[Part-I] Philip Morris v. Uruguay- Indirect Expropriation, Police Power, Trademarks and More.

The arbitral tribunal of Prof. Piero Bernardini (President), Mr. Gary Born, Judge Prof. James Crawford in Philip Morris v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay (ICSID Case No. Arb/10/7) has finally ruled on merits, dismissing the claims presented by Philip Morris (“PM”) and awarding costs to the tune of US$ 7 million to Uruguay. This award will have huge implications on the tobacco industry and countries like India who are seeking to regulate tobacco consumption through plain packaging measures as it was reportedly the first time a tobacco group had taken on a country for its anti-tobacco laws. Many are characterising Uruguay’s victory as something that will change the world.  In this post, I will only focus on the claim of expropriation and the other claims of denial of justice, fair and equitable treatment and impairment of use and enjoyment of investments will be discussed in subsequent posts. Read More »

Interview: Ms. Samira Sulejmanovic, Head of Unit for Bilateral Trade Relations, Bosnia & Herzegovina

Ms. Samira Sulejmanovic is the Head of Unit for Bilateral Trade Relations, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia & Herzegovina. She oversees the negotiation and implementation of international agreements (trade and economic cooperation, FTAs and PTAs, bilateral investment promotion agreements) and monitors and studies the conditions and various phenomena in bilateral trade cooperation.Read More »

The Philip Morris Case and the Right to Regulate (Legislate)

By Olga S. Shaposhnikova, PhD Candidate, International Arbitration*

Introduction

TOBACCO-2-articleLargeOn December 17, 2015, the arbitral tribunal of Prof. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Prof. Don McRae and Prof. Karl-Heinz Boeckstiegel dismissed the claim filed in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia Limited (“PM Asia”) against the Commonwealth of Australia (“Australia”) under the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1993 (the “BIT”)[1]. This dispute – the first investor-state dispute brought against Australia – was caused by Australia’s introduction of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, legislation developed in line with the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 2003, adopted by 180 States. However, Philip Morris argued in this case[2] that Read More »