JOB/DSB/9  
 
19 March 2024  
(24-2404) Page: 1/2 
Dispute Settlement Body  
 Original: English  
 
 
MEETING OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  BODY  
TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2024 
Report by H.E. Mr. Petter Ølberg , Chairman of the DSB, 
on Dispute Settlement Reform  
1. Under this Agenda item, I would like to report on the consultations that I carried out last week, 
from 11 to 13 March  and also  throughout  the rest of the week , to hear delegations' views on how to 
follow up on the MC13 decision by Ministers on DS reform, and on the issue of appointment of a 
facilitator for the DS reform process, following th e departure of Mr. Marco Molina, the convenor of 
the informal DS process.  
 
2. First, let me note that 31 delegations, including group coordinators, collectively representing 
more than two -thirds of the Membership, met with me and provided their views on thes e matters. 
Let me thank all delegations for their interest and their constructive participation in these 
consultations.  
 
3. I am pleased to note that Members remain committed to the MC12 mandate to conduct 
discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all Members by 2024 and are ready to accelerate this work given a short period of time left before 
the end of 2024, as instructed by Ministers at MC13.  
 
4. Let me now turn to the substance of the consultati ons. I have noted that many Members 
stressed the need to build on the work done so far and expressed their desire to formalize th e 
process. In this regard, the majority of Members indicated that one way of formalizing the process 
would be to have the Gener al Council appoint a facilitator . Many Members requested that capital -
based experts should be able to participate via Interprefy.  It is my understanding that such 
participation is now acceptable to all delegations.  
 
5. During the consultations, most Members s tated that they consider the General Council as the 
appropriate forum to oversee the DS process. In that regard, the majority of Members believe that 
the General Council would provide the necessary political impetus to complete this process by the 
mandated  deadline, and that it would be the General Council that would have to take the decision 
to meet that deadline. Having said that, I should note the views of two delegations, which prefer 
formalizing the process under the auspices of the DSB, to be overseen  by the DSB Chair, given that 
this is a dispute settlement matter.  
 
6. During the consultations, several qualifications for the facilitator emerged as desirable and 
broadly acceptable to the Membership. In particular, many Members believed that a facilitator should 
be at the level of Ambassador and have legal expertise and experience in WTO dispute settlement. 
Furthermore, a facilitator should command the authority to  advance and conclude the process by 
the end of 2024. Many delegations indicated that they would prefer a facilitator from a small Member. 
Some Members are of the view that the facilitator should preferably be from a developing Member, 
while others believe  that this criterion is not so important as long as the right person is appointed. 
In any event, many stressed that a facilitator should ensure that all views are heard and taken into 
account. It was also emphasized that a facilitator should be impartial, able to maintain the delicate 
balance between ensuring full participation and facilitating quick progress, and comfortable with 
holding Members accountable to carry out the instruction from Ministers by the deadline. Many 
Members put forward different name s of candidates for this role. Members also expressed the view JOB/DSB/9  
 
- 2 - 
 
  that the facilitator should be supported by a legal expert from another delegation – preferably one 
who had actively participated in the previous informal process.  
 
7. Many Members value the inter est-based approach and believe that this is a key element in 
reaching substantive progress in the informal DS discussions with in a short period of time. Several 
stated that this approach is essential to achieving the objective by end of 2024. At the same t ime, 
some Members considered that the new process should ensure proper records of meetings, 
attributions of proposals, and circulation of documents. In addition, many delegations expressed the 
view that the facilitator should be assisted in his  or her work  by the Secretariat.  
 
8. After my extensive consultations, I reached out to th ree candidates for facilitator whose names 
came up most often  and who broadly fitted the profile , to determine if they were interested in serving 
as facilitator. Unfortunately, none  of the candidates are available to take on this role. Accordingly, 
while I had hoped to able to seek the appointment of a facilitator at the upcoming General Council 
meeting, I am not able to do so.  
 
9. Given the limited time we have left and in the interest  of advancing this process, I intend to 
continue consulting with Members to determine the next steps. I would eagerly welcome new 
suggestions for the facilitator role. In addition, Members may wish to reflect on whether the criteria 
that were laid out to m e during the consultations last week might unduly limit our options. I strongly 
urge you to be creative. I will also be giving further thought to this and will be reaching out to 
colleagues who could be strong candidates for this role as I hear your though ts. 
 
__________