Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS46): Report of the Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On 20 August 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report (WT/DS46/AB/R) and the Panel Report (WT/DS46/R), as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in the dispute Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft (hereafter “ Brazil - Aircraft ”). The DSB recommended that Brazil bring its export subsidies for regional aircraft under the Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (“PROEX”) interest rate equalization scheme into conformity with its obligations under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter “ SCM Agreement ”). The DSB further recommended that Brazil withdraw the export subsidies for regional aircraft within 90 days. On 19 November 1999, Brazil submitted to the Chairman of the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (hereafter “DSU”), a status report (WT/DS46/12) on implementation of the Appellate Body's and the Panel's recommendations and rulings in the dispute. The status report described measures taken by Brazil which, in Brazil's view, implemented the recommendation of the DSB to withdraw the measures within 90 days. Canada disagreed that the Brazilian measure brought Brazil into conformity with its obligations under the SCM Agreement . As a result, on 23 November 1999, Canada requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 9 December 1999, the DSB referred the matter to the original Panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The report of the Article 21.5 Panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The Panel found that the measures taken by Brazil to comply with the Panel's recommendation either did not exist or were not consistent with the SCM Agreement . Accordingly, the Panel concluded that Brazil had failed to implement the 20 August 1999 recommendation of the DSB that it withdraw the export subsidies for regional aircraft within 90 days. The Appellate Body, in a report circulated to Members on 21 July 2000, upheld the Panel's conclusions. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report (WT/DS46/AB/RW) and the Panel Report (WT/DS46/RW), as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 4 August 2000. In the light of Brazil's failure to implement the 20 August 1999 recommendations of the DSB, on 12 December 2000 the DSB authorized Canada to take appropriate countermeasures in the amount of C$344.2 million annually.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".