Abstract
Abstract This article analyses the evidentiary assessment made by the investment Tribunal in the case of Philip Morris with a view to drawing some lessons for the regulation of non-communicable diseases (NCD) prevention regulations on food, alcohol, and tobacco. After the introduction, the second Section describes why this dispute, like any dispute concerning NCD prevention measures more generally, raised particularly complex evidentiary challenges. The third Section introduces the provisions and features of the ‘evidence-based’ Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) relevant to the dispute. The fourth Section describes the evidentiary assessment made by the Philip Morris Tribunal, highlighting how it relied extensively on the evidence stemming from or related to the FCTC rule in favour of Uruguay. Finally, the last Section draws lessons that the NCD prevention regulation can learn from Philip Morris for respondents in possible future investment disputes.
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
