Hot on the heels of the tobacco industry’s failed legal challenge to the UK’s tobacco plain packaging laws in May 2016, Philip Morris suffered a new defeat in July, this time in its long-running case against Uruguay’s health warning labels.
The McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer has prepared a paper outlining key aspects of the judgement which are relevant for other governments planning to implement similar legislation to meet their obligations under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
The key points explored in detail in the analysis are:
- Uruguay’s measures did not substantially deprive Philip Morris of its investments or frustrate any expectations related to those investments
- States have a right to regulate in the public interest, including for public health
- It is not the role of investment tribunals to second-guess policy decisions, particularly where the evidence is complex or contested
- The WHO FCTC and its Guidelines add legal and evidentiary weight in support of states’ tobacco control measures
- Public health is an important normative value in investment law adjudication
Full details, including the paper can be found here: http://www.mccabecentre.org/blog/who-fctc-implementation-after-philip-morris-v-uruguay-five-key-messages-from-the-award.html
- Worldwide News and Analysis, Tobacco Control September 16
- Philip Morris gets its ash kicked in Uruguay; where will it next blow smoke?
- Who really won the battle between Philip Morris and Uruguay?
- McCabe Centre analysis of UK plain packs court decision: interests at stake ‘collide in the most irreconcilable of ways’