Perhaps we can start with the reason for the creation of the dispute settlement mechanism as identified under the SLA, the softwood lumber agreement.
There were two principal reasons, one of which was to provide expeditious resolution of issues as they arise in order to minimize disruption within the commercial trade in the softwood lumber sector. The other was to provide sufficient scope to deal with all the issues that have been identified--or all the obligations and rights that have been identified--under the softwood lumber agreement. You will find that with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism, there is a much shorter time period in which disputes will be resolved, either through mediation or arbitration. Those are set out quite clearly in the SLA in terms of so many days here and so many days there; everybody understands the timeframes involved in a dispute settlement mechanism.
With respect to arbitration, it is final and binding; both sides have an obligation under the treaty to respect the arbitration findings reached through this expedited process. Therefore, it would be fair to say that if a country has an obligation under the agreement--which it does in this case, since they've acknowledged that arbitration will be final and binding--they will implement the decisions of the arbitrator in this case. I don't think it's as open-ended as I understood your comments to be just before my answer.