CommentPhilip Morris versus Uruguay: health governance challenged
References (12)
- et al.
Bridging the divide: global governance of trade and health
Lancet
(2009) WTO legal texts. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: the text of the general agreement
- et al.
Origins of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control
Am J Public Health
(2005) Health versus trade: the future of the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Vanderbilt J Transnational Law
(2002)Switzerland and Uruguay: agreement on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments (with protocol)
Uruguay: Philip Morris files first-known investment treaty claim against tobacco regulations. Investment Arbitration Reporter
Cited by (23)
Exposing and addressing tobacco industry conduct in low-income and middle-income countries
2015, The LancetCitation Excerpt :LMICs have also been subject to industry efforts to use economic treaties to threaten innovative tobacco control policies both historically129,130 and recently. Uruguay is currently defending its large, graphic warning labels in international arbitration.131 PMI (with 2013 revenues of more than US$59 billion and profits near $9 billion132) claims that Uruguay (with total budget revenues of around $17 billion and expenditures of $19 billion133) is violating the provisions of a bilateral investment treaty that the country has with Switzerland (PMI's corporate home), even though Article 2.1 of the treaty clearly provides for a public health exception.134
Tobacco control campaign in Uruguay: A population-based trend analysis
2012, The LancetCitation Excerpt :Similar legal actions have been taken by international tobacco manufacturers against Australia, which has also adopted stringent anti-tobacco measures.7 As previously noted,8 such a legal strategy has the potential to reverse many of the tobacco control accomplishments codified in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which was originally adopted at WHO's 56th World Health Assembly in May, 2003, and has now been accepted by 174 countries.9 It also has important implications for global health governance—especially the conflict between health and trade—that go beyond the narrower issue of tobacco control.
Using a legal and regulatory framework to identify and evaluate priorities for cancer prevention
2011, Public HealthCitation Excerpt :The decision by PMI to seek compensation for the economic consequences of a good-faith attempt to reduce tobacco use is based on the assumption that PMI is entitled to claim compensation under a BIT for the economic consequences of Uruguay either fulfilling its treaty obligations under the FCTC, or for introducing tobacco controls that exceed the minimum standards required under the FCTC. The success of PMI’s strategy does not depend on it achieving a complete victory, but on intimidating other countries into relinquishing areas of health sovereignty in order to avoid trade disputes.63 Identifying and managing risk factors for chronic disease in general practice: some Australian initiatives.
Role of law in global response to non-communicable diseases
2011, The Lancet