As mentioned the other day, Malorie Schaus (malorie.schaus [at] graduateinstitute.ch) and Tobiasz Kaczor (tobiasz.kaczor [at] gmail.com) of the Graduate Institute in Geneva attended the public viewing in the WTO Airbus hearing. Their summary of the third participants' oral statements is here: http://www.worldtradelaw.net/abhearings/WTO-Airbus-Case-ThirdParties-Statements.pdf
Australia points out that the submissions to the Appellate Body in this dispute illustrate considerable divergence between the participants and third participants on what facts will demonstrate in fact export contingency. In this respect, Australia submits that the WTO Members need to know which subsidies are prohibited and which are not.
Therefore, Australia considers that these proceedings provide the opportunity for the Appellate Bodyto give a necessary clarification of Article 3.1 (a) and footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.
According to Canada, for a subsidy to be contingent on export performance, the level of export sales, as opposed to the level of sales, must have played a determinative role in the government’s decision to grant the subsidy, irrespective of whether the financial contribution is inthe form of a grant or loan.
China is of the opinion that a legal standard of in fact contingency should be interpreted consistently with the object and purpose of the WTO. According to China, small and global industries should not be adversely discriminated.