SYNOPSIS:

The Hochelaga Lectures 2017

This lecture examines this outcome from the perspective of four commonly-raised concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) procedure: delays, costs, transparency and “regulatory chill”. It then compares the 2016 award on the merits finding against Philip Morris in a (much smaller) claim under the Uruguay-Switzerland treaty. That tribunal (including Australia’s pre-eminent international lawyer) held that the (less invasive) tobacco advertising regulations did not result in a denial of justice or violation of fair and equitable treatment (by majority), nor indirect expropriation (recognising that bona fide public health measures are an essential manifestation of a state’s “police powers” under customary international law). FULL DETAILS