Jednolite opakowania wyrobów tytoniowych a międzynarodowe prawo inwestycyjne : uwagi w kontekście sporu Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Australia

2015
journal article
article
dc.abstract.enInternational investment law is frequently criticized for restricting regulatory space enjoyed by States in important policy areas such as protection of human health. The article tests this hypothesis by analyzing the recent international investment dispute over the tobacco plain packaging law, instituted in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia Limited against Australia under the Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia). More specifically, its aim is to examine Australia's compliance with the standards of international investment protection in light of its innovative regulatory control measures. The article argues that a mere limitation of the use of trademarks on marketed products cannot be qualified as indirect expropriation as it does not meet the required threshold of State interference. The article also asserts that compensable expropriation needs to be distinguished from situations where a State, in the exercise of its police powers, affects foreign investments. Measures falling within this category do not give a raise to international State responsibility, unless they meet certain requirements. The article claims that the plain packaging law can be classified as such measures. With regard to the fair and equitable treatment (FET) claim, the article shows that PMA's strongest argument is that the Regulations are arbitrary and go beyond the acceptable margin of legislative change. The investor's chances of succeeding depend on how deep the investment tribunal wishes to analyse the plain packaging measures. Jurisprudence of investment tribunals shows that they abstain from substantive analysis of such measures and are deferential to the host States, provided that the measures are adopted with due process, with due consideration and are non-discriminatory. This leads the authors to conclude that it is unlikely that the tribunal will find violation of the FET standard. On the basis of the presented analysis, the article concludes that international investment law generally does not limit State policies in relation to tobacco control, even if such policies affect investments held by transnational tobacco companies.pl
dc.contributor.authorGruszczyński, Łukaszpl
dc.contributor.authorNowak, Łucjapl
dc.date.accession2019-11-21pl
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-21T09:45:44Z
dc.date.available2019-11-21T09:45:44Z
dc.date.issued2015pl
dc.date.openaccess0
dc.description.accesstimew momencie opublikowania
dc.description.physical99-121pl
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volume13pl
dc.identifier.doi10.26106/pjs8-7549pl
dc.identifier.issn1730-4504pl
dc.identifier.projectROD UJ / OPpl
dc.identifier.urihttps://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/87541
dc.identifier.weblinkhttp://www.europeistyka.uj.edu.pl/documents/3458728/95422804/099-121.L.Gruszczynski.L.Nowakpl
dc.languagepolpl
dc.language.containerpolpl
dc.rightsUdzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Na tych samych warunkach 4.0 Międzynarodowa*
dc.rights.licenceCC-BY-NC-SA
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.pl*
dc.share.typeotwarte czasopismo
dc.subtypeArticlepl
dc.titleJednolite opakowania wyrobów tytoniowych a międzynarodowe prawo inwestycyjne : uwagi w kontekście sporu Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Australiapl
dc.title.alternativeTobacco plain packaging and international investment law : some comments about Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Australiapl
dc.title.journalProblemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczegopl
dc.typeJournalArticlepl
dspace.entity.typePublication
dc.abstract.enpl
International investment law is frequently criticized for restricting regulatory space enjoyed by States in important policy areas such as protection of human health. The article tests this hypothesis by analyzing the recent international investment dispute over the tobacco plain packaging law, instituted in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia Limited against Australia under the Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia). More specifically, its aim is to examine Australia's compliance with the standards of international investment protection in light of its innovative regulatory control measures. The article argues that a mere limitation of the use of trademarks on marketed products cannot be qualified as indirect expropriation as it does not meet the required threshold of State interference. The article also asserts that compensable expropriation needs to be distinguished from situations where a State, in the exercise of its police powers, affects foreign investments. Measures falling within this category do not give a raise to international State responsibility, unless they meet certain requirements. The article claims that the plain packaging law can be classified as such measures. With regard to the fair and equitable treatment (FET) claim, the article shows that PMA's strongest argument is that the Regulations are arbitrary and go beyond the acceptable margin of legislative change. The investor's chances of succeeding depend on how deep the investment tribunal wishes to analyse the plain packaging measures. Jurisprudence of investment tribunals shows that they abstain from substantive analysis of such measures and are deferential to the host States, provided that the measures are adopted with due process, with due consideration and are non-discriminatory. This leads the authors to conclude that it is unlikely that the tribunal will find violation of the FET standard. On the basis of the presented analysis, the article concludes that international investment law generally does not limit State policies in relation to tobacco control, even if such policies affect investments held by transnational tobacco companies.
dc.contributor.authorpl
Gruszczyński, Łukasz
dc.contributor.authorpl
Nowak, Łucja
dc.date.accessionpl
2019-11-21
dc.date.accessioned
2019-11-21T09:45:44Z
dc.date.available
2019-11-21T09:45:44Z
dc.date.issuedpl
2015
dc.date.openaccess
0
dc.description.accesstime
w momencie opublikowania
dc.description.physicalpl
99-121
dc.description.version
ostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volumepl
13
dc.identifier.doipl
10.26106/pjs8-7549
dc.identifier.issnpl
1730-4504
dc.identifier.projectpl
ROD UJ / OP
dc.identifier.uri
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/87541
dc.identifier.weblinkpl
http://www.europeistyka.uj.edu.pl/documents/3458728/95422804/099-121.L.Gruszczynski.L.Nowak
dc.languagepl
pol
dc.language.containerpl
pol
dc.rights*
Udzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Na tych samych warunkach 4.0 Międzynarodowa
dc.rights.licence
CC-BY-NC-SA
dc.rights.uri*
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.pl
dc.share.type
otwarte czasopismo
dc.subtypepl
Article
dc.titlepl
Jednolite opakowania wyrobów tytoniowych a międzynarodowe prawo inwestycyjne : uwagi w kontekście sporu Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Australia
dc.title.alternativepl
Tobacco plain packaging and international investment law : some comments about Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Australia
dc.title.journalpl
Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego
dc.typepl
JournalArticle
dspace.entity.type
Publication
Affiliations

* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.

Views
38
Views per month
Views per city
Ashburn
7
Dublin
5
Krakow
5
San Jose
2
Wroclaw
2
Brussels
1
Falkenstein
1
Laskarzew
1
Opole
1
Shanghai
1
Downloads
gruszczynski_nowak_jednolite_opakowania_wyrobow_tytoniowych_2015.pdf
1