the 
European  Union refer red to its previous statements and thank ed all Members that ha d co-sponsored 
the proposal to launch the appointment processes. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer 
guarantee d access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. 
A fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading 
system. This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to 
restore such a system and proceeding to the  appointment of the members of the Appellate  Body. 
This task should be addressed as a priority. As the European Union had consistently noted, 
WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility to resolve this 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. There was a pressing need to 
advance work on this. The European Union  was pleased to be participating in the discussion process 
that ha d begun in Geneva. The European Union wished  to emphasise that the objective of any 
discussions should be to have a fully functioning  WTO dispute settlement  system  in place as soon 
as possible and at the latest by the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference.  The European Union would  
continue to engage constructively in finding, through reform, a lasting solution to the current 
situation regar ding appointments to the Appellate Body.  In relation to the situation in Ukraine, the 
European  Union and its member States express ed their full solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian 
people. The E uropean Union  condemn ed in the strongest possible terms R ussia's unprovoked and 
unjustified military aggression against Ukraine. This aggression grossly violate d international law 
and the UN Charter, and undermine d international security and stability. The European Union 
demand ed that Russia:  (i) immediately cea se its military actions ; (ii) withdraw all its troops from 
the entire territory of Ukraine;  (iii) fully respect Ukraine 's territorial integrity, sovereignty and 
independence within its internationally recognised borders ; and (iv) abide by the UN General 
Assembly resolution titled "Aggression against Ukraine" , supported by 141 States at the 
11th emergency special session. The E uropean Union  resolutely support ed Ukraine 's inherent right 
of self -defence and the efforts of the Ukrainian armed force s to defend Ukraine 's territorial integrity 
and population , in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. At all times, Russia had to respect 
its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, 
including w ith respect to the protection of civilians, women , and children. Russia also need ed to stop 
its disinformation campaign and cyber -attacks.  
5.20.  The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 12 3 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-fourth  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 fulfill their duty as Members of 
this Organization. The fact that a Member had concerns about certain aspects of  the functioning of 
the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this body and 
dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the present  blocking of the 
AB 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 operate 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.  
5.21.  The representative of Mexico  said that  Mexico wishe d to refer to its previous statements on 
this matter. Mexico  reiterate d its deep concern regarding the prolonged situation in which Members  
found themselves, with a dispute settl ement system that was not fully operational. This situation 
impact ed all Members, as all present disputes were being affected, and this put at risk prompt 
compliance with, and the adoption of, DSB reports. Mexico  therefore welcome d and very much 
appreciate d the two Panel Reports that were adopted at the present meeting . They demonstrate d WT/DSB/M/4 65 
- 14 - 
  the importance of a dispute settlement system for settling trade disputes between Members. Now 
more than ever, it was important and a priority to work on finding a real and  multilateral solution, 
and Mexico hoped  that Members would  be able to work towards breaking th at impasse, which 
continue d to be a matter of the utmost urgency. Mexico remain ed ready to work constructively.  
5.22.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that, at this point, Russia had to address 
certain political declarations made by some WTO Members and in that regard wished to stress the 
following. First, Members should keep to the Agenda of the meeting,  circulated on 25 May 2022 in 
document WT/DSB/W/699, which had been adopted at the present meeting. The political discussions 
suggested by some WTO Members did not concern the surveillance of implementation of the adopted 
recommendations under Article 21.6  of the DSU. They were outside of the panel's recommendations 
and rulings in disputes DS524 or DS595. They also did not address the Appellate Body appointments 
problem. 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 to address issues here that were not in the competence  of the organization. Russia 
considered that one of the root causes of the crisis of the multilateral trading system that  Members 
were facing was the actions that blocked the Appellate Body appointments as well as the attempts 
to politicize the WTO that Me mbers had heard  at the present meeting. Russia encouraged 
WTO Members to focus on resolving the problems they already had and not create new ones, unless 
any WTO Member had an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral trading system further .  
5.23.  The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. As in the past, the DSB w ould 
take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be reflected in the 
minutes of the present  meeting. As Members were  all aware, this matter r equire d political 
engagement on the part of all WTO Members. Members would  recall that, in the context of the 
preparations for MC12, which had been postponed  in 2021 , the previous Chair of the General Council 
had consulted with Members on this matter. The Chairperson understood  that this work continue d 
now in the context of the preparations for the upcoming Ministerial Conference, which would  be held 
in the period of  12-15 June 2022. Finally, t he Chair said that informal discussions on DS reform , at 
the technical level, were taking place amongst delegations. She hoped that, going forward, Members 
would be able to find a solution to this matter  
5.24.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________