Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Implications of International Investment Law for Tobacco Flavouring Regulation

Implications of International Investment Law for Tobacco... and I. INTRODUCTION International investment law represents the latest frontier for challenging tobacco control measures. On 26 March 2010, Philip Morris launched arbitral proceedings against Uruguay pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland,' challenging regulatory measures requiring large health warnings on cigarette packets and extending prohibitions regarding the use of misleading descriptors such as 'light' and 'mild' in conjunction with cigarettes.2 Uruguay-often identified as a champion of tobacco control3-has not yet made clear its intended response.4 Philip Morris is also challenging a Norwegian display ban on tobacco products under the European Economic Agreement.5 At the same time, various measures restricting 'flavouring' of tobacco products arc being challenged in other areas of international economic law. Indonesia has launched a World Trade Organization ('WTO') dispute against a United States measure restricting flavouring of cigarettes,6 and numerous WTO Members have complained about a Canadian flavouring measure.7 Against this background, it may be only a matter of time before flavouring measures are challenged in the context of international investment law. The purpose of this article is therefore to assess the consistency of these measures with international investment law, as reflected in a range of bilateral investment treaties ('BITS'). For http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of World Investment and Trade Brill

Implications of International Investment Law for Tobacco Flavouring Regulation

Journal of World Investment and Trade , Volume 12 (1): 16 – Jan 1, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/implications-of-international-investment-law-for-tobacco-flavouring-2MZJNi0NOi
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1660-7112
eISSN
2211-9000
DOI
10.1163/221190011X00120
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

and I. INTRODUCTION International investment law represents the latest frontier for challenging tobacco control measures. On 26 March 2010, Philip Morris launched arbitral proceedings against Uruguay pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland,' challenging regulatory measures requiring large health warnings on cigarette packets and extending prohibitions regarding the use of misleading descriptors such as 'light' and 'mild' in conjunction with cigarettes.2 Uruguay-often identified as a champion of tobacco control3-has not yet made clear its intended response.4 Philip Morris is also challenging a Norwegian display ban on tobacco products under the European Economic Agreement.5 At the same time, various measures restricting 'flavouring' of tobacco products arc being challenged in other areas of international economic law. Indonesia has launched a World Trade Organization ('WTO') dispute against a United States measure restricting flavouring of cigarettes,6 and numerous WTO Members have complained about a Canadian flavouring measure.7 Against this background, it may be only a matter of time before flavouring measures are challenged in the context of international investment law. The purpose of this article is therefore to assess the consistency of these measures with international investment law, as reflected in a range of bilateral investment treaties ('BITS'). For

Journal

Journal of World Investment and TradeBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.