Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:14:39.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Big Tobacco v Australia: Challenges to Plain Packaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2018

Sera MIRZABEGIAN Open the ORCID record for Sera MIRZABEGIAN [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

bilateral investment agreementplain packagingpublic healthtobacco
Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Business, Human Rights and Security , January 2019 , pp. 177 - 184
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Australian Human Rights Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Barrister, Tenth Floor Selborne/Wentworth Chambers, Sydney, Australia.

References

1 Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth); Mitchell, Andrew and Studdert, David, ‘Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products in Australia: A Novel Regulation Faces Legal Challenge’ (2002) 307(3) Journal of the American Medical Association 261 Google Scholar.

2 Tienhaara, Kyla, ‘Regulatory Chill and the Threat of Arbitration: A View from Political Science’ in Chester Brown and Kate Miles (eds), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011).

4 Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth), sec 2(1), 17-27A and 31.

5 Ibid, sec 3(1)(a).

6 Ibid, sec 3(1)(b); World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, WHO Document WHA56.1 (entered into force 27 February 2005).

7 Ibid, sec 3(2).

8 Ibid, sec 18(2)(b)(i).

9 Ibid, sec 19(2)(a).

10 Ibid, sec 18(1)(a).

11 Ibid, sec 19(2)(b).

12 Ibid, sec 20.

13 Ibid, sec 21.

14 British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia; JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia (2012) 250 CLR 1.

15 Ibid, [164] per Hayne and Bell JJ.

16 Ibid, [262] per Crennan J.

17 Ibid, [163] per Hayne and Bell JJ.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid, [44] per French J.

20 The arbitration was conducted in the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, UN Doc A/65/17, annex I.

21 Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v The Commonwealth of Australia, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 December 2015), https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/5/ (accessed 3 September 2018), [6].

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid, [7].

24 Ibid, [89].

25 Ibid, [588].

26 Ibid, [585].

27 Ibid, [586].

28 Ibid, [587].

29 Ibid.

30 Puig, Sergio, ‘Tobacco Litigation in International Courts’ (2016) 57:2 Harvard International Law Journal 383, 411 Google Scholar.

31 Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, WT/DS435/R, WT/DS/441/R, WT/DS/458/R, WT/DS/467/R (adopted 28 June 2018). The WTO convened one panel to decide all claims other than that made by the Ukraine. Ukraine’s case against Australia did not ultimately proceed as Ukraine suspended the proceedings three years after its initial complaint.

32 Ibid, [7.1043].

33 The tobacco companies were ordered to pay the Australian government’s costs in both the High Court case and the investor–state arbitration but the amount of costs in both cases is unknown. It has been reported that Australia’s costs in the investor–state dispute amounted to around AUD$50 million: Adam Gartrell, ‘Philip Morris Ordered to Pay Australia Millions in Costs for Plain Packaging Case’, Sydney Morning Herald (9 July 2017), https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/philip-morris-ordered-to-pay-australia-millions-in-costs-for-plain-packaging-case-20170709-gx7mv5.html (accessed 7 September 2018).

34 Tania Voon, ‘Big Tobacco vs Australia’s Plain Packaging’, Pursuit (5 September 2018), https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/big-tobacco-vs-australia-s-plain-packaging (accessed 7 September 2018).

35 Framework Convention Alliance, ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging, 2017’, https://www.fctc.org/plain-packs-proliferating/ (accessed 10 September 2018).

36 Crosbie, Eric and Thomson, George, ‘Regulatory Chills: Tobacco Industry Legal Threats and the Politics of Tobacco Standardised Packaging in New Zealand’ (2018) 131(1473) New Zealand Medical Journal 25 Google ScholarPubMed.

37 Ibid.

38 Mitchell, Andrew and Sheargold, Elizabeth, ‘Protecting the Autonomy of States to Enact Tobacco Control Measures under Trade and Investment Agreements’ (2015) 24 Tobacco Control 147, 148 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

39 PMA, ‘Philip Morris Asia Limited Comments on Tribunal’s Decision to Decline Jurisdiction in Arbitration Against Commonwealth of Australia Over Plain Packaging’ (18 December 2015), http://www.newsboost.com/newsroom/philip-morris/philip-morris-asia-limited-comments-on-tribunal-s-decision-to-decline-jurisdiction-in-arbitration-against-commonwealth-of-australia-over-plain-packaging (accessed 10 September 2018).

40 Voon, note 34.

41 WHO, ‘Tobacco: Key Facts’, http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco (accessed 9 September 2018).

42 Human Rights Council, note 3, 12.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 UNCTAD, UNCTAD’s Reform Package for the International Investment Regime (18 December 2017), http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/News/Report/Archive/1576 (accessed 14 September 2018).

46 Ibid, 18.

47 For example, the May 2016 amendments to the free trade agreement between Singapore and Australia included a carve-out for tobacco control measures from the investor–state dispute settlement procedure in the revised investment chapter: ibid, 82.

48 Human Rights Council, note 3, 13.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid, 14.

51 Danish Institute of Human Rights, ‘Human Rights Assessment in Philip Morris International’ (4 May 2017), https://www.humanrights.dk/news/human-rights-assessment-philip-morris-international (accessed 18 September 2018).