We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 November 2021
Australia became the first country to introduce standardised or plain packaging laws for tobacco products in 2011. However, they immediately came under direct and indirect challenge from the tobacco industry in various domestic and international fora, including at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO-consistency of Australia's measures was not settled until June 2020, when the Appellate Body upheld two WTO panels’ earlier findings that Australia had acted consistently with its obligations under certain WTO agreements. This article critically analyses the Appellate Body's key findings and their implications for implementing other public health measures. It is shown that these implications are multifaceted, have political, practical and legal dimensions and are likely to reach beyond the WTO dispute resolution system's bounds into other international trade and investment law contexts.
The authors would like to thank Vandana Gyanchandani, James Munro, Lukasz Gruszczynski and Hannu Wager for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.
1 The Ukraine, the first to request a panel, later withdrew its complaint.
2 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1867 UNTS 3 (Marrakesh Agreement) Annex 1A (Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade) art 2.2.
3 Panel Report, Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, WT/DS457/R, adopted 28 June 2018 (Panel Report) paras 7.182–232.
4 ibid paras 7.403–5.
5 ibid para 7.31, citing Appellate Body Report, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/39, WT/DS386/40, adopted 11 December 2015 (US–COOL) para 374; Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2012 (US–Tuna II (Mexico)) para 318.
6 ibid paras 7.491, 7.493, 7.495–8.
7 ibid paras 7.1025, 7.1043.
8 Marrakesh Agreement (n 2) Annex 2 (Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes) art 11.1.
9 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, WT/DS435/AB/AR, WT/DS441/AB/R, adopted 9 June 2020 (Appellate Body Report) paras 6.48–50.
10 ibid para 6.77.
11 ibid para 6.70, quoting Panel Report (n 3) para 7.555.
12 ibid paras 6.73–7.
13 ibid paras 6.103–345, 6.269, 6.278–9, 6.287, 6.295.
14 ibid paras 6.524, 6.531–6.
15 ibid paras 6.385, 6.389, 6.391.
16 ibid paras 6.393, 6.406.
17 Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.1200, 7.1204, 7.1207.
18 Appellate Body Report (n 9) paras 6.408, 6.423.
19 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.1324, citing Appellate Body Report, US–Tuna II Mexico, para 322; Appellate Body Report, US–COOL, paras 374–8; Appellate Body Report, US–COOL: Recourse to Article 21.5, para 5.197.
20 ibid para 7.1721.
21 Appellate Body Report (n 9) para 6.498 (original emphasis).
22 ibid.
23 ibid paras 6.499, 6.502–3.
24 ibid paras 6.467, 6.475–9. See above (n 18).
25 Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.1724–32.
26 Marrakesh Agreement (n 2) Annex 1C (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) art 20.
27 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.2430.
28 ibid paras 7.2588–9. See Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, adopted 14 November 2001, para 4.
29 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.2592.
30 Appellate Body Report (n 9) paras 6.641–3, 6.659.
31 ibid para 6.659 (emphasis added).
32 ibid paras 6.651, 6.659.
33 ibid paras 6.653–5.
34 ibid para 6.657.
35 ibid paras 6.664–72.
36 ibid paras 6.700, 6.706–7.
37 ibid paras 6.677, 6.680–1.
38 Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.1923–34.
39 Appellate Body Report (n 9) para 6.574.
40 ibid paras 6.582–8, 6.599.
41 See eg T Voon, ‘Third Strike: The WTO Panel Reports Upholding Australia's Tobacco Plain Packaging Scheme’ (2019) 20 Journal of World Investment and Trade 146, 152.
42 Appellate Body Report, US – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R, adopted 4 April 2012, paras 235–6; Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001, paras 162–81.
43 See eg McGrady, B, Confronting the Tobacco Epidemic in a New Era of Trade and Investment Liberalization (WHO 2012)Google Scholar; McNeill, D et al. , ‘Trade and Investment Agreements: Implications for Health Protection’ (2017) 51 JWT 159Google Scholar.
44 See Zhou, S and Liberman, J, ‘Public Health, Intellectual Property, and the Trade and Investment Law Challenges to Australia and Uruguay's Tobacco Packaging Laws’ in Rothwell, DR, Saunders, I, and Shirlow, E (eds), The Australian Year Book of International Law Online (Brill 2020)Google Scholar.
45 AD Mitchell and J Casben, ‘Trade Law and Alcohol Regulation: What Role for a Global Alcohol Marketing Code?’ (2016) 112 Addiction 109, 110.
46 A Higgins, AD Mitchell and J Munro, ‘Australia's Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products: Science and Health Measures in International Economic Law’ in B Mercurio and K Ni (eds), Science and Technology in International Economic Law: Balancing Competing Interests (Taylor and Francis 2013) 122–3. As T Voon notes, this ‘standard of review’ is likely to change depending on the particular agreement and the obligation said to be breached (eg discrimination-based provisions): ‘Evidentiary Challenges for Public Health Regulation in International Trade and Investment Law’ (2015) 18 JIEL 795, 825–6.
47 B McGrady, ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging and the Expanding Role of the WTO in Regulatory Oversight’ in DR Rothwell, I Saunders, and E Shirlow (eds), The Australian Year Book of International Law (Brill 2020) 78.
48 See Appellate Body Report (n 9) para 6.707; Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.412–17.
49 See eg Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.663–6, 7.800, 7.1309–10, 7.1507–8, 7.2595. See generally L Gruszczynski and M Melillo, ‘The FCTC and Its Role in WTO Law: Some Remarks on the WTO Plain Packaging Report’ (2018) 9 EJRR, 572.
50 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.412. See generally S Zhou, J Liberman and E Ricafort, ‘The Impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Defending Legal Challenges to Tobacco Control Measures’ (2019) 28 Tobacco Control s113; N Devillier and T Gleason, ‘Consistent and Recurring Use of External Legal Norms: Examining Normative Integration of the FCTC post-Australia – Tobacco Plain Packaging’ (2019) 53 JWT 533, 561–4.
51 See eg Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Award (8 July 2016); Methanex Corporation v United States of America (2005) 44 ILM 1345.
52 See Appellate Body Report (n 9) paras 6.700–7. Notably, the Panel said that ‘it is not uncommon in WTO disputes for … panels and the Appellate Body to rely on, non-WTO international instruments … to inform the interpretation of specific provisions under a covered agreement’ but did not use the FCTC in this way: at para 7.412 (emphasis added).
53 S Zhou, ‘The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in the WTO Panel's decision in Australia – Plain Packaging’ (ILA Reporter, 27 February 2019) <http://ilareporter.org.au/2019/02/the-who-framework-convention-on-tobacco-control-in-the-wto-panels-decision-in-australia-plain-packaging-suzanne-zhou/>. See eg Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/R, adopted 2 September 2011, paras 2.29–32.
54 Devillier and Gleason (n 50) 536, 538.
55 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.516, quoting Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted 16 October 2008, paras 591–2.
56 Panel Report, US–Clove Cigarettes (n 53) para 7.401, fn 715.
57 Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, para 109.
58 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.517. The Panel's assessment of the TPP measures’ contribution under the TBT Agreement was adopted later in its analysis under art 20 of the TRIPS Agreement: para 7.2593.
59 See Appellate Body Report (n 9) para 6.22 and fn to para 6.23.
60 J d'Aspremont and MM Mbengue, ‘Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact-finding in International Adjudication’ (2014) 5 JIDSt 240, 253–4. See eg Appellate Body Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted 16 October 2008, para 591.
61 This appears to have been the case in this dispute: see eg Appellate Body Report (n 9) paras 6.73–7.
62 See ibid para 6.17; Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.1529, 7.1727, 7.2592.
63 Higgins, Mitchell and Munro (n 46) 121.
64 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.506.
65 Appellate Body Report (n 9) para 6.502.
66 ibid. See Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.1368–9, 7.1731.
67 B McGrady, ‘Health and International Trade Law’ in GL Burci and B Toebes (eds), Research Handbook on Global Health Law (Edward Elgar 2018) 107.
68 T Voon and A Yanovich, ‘The Facts Aside: The Limitation of WTO Appeals to Issues of Law’ (2006) 40 JWT 239, 247; Voon (n 41) 155.
69 See Office of the United States Trade Representative, ‘Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’ (29 June 2020) 17–18.
70 Zhou and Liberman (n 44) 74–5.
71 McGrady, ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging and the Expanding Role of the WTO in Regulatory Oversight’ (n 47) 76.
72 Appellate Body Report, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada and Mexico, WT/DS384/AB/RW, WT/DS386/AB/RW, adopted 18 May 2015, 126, para 5.208, fn 643 (US–COOL: Recourse to Article 21.5).
73 See Voon (n 41) 161, 164.
74 Appellate Body Report (n 9) paras 6.386–7, 6.408.
75 Panel Report (n 3) paras 7.1200, 7.1204, 7.1207.
76 Voon (n 41) 171.
77 See Appellate Body Report (n 9) para 6.491; Panel Report (n 3) para 7.1731. See, generally, Voon (n 41) 168–70.
78 Panel Report (n 3) para 7.2328.
79 See ibid paras 7.2241–4, 7.2261–3.
80 Voon (n 41) 183; Zhou and Liberman (n 44) 74.
81 McGrady, ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging and the Expanding Role of the WTO in Regulatory Oversight’ (n 47) 81.
82 Appellate Body Report (n 9) paras 6.654–5, quoting Panel Report (n 3) para 7.2598.
83 ibid paras 6.654–5.
84 Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 29 April 1996, 16–17.
85 McGrady, ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging and the Expanding Role of the WTO in Regulatory Oversight’ (n 47) 81.
86 ibid 79, 82.
87 See generally Shaffer, G, Elsig, M and Puig, S, ‘The Extensive (but Fragile) Authority of the WTO Appellate Body’ (2016) 79 Law and Contemporary Problems 237Google Scholar.
88 ibid 261–4; Marceau, G, Izaguerri, A and Lanavoy, V, ‘The WTO's Influence on Other Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: A Lighthouse in the Storm of Fragmentation’ (2013) 47 JWT 481, 531–2Google Scholar; Mitchell, AD and Munro, J, ‘State–State Dispute Settlement under the TPP’ in Voon, T (ed), Trade Liberalisation and International Cooperation: A Legal Analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Edward Elgar 2013) 156, 176–7Google Scholar.
89 Marceau, Izaguerri and Lanavoy (n 88) 531–2; McGrady, ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging and the Expanding Role of the WTO in Regulatory Oversight’ (n 47) 77–8, 86.
90 Marceau, Izaguerri and Lanavoy (n 88) 530–1.
91 Concerns remain about the capacity and competence of economic tribunals to review complex scientific evidence: see eg Voon (n 46) 807.
