Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T02:30:07.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philip Morris v. Uruguay: The Punta del Este Declaration on the Implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Benn McGrady
Benn McGrady*
Affiliation:
O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, Washington, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In November 2010, 171 Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) unanimously adopted the Punta del Este Declaration on implementation of the Convention. The Declaration follows the filing of an international investment claim against Uruguay by Philip Morris Products (Switzerland) and related companies. The Declaration reaffirms the commitment of the 171 WHO FCTC Parties to implementation of the Convention and addresses the relationship between the WHO FCTC and international trade and investment agreements, particularly in the context of intellectual property rights. This article outlines the Request for Arbitration, sets out the Declaration and the broader normative context in which it arose before touching briefly on the implications of the Declaration.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 254 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

References

1 Punta del Este Declaration on the Implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, fourth session, Punta del Este, Uruguay, 6 December 2010, FCTC/COP/4/DIV/6.

2 FTR Holdings SA (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products SA (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos SA (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Request for Arbitration, Under the Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, 19 February 2010.

3 For further details see <http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3530&Itemid=1>.

4 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Guidelines for Implementation: Article 5.3, Article 8, Article 11, Article 13, World Health Organization, Geneva 2009.

5 WHO FCTC Guidelines for Implementation of Article 11, para. 1.

6 WHO FCTC Guidelines for Implementation of Article 13, para. 39.

7 WHO FCTC Guidelines for Implementation of Article 13, para. 39, fn 7.

8 See, for example, Lynne Kozlowski, Richard O’Connor, “Cigarette Filter Ventilation is a Defective Design because of Misleading Taste, Bigger Puffs, and Blocked Vents”, 11(Suppl I) Tobacco Control (2002), i40 – i50.

9 WHO FCTC Guidelines for Implementation of Article 13, para. 15.

10 WHO FCTC Guidelines for Implementation of Article 13, para. 16.

11 WHO FCTC Guidelines for Implementation of Article 13, para. 17.

12 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 4 (1999), 33 I.L.M. 1144 (1994), Article IX:2.

13 Although, this is doubtful in the Philip Morris v. Uruguay dispute because Switzerland is not a WHO FCTC Party.