Implications of Ongoing Trade and Investment Disputes Concerning Tobacco: Philip Morris v Uruguay
Abstract
This chapter examines the implications of ongoing investment disputes for plain packaging of tobacco products. Written before the Philip Morris (Asia) claim was in the public domain, the chapter examines Philip Morris v. Uruguay. That dispute is examined with a view to identifying its implications not only for Philip Morris (Asia) v. Australia, but also for plain packaging more generally.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Tobacco companies directly challenged public health policies using investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in trade and investment agreements and used the threat of legal action to dissuade governments from implementing tobacco control policies.
“Subsequently, tobacco companies directly challenged public health policies using investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in trade and investment agreements7 and used the threat of legal action8 to dissuade governments from implementing tobacco control policies.9”
From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crosbie, E., Sosa, P., & Glantz, S. A. (2018) · Tobacco control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053690 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Crosbie, E., Sosa, P., & Glantz, S. A. (2017) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052701 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- McGrady, B.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McGrady, Benn
- Venue
- Public Health and Plain Packaging of Cigarettes
- Publisher
- Edward Elgar Publishing
- Published
- 2012-08-31
- OpenAlex
- W2114092491
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 13.76
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Arbitration and Investment Law
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › World Trade Organization Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Law
- Keywords
- Philip Morris v. Uruguay, plain packaging, tobacco regulation, investment disputes, trade disputes, investor-state dispute settlement, tobacco control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
