The impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in defending legal challenges to tobacco control measures

Author:

Zhou Suzanne Y,Liberman Jonathan D,Ricafort Evita

Abstract

BackgroundSince the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s (FCTC) entry into force, the tobacco industry has initiated litigation challenging tobacco control measures implemented by governments around the world, or supported others to initiate such litigation on its behalf. In defending their tobacco control measures against such litigation, governments have invoked their obligations and rights under the WHO FCTC. We assess the extent to which the WHO FCTC has provided legal weight to governments’ defences against legal challenge.MethodsWe reviewed 96 court decisions concerning legal challenges to tobacco control measures, determining whether or not they cited the WHO FCTC and their outcomes. We then reviewed the cases where the WHO FCTC was cited, analysing how the WHO FCTC contributed to the resolution of the case.ResultsThe WHO FCTC was cited in 45 decisions. Decisions both citing and not citing the WHO FCTC were largely decided in favour of governments, with 80% of WHO-FCTC-citing and 67% of non-WHO-FCTC-citing cases upholding the measure in its entirety and on every ground of challenge. In cases where it was cited, the WHO FCTC contributed to the resolution of the case in favour of governments by providing a legal basis for measures, demonstrating the measure’s public health purpose, demonstrating the evidence in favour of a measure, demonstrating international consensus, demonstrating that a measure promotes or protects health-related human rights and demonstrating whether or not a measure is reasonable, proportionate or justifiable.ConclusionsThe way the WHO FCTC has been cited in court decisions suggests that it has made a substantial contribution to courts’ reasoning in tobacco control legal challenges and has strengthened governments’ arguments in defending litigation.

Funder

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government

Department of Health, Australian Government

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health(social science)

Reference34 articles.

1. Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility), PCA Case No. 2012-12 (17 Dec 2015).

2. World Trade Organization. Australia — Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, DS 434, DS435, DS441, DS458, DS467  (pending).

3. Philip Morris Brands SARL v Oriental Republic of Uruguay (Award), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (8 Jul 2016).

4. Tracking the relevance of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in legislation and litigation through the online resource, Tobacco Control Laws

5. ‘The role of public law-based litigation in tobacco companies’ strategies in high-income, FCTC ratifying countries, 2004–14’;Steele;Journal of Public Health,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3