No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Legal and Evidential Value of the Guidelines for Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Recent Developments and Critical Views
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 April 2017
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.
- Type
- Reports
- Information
- European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 8 , Issue 1: Cambridge Inaugural Issue: The Past, Present And Future of Risk Regulation , March 2017 , pp. 186 - 190
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
*
PhD student, European University Institute.
References
1 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, signed on 21 May 2003, entered into force 27 February 2005, 2303 UNTS 166.
2 World Health Organization, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, available at <http://www.who.int/fctc/signatories_parties/en/> (accessed 6 February 2017).
3 World Health Organization, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, available at <http://www.who.int/fctc/about/en/> (accessed 6 February 2017).
4 Sergio Puig, “Tobacco Litigation in International Courts” (2016) 57 Harvard Journal of International Law 2.
5 Lukasz Gruszczynski, “Tobacco and International Trade: Recent Activities of the FCTC Conference of the Parties” (2015) 49 Journal of World Trade 4.
6 Jonathan Liberman, “The power of the WHO FCTC: Understanding its legal weight and status”, in Andrew D. Mitchell and Tania Voon (eds), The Global Tobacco Epidemic and the Law (Edward Elgar, 2014); Sam Foster Halabi, “The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: An Analysis of Guidelines Adopted by the Conference of the Parties” (2010) Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 39; Rebecca L. Haffajee and M. Gregg Bloche, “The FCTC and the Psychology of Tobacco Control” (2010) 5 Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law & Policy 87, 92.
7 FCTC, foreword.
8 Guidelines for implementation of Article 11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Decision FCTC/COP3(10).
9 Guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship).
10 Philip Morris Asia Ltd (Hong Kong) v The Commonwealth of Australia, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, PCA Case No. 2012-12, 17 February 2015.
11 Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, Complaint by Honduras, WT/DS435; Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, Complaint by Dominican Republic, WT/DS441; Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, Complaint by Cuba, WT/DS458; Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, Complaint by Indonesia, WT/DS467.
12 Liberman, supra, note 6.
13 Chester Brown, A Common Law of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2007); Ruth Mackenzie et al., Manual on International Courts and Tribunals (Oxford University Press, 2010); Filippo Fontanelli, Giuseppi Martinico and Paolo Carrozza, Shaping the Rule of Law Through Dialogue (Europa Law Publishing, 2010); Mads Andenas and Eric Bjorge, A Farewell to Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
14 E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway v Staten v/Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (12 September 2011) EFTA Court.
15 Guidelines to Article 13, supra, note 9, paras. 12–13.
16 WTO, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, Panel Report, WT/DS406/R, 2 September 2011; WTO, United States – Measure Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS406/AB/R, 4 April 2012.
17 US-Clove Cigarettes Panel Report, supra, note 16, para. 7.230.
18 Partial Guidelines for Implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention On Tobacco Control, adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its fourth session in 2010.
19 Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Concerning the Manufacture, Presentation and Sale of Tobacco and Related Products and Repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (3 April 2014), OJ L 127/1, 29 April 2014.
20 Case C-358/14 Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2016:323, 4 May 2014; Case C-547/14 Philip Morris Brands SARL and Others ECLI:EU:C:2016:325, 4 May 2016.
21 Guidelines to Articles 9 and 10, supra, note 18.
22 Guidelines to Article 11, supra, note 8.
23 ICSID Arbitral Tribunal ARB/10/7 Philip Morris Brand v Uruguay Award, 8 July 2016.
24 More specifically, while the SDR measure is not foreseen at all, the Guidelines require health warnings to be ‘more than 50% of the principal display area and aim to cover as much of the principal display area as possible’ – but they do not explicitly mention ‘80%’.
25 Philip Morris Norway v Staten, supra, note 14.
26 US-Clove Cigarettes Panel Report, supra, note 16, para. 7.230.
27 Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, supra, note 20, paras. 44, 85, 90; Philip Morris Brands SARL and Others, supra, note 20, paras. 175, 204–205, 178–179.
28 Philip Morris Uruguay, supra, note 23, paras. 393, 396, 412.
29 Tania Voon, “Evidentiary Challenges for Public Health Regulation in International Trade and Investment Law” (2015) 18(4) Journal of International Economic Law 795.
30 Philip Morris Uruguay, supra, note 23, para. 404.
31 ICSID Arbitral Tribunal ARB/10/7 Philip Morris Brand v Uruguay, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, 8 July 2016.