A. Ongoing Investment Challenges After moving the shares of its Australian subsidiary to Hong Kong, Philip Morris has brought a contrived investor–state arbitration claim under the Australia–Hong Kong Agreement on the The economist, Peter Martin, notes: Promotion and Protection of Investments. The almost comic attempt to get mileage out of the treaty (moving from Australia to Hong Kong in order to complain that it was being discriminated against because it was from Hong Kong) masks a broader, more serious attempt to turn trade treaties into instruments that allow corporations to sue governments. There has been much academic criticism of the investment action by Philip Morris. Philip Morris has also used international investment rules to challenge Uruguay’s restrictions on cigarette marketing. In particular, the tobacco company has complained about graphic health warnings being used by the Uruguayan Government, lamenting that: 80 ‘The per cent health warning right to use its legally coverage requirement unfairly limits Abal’s protected trademarks, and not to promote legitimate health provides policies.’ Benn McGrady a thoughtful analysis of the ramifications of the dispute. In the context of the TPP discussions, there has been concern that tobacco companies would use investment clauses to challenge public health measures such as tobacco control. – B Australian Policy
A. Ongoing Investment Challenges After moving the shares of its Australian subsidiary to Hong Kong, Philip Morris has brought a contrived investor–state arbitration claim under the Australia–Hong Kong Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Investments. The economist, Peter Martin, notes: The almost comic attempt to get mileage out of the treaty (moving from Australia to Hong Kong in order to complain that it was being discriminated against because it was from Hong Kong) masks a broader, more serious attempt to turn trade treaties into instruments that allow corporations to sue governments. There has been much academic criticism of the investment action by Philip Morris. Philip Morris has also used international investment rules to challenge Uruguay’s restrictions on cigarette marketing. In particular, the tobacco company has complained about graphic health warnings being used by the Uruguayan Government, lamenting that: ‘The 80 per cent health warning coverage requirement unfairly limits Abal’s right to use its legally protected trademarks, and not to promote legitimate health policies.’ Benn McGrady provides a thoughtful analysis of the ramifications of the dispute. In the context of the TPP discussions, there has been concern that tobacco companies would use investment clauses to challenge public health measures – such as tobacco control. B Australian Policy
sub146-intellectual-property.docx