This article analyses the fraught relationship between host States’ obligations under investment agreements and their regulatory powers in the field of public health. First, tribunals addressing the merits of health measures have exercised considerable deference to States under existing treaties. Second, the recent generation of treaties spells out health considerations to encourage respondents or tribunals to adopt broad interpretations of the right to regulate, general exceptions, or article-specific carve-outs. Clauses modelled on GATT exceptions may prove difficult to invoke due to the ‘necessity’ threshold. Finally, the Kyoto Protocol may serve as a model of incentivising private investment in the public health sector.

本文分析了东道国在投资协议下的义务与其在公共卫生领域的监管权力之间的紧张关系。首先，处理卫生措施优点的法庭对现有条约下的国家给予了相当大的尊重。其次，最近一代的条约阐明了健康方面的考虑，以鼓励受访者或法庭对监管权、一般例外或特定条款的例外采取广泛的解释。由于“必要性”阈值，以 GATT 例外为模型的条款可能难以调用。最后，《京都议定书》可以作为激励私人投资公共卫生部门的典范。