The International Law Gaze: The ICSID Award in Philip Morris v Uruguay and the Near End of the “Aesthetic Experience”.

Author: Alvarez-Jimenez, Alberto

Date: 2017

Publisher: LexisNexis

Type: Journal article

Link to this item using this URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10289/11004

University of Waikato

Abstract

It was the large economic value of tobacco’s “aesthetic experience” that Philip Morris (PM) sought to preserve in its litigation against Uruguay before an international tribunal operating under the jurisdiction of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). There, PM claimed that Uruguay was in violation of the Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, dated October 7, 1988 (the BIT). The reason? Uruguay’s decision to enact tobacco control measures, in particular, its single presentation requirement (SPR) prohibiting tobacco manufacturers from selling more than one variant of cigarette per brand family and the increase in the size of health warnings included on cigarette packets from 50% to 80% of the surface of the front and the back (80/80 Regulation). As a result, manufacturers had only 20% of the room on cigarette packs for trademarks, logos, and other information.

Citation: ["Alvarez-Jimenez, A. (2017). The International Law Gaze: The ICSID Award in Philip Morris v Uruguay and the Near End of the ‘Aesthetic Experience’. New Zealand Law Journal, 2017 February(2), 29–33."]

Copyright: This is an author’s accepted version of an article published in the New Zealand Law Journal [2017] NZLJ 29, published by LexisNexis.