Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Health in International Investment Law and Arbitration

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

  • 405 Accesses

Abstract

International investment law, and the settlement of investor-state disputes through ad hoc arbitration, is often seen as a threat or limitation on the ability of states to enact measures for the protection of public health. This chapter begins by outlining the coverage of international investment agreements and how the obligations they impose may be relevant to a range of public health measures. A number of high-profile arbitrations have impacted on policies that are relevant to public health, including challenges to tobacco control measures or regulations on the use of hazardous chemicals, and cases concerning patents or marketing authorizations for pharmaceuticals. Recent treaty drafting practice reflects concern that international investment law may limit state regulatory autonomy, with many contemporary investment treaties including clauses that clarify that legitimate public health regulations are not inconsistent with investor protections. Arbitrations concerning the consistency of public health measures with international investment agreements have also had to grapple with the complex relationship of international investment law to other regimes of public international law, including instruments of the World Health Organization, treaties regulating hazardous substances, and treaties concerning the protection of intellectual property rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    But see Bonnitcha J, Poulsen LNS, Waibel M (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, Chap. 6; Yackee JW (2016) Do BITs ‘work’? Empirical evidence from France. J Int Dispute Settl 7(1):55–71

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 7 October 1988 (entered into force 22 April 1991), preamble; Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, signed 27 August 1993 (entered into force 11 May 1997, terminated by unilateral denunciation of Ecuador on 18 May 2018), preamble.

  3. 3.

    Vadi V (2012) Public health in international investment law and arbitration. Routledge, London, p 190

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Mercurio B (2014) International investment agreements and public health: neutralizing a threat through treaty drafting. Bull World Health Org 92(7):520–525. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.130955; Thow AM, McGrady B (2014) Protecting policy space for public health nutrition in an era of international investment agreements. Bull World Health Org 92(2):139–145; Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections – is a general exceptions clause a forced perspective?. Am J Law Med 39(2–3):332–360

  5. 5.

    Agreement between Australia and the Czech Republic on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 30 September 1993 (entered into force 29 June 1994), Art 1(a)

  6. 6.

    See Mercurio B (2012) Awakening the sleeping giant: intellectual property rights in international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 15(3):872

  7. 7.

    Cf Indian Model BIT (2016), Art 1.4 (requiring that than investment must involve “significance for the development of the Party in whose territory the investment is made”)

  8. 8.

    See, e.g., Agreement Between the Swiss Confederation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 7 October 1988 (entered into force 22 April 1991), Art 2(1) (hereinafter “Switzerland–Uruguay BIT”).

  9. 9.

    Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA, and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 July 2013), [171]-[174] (hereinafter “Philip Morris v Uruguay, Decision on Jurisdiction”)

  10. 10.

    Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, signed 8 March 2018 (entered into force 30 December 2018) (incorporating the provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, signed 4 February 2016 (not in force)), Art 29.5 (hereinafter “CPTPP”)

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., Singapore–Australia Free Trade Agreement, signed 17 February 2003 (entered into force 28 July 2003), as amended from 24 February 2006, 13 February 2007, 11 October 2007 and 2 September 2011, and 13 October 2016, Chp 8 Art 22 (hereinafter “SAFTA”); Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement, signed 26 March 2019 (not yet in force), Annex IV, Art 14; Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the Republic of Singapore on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments, signed 21 November 2018 (not yet in force) Art 11.2.

  12. 12.

    Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement, signed 12 February 2018 (not yet in force) Chapter 8, Footnote 17; Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, signed 4 March 2019 (not yet in force) Article 14.21(b)

  13. 13.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, opened for signature 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159 (entered into force 14 October 1966), Art 25(1) (hereinafter “ICSID Convention”)

  14. 14.

    Salini Costruttori S.P.A. and Ors v Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (23 July 2001), [52]

  15. 15.

    Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Uruguay’s Memorial on Jurisdiction (24 September 2011), chp II.B.3

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., Philip Morris v Uruguay, Decision on Jurisdiction, [206]; Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011), [363]-[364].

  17. 17.

    See Metalclad Corporation v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1, Award (30 August 2000), [103].

  18. 18.

    See Waste Management Inc v United Mexican States (Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, 30 April 2004), [98]; cf Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v The United Mexican States (Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB (AF)/00/2, 29 May 2003), [154].

  19. 19.

    Thow and McGrady, “Protecting Policy Space for Public Health Nutrition in an Era of International Investment Agreements,” 139

  20. 20.

    For further detail, see Vadi, Public Health in International Investment Law and Arbitration.

  21. 21.

    Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Award (8 July 2016), [110] (hereinafter “Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award”)

  22. 22.

    Ibid., [121]-[123]

  23. 23.

    See Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Uruguay’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits (13 October 2014), [4.1]-[4.2] (hereinafter “Philip Morris v Uruguay, Uruguay’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits”).

  24. 24.

    Ibid., [5.1]-[5.5]

  25. 25.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Decision on Jurisdiction, chp IV.C

  26. 26.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award, [286]

  27. 27.

    Ibid., [287] and [302]-[307]

  28. 28.

    Philip Morris Asia Limited v the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Notice of Arbitration, (21 November 2011), [4.12]

  29. 29.

    Agreement Between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 15 September 1993 (entered into force 15 October 1993)

  30. 30.

    Philip Morris Asia Ltd v Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 December 2015), [585] (hereinafter “Philip Morris v Australia, Award on Jurisdiction”)

  31. 31.

    North American Free Trade Agreement, signed 17 December 1992 (entered into force 1 January 1994).

  32. 32.

    Marvin Feldman v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1, Award (16 December 2002), [111]

  33. 33.

    Ibid., [136]

  34. 34.

    Ibid., [181]-[182]

  35. 35.

    Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd and Ors v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB/10/5, Award (12 January 2011), [8]-[9]

  36. 36.

    See, e.g., ibid. [218]-[219].

  37. 37.

    Chemtura Corporation v Canada, UNCITRAL, Award (2 August 2010) (hereinafter “Chemtura v Canada, Award”)

  38. 38.

    Methanex Corporation v United States, UNCITRAL, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005)

  39. 39.

    See Dow Agrosciences LLC v Canada, NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration, Settlement Agreement (25 May 2011).

  40. 40.

    For details of the claim, see Ethyl Corporation v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (24 June 1998), [5]-[6].

  41. 41.

    See Chemtura v Canada, Award, [184]; Methanex Corporation v United States, UNCITRAL, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), pt III, chp A, [101]-[102]

  42. 42.

    SD Myers Inc v Canada, UNCITRAL, First Partial Award and Separate Opinion (13 November 2000), [90]

  43. 43.

    Ibid., [94]

  44. 44.

    Ibid., [98]

  45. 45.

    Ibid., [127]

  46. 46.

    Ibid., [287]

  47. 47.

    See, ibid., [256] and [268].

  48. 48.

    Ibid., [194]

  49. 49.

    Ibid., [195]

  50. 50.

    Ibid., [164]

  51. 51.

    Les Laboratoires Servier, S.A.S. v Poland (Final Award) (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 14 February 2012), [575]

  52. 52.

    Apotex Inc v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (14 June 2013), [235]-[241].]

  53. 53.

    Apotex Holdings v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (25 August 2014), [8.56]-[8.58]

  54. 54.

    Ibid., [8.70]

  55. 55.

    See, generally, Eli Lilly & Company v Canada, UNCITRAL Case No UNCT/14/2, NAFTA ch 11, Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration (7 November 2012).

  56. 56.

    Eli Lilly & Company v Canada, UNCITRAL Case No UNCT/14/2, NAFTA ch 11, Final Award (16 March 2017) [386]-[387] and [416]-[442] (hereinafter “Eli Lilly v Canada, Award”)

  57. 57.

    See Charlotin D, Peterson LE (2018) The Merck v Ecuador Award (Part Two). Investment Arbitration Reporter. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/the-merck-v-ecuador-award-part-two-on-the-merits-ecuador-found-liable-for-denial-of-justice-after-foreign-investor-is-ordered-to-pay-wholly-disproportionate-sum-without-court-en/

  58. 58.

    See Williams Z (2017) Another big pharma company (Pfizer) invokes investment treaty protections, complaining that local courts are wrongly infringing on patents. Investment Arbitration Reporter. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/another-big-pharma-company-invokes-investment-treaty-protections-complaining-that-local-courts-are-wrongly-infringing-on-patents/

  59. 59.

    See Williams Z (2016) Investigation: as Colombia pushes for cancer drug price-cut and considers compulsory licensing, Novartis responds with quiet filing of investment treaty notice. Investment Arbitration Reporter. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/investigation-as-colombia-pushes-for-cancer-drug-price-cut-and-considers-compulsory-licensing-novartis-responds-with-quiet-filing-of-an-investment-treaty-notice/

  60. 60.

    See, generally, UNCTAD (2015) Investment policy framework for sustainable development, 2nd edn. United Nations

  61. 61.

    See, generally, Mitchell A, Sheargold E (2015) Protecting the autonomy of states to enact tobacco control measures under trade and investment agreements. Tob Control 24(e2):e148; Broude T, Haftel YZ, Thompson A (2018) Who cares about regulatory space in BITs? A comparative international approach. In: Roberts A (ed) Comparative international law. Oxford University Press, New York, p 537

  62. 62.

    See, e.g., CPTPP, Art 29.5; SAFTA, Chp 8 Art 22.

  63. 63.

    United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, signed 12 April 2006 (entered into force 1 February 2009), Annex 10-B, para. 3(b)

  64. 64.

    Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, signed 30 October 2016 (not yet in force but provisionally applied in part), Annex 8-A, para. 3

  65. 65.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award, [301]

  66. 66.

    Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, signed 23 September 2014 (entered into force 1 January 2015), Art 22.1.3

  67. 67.

    For more detailed discussion, see Mitchell A, Munro J, Voon T (2019) Importing WTO general exceptions into international investment agreements: proportionality, myths and risks. In: Sachs L, Johnson L, Coleman J (eds) Yearbook on international investment law and policy 2017. Oxford University Press, pp 305–355; Chaisse, “Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections – is a general exceptions clause a forced perspective?”; Legum B, Petculescu I (2013) GATT Article XX and international investment law. In: Echandi R, Sauve P (eds) Prospects in international investment law and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Newcombe A (2013) The use of general exceptions in IIAs: increasing legitimacy or uncertainty?. In: De Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge research in international economic law. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, pp 267–283

  68. 68.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 22 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980), Art 31(3)(c) (hereinafter “VCLT”)

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Koch Minerals Sárl and Koch Nitrogen International Sárl v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/11/19, 30 October 2017), [6.50]; Yukos Universal Ltd (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation (Final Award) (Permanent Court of Arbitration, Case No AA 227, 18 July 2014), [1344]; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v Government of Canada (Decision on Liability and on Principles of Quantum) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB(AF)/07/4, 22 May 2012), [254]; Mesa Power Group, LLC v Government of Canada (Award) (NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitral Tribunal, Permanent Court of Arbitration Case No. 2012-17, 24 March 2016), [232].

  70. 70.

    Statue of the International Court of Justice, Art 38(1)

  71. 71.

    ICSID Convention, Art 42(1)

  72. 72.

    See Douglas Z (2011) The MFN clause in investment arbitration: treaty interpretation off the rails. J Int Dispute Settl 2(1):109–110. See also Weeramantry JR (2012) Treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Oxford international arbitration series. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, [3.145]; McLachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and Article 31(3)(C) of the Vienna convention. Int Comp Law Q 54:279–320

  73. 73.

    Weeramantry, Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration, [3.145]

  74. 74.

    Vadi VS (2009) Reconciling public health and investor rights: the case of tobacco. In: Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, p 481

  75. 75.

    On the limits of “relevant” rules for the purposes of Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT, see the comments of Judge Higgins in: Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) (Judgment) [2003] ICJ Rep 161, 237- 238 [46]-[49].

  76. 76.

    Charter of the United Nations Art 57; Constitution of the World Health Organization, opened for signature 22 July 1946 (entered into force 7 April 1948), preamble, Arts 1 and 69 (hereinafter “WHO Constitution”)

  77. 77.

    WHO Constitution, Art 19

  78. 78.

    WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, opened for signature 16 June 2003 (entered into force 27 February 2005) (hereinafter “FCTC”)

  79. 79.

    FCTC, Arts 3 and 5(1)

  80. 80.

    See, e.g., Philip Morris Asia Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Response to the Notice of Arbitration (21 December 2011), [5], [16]–[17], [38]; Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Uruguay’s Memorial on Jurisdiction (24 September 2011), [13]-[15]; Philip Morris v Uruguay, Uruguay’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits, [1.9]-[1.16].

  81. 81.

    FCTC, Art 11(1)(a) and (b)

  82. 82.

    Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Guidelines for Implementation of Article 11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Packaging and labelling of tobacco products), Decision FCTC/COP3(10), WHO Doc FCTC/COP/3/DIV/3, 16 February 2009 (hereinafter “FCTC Guidelines”)

  83. 83.

    Philip Morris Asia Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Response to the Notice of Arbitration (21 December 2011), [17]

  84. 84.

    Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Uruguay’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits (13 October 2014), [3.81]

  85. 85.

    See, generally, Philip Morris v Australia, Award on Jurisdiction; Philip Morris v Uruguay, Decision on Jurisdiction.

  86. 86.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award, [389]

  87. 87.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay Award, [391]; See also Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Written Submission (Amicus Curiae Brief) by the World Health Organization and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat (28 January 2015).

  88. 88.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award, [396]

  89. 89.

    Ibid., [401]

  90. 90.

    Ibid., [402] and [404]

  91. 91.

    Voon T (2017) Philip Morris v Uruguay: implications for public health. J World Invest Trade 18(2):329; Foster ND (2016) Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v Oriental Republic of Uruguay. Am J Int Law 110(4):780

  92. 92.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award, [401]. The tribunal made similar comments in relation to the indirect expropriation claim, although as noted above, these findings were not necessary to its resolution of that claim. See ibid., [304] and [306].

  93. 93.

    Ibid., [401]

  94. 94.

    Ibid., [401]

  95. 95.

    The tribunal did refer to Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT as a basis for considering customary international law principles when defining the scope of both the expropriation obligation and the fair and equitable treatment provision. See ibid., [290] and [317].

  96. 96.

    See especially ibid., [401].

  97. 97.

    Ibid. [323]-[324]

  98. 98.

    See Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Gary Born (8 July 2016), [93]-[98].

  99. 99.

    Ibid., [99]-[100], [127], [174] and [193]-[194]

  100. 100.

    Ibid., [194]

  101. 101.

    Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, opened for signature 22 May 2001 (entered into force 17 May 2004)

  102. 102.

    Chemtura v Canada, Award, [137]

  103. 103.

    Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution of 1979, opened for signature 24 June 1998 (entered into force 23 October 2003) (hereinafter “Aarhus Protocol”)

  104. 104.

    Chemtura v Canada, Award, [135]-[136]

  105. 105.

    Ibid., [138]-[142]

  106. 106.

    Aarhus Protocol, Annex II

  107. 107.

    Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 January 1995) annex 1C (“'Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’) (hereinafter ‘TRIPS Agreement”)

  108. 108.

    Patent Cooperation Treaty, opened for signature 19 June 1970 (entered into force 24 January 1978)

  109. 109.

    Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Claimant’s Reply on the Merits (17 April 2005), [125]-[130]

  110. 110.

    Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Claimant’s Reply on the Merits (17 April 2005), [125]

  111. 111.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, Award, [267]. See also Foster, “Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v Oriental Republic of Uruguay,” 776; Gabriel VDR, Mesquita AL (2018) Repackaging intellectual property protection in international investment law: lessons from the Philip Morris v Uruguay Case. Georgetown J Int Law 49(3):1137

  112. 112.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay Award, [258]-[265]

  113. 113.

    See, generally, Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2016) Challenging compliance with international intellectual property norms in investor–state dispute settlement. J Int Econ Law 19(1):250. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw009

  114. 114.

    Eli Lilly & Company v Canada, UNCITRAL Case No UNCT/14/2, NAFTA ch 11, Claimant’s Memorial (28 September 2014), [177]-[182] (hereinafter “Eli Lilly v Canada, Claimant’s Memorial”)

  115. 115.

    Eli Lilly v Canada, Claimant’s Memorial, chp VII.A.2

  116. 116.

    Eli Lilly & Company v Canada, UNCITRAL Case No UNCT/14/2, NAFTA ch 11, Government of Canada Counter Memorial (27 January 2015), chp V.E (hereinafter ‘Eli Lilly v Canada, Canada’s Counter Memorial’)

  117. 117.

    See Eli Lilly v Canada, Claimant’s Memorial, [302] cf Eli Lilly v Canada, Canada’s Counter Memorial, [379]; Eli Lilly & Company v Canada, UNCITRAL Case No UNCT/14/2, NAFTA ch 11, Government of Canada Rejoinder Memorial (8 December 2015), [181] (hereinafter “Eli Lilly v Canada, Canada’s Rejoinder”).

  118. 118.

    Eli Lilly v Canada, Canada’s Rejoinder, [179]-[180]; cf Eli Lilly & Company v Canada, UNCITRAL Case No UNCT/14/2, NAFTA ch 11, Claimant’s Reply Memorial (11 September 2015), [283]

  119. 119.

    Eli Lilly v Canada, Claimant’s Memorial, [279]-[283]

  120. 120.

    Eli Lilly v Canada Award, [386]-[387] and [416]-[442]

  121. 121.

    Ibid., [385] n 515

  122. 122.

    See Williams Z (2016) Investigation: as Colombia pushes for cancer drug price-cut and considers compulsory licensing, Novartis responds with quiet filing of investment treaty notice. Investment Arbitration Reporter. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/investigation-as-colombia-pushes-for-cancer-drug-price-cut-and-considers-compulsory-licensing-novartis-responds-with-quiet-filing-of-an-investment-treaty-notice/

  123. 123.

    Agreement Between the Republic of Colombia and the Swiss Confederation on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed 17 May 2006 (entered into force 6 October 2009), ad Article 6(1)

  124. 124.

    See, e.g., US Model BIT (2012), Art 6(5); CPTPP Art 9.8(5).

  125. 125.

    Indian Model BIT (2016), Art 2.4(iii)

  126. 126.

    TRIPS Agreement, Art 31(f)

  127. 127.

    TRIPS Agreement, Art 31(b)

  128. 128.

    Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WTO Doc WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 (20 November 2001) (Decision adopted on 14 November 2001), para. 5(a) (hereinafter “Doha Declaration”)

  129. 129.

    TRIPS Agreement, Art 7

  130. 130.

    TRIPS Agreement, Art 8(1)

  131. 131.

    Doha Declaration, para 5(c)

  132. 132.

    Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WTO Doc WT/L/540 (1 September 2003) (Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003)

  133. 133.

    Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, WTO Doc WT/L/641 (8 December 2005) (Decision of the General Council of 6 December 2005). See also Mitchell AD, Voon T (2009) Patents and public health in the WTO, FTAs and beyond: tension and conflict in international law. J World Trade 43(3):571

  134. 134.

    See WTO (2017) WTO IP rules amended to ease poor countries’ access to affordable medicines. News Item. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/trip_23jan17_e.htm; see also Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, WTO Doc WT/L/1024 (1 December 2017) (Decision of the General Council of 30 November 2017) (extending the period of acceptance of the amendment to 31 December 2019).

  135. 135.

    Ranjan P (2019) Issuance of compulsory patent licenses and expropriation in Asian BITs and FTA investment chapters: a study of India, China, Malaysia and Thailand. In: The future of Asian trade deals and IP. Hart Publishing

  136. 136.

    Grosse Ruse-Khan, “Challenging Compliance with International Intellectual Property Norms in Investor–State Dispute Settlement,” 269

  137. 137.

    Following the customary rules of treaty interpretation set out in VCLT Art 31(1) and 31(3)(a)-(b).

  138. 138.

    Grosse Ruse-Khan, “Challenging Compliance with International Intellectual Property Norms in Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” 269

  139. 139.

    See, e.g., CPTPP Art 18.6(1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Elizabeth Sheargold

  2. Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Andrew D. Mitchell

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Sheargold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew D. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Sheargold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. Professor of International Law; and Director of the Research and Innovation Theme in Democratic Citizenship, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Sheargold, E., Mitchell, A.D. (2019). Public Health in International Investment Law and Arbitration. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_39-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_39-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation