SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Big Tobacco Lost to Australia over Plain Packaging - but That Doesn't Mean Corporate Courts 'Work'
Late last year tobacco company Philip Morris International's (PMI) attempted to sue the Australian government for billions over the introduction of plain packing of cigarettes. This court case happened in a secretive court system, just like the one that they are trying to introduce in the EU-USA trade deal, TTIP. PMI failed in their attempt and the case report has just been published.
May 20, 2016
Late last year tobacco company Philip Morris International's (PMI) attempted to sue the Australian government for billions over the introduction of plain packing of cigarettes. This court case happened in a secretive court system, just like the one that they are trying to introduce in the EU-USA trade deal, TTIP. PMI failed in their attempt and the case report has just been published.
It is indisputably a good thing that PMI lost the case. But people who argue in favour of the same 'corporate court' system in TTIP (the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism, or ISDS) are claiming this as proof that the system works, justice was done, and the ISDS system functions responsibly to make sure that corporations can't abuse it.
Here's five reasons why that's not true.
1. The cost to the Australian taxpayer was astronomical
The costs of the case are yet to be apportioned. The Australian Government says it has spent Aus$50 million defending this case. This sum might also include the legal costs of a similar challenge via the World Trade Organisation to plain packaging, but it's still an enormous amount. Under ISDS, the huge cost of defending these cases is often carried by the government, and therefore the taxpayer, regardless of the outcome.
2. The premise of plain packaging was not tested in this case
The case was lost on a technicality relating to which country PMI was registered in at the time that the relevant trade deal was agreed on. The issue of plain packaging and big tobacco's profits has not been tested in an ISDS case and it's likely that similar cases will be tried again in the fut
3. Investment Court System wouldn't make a jot of difference
Despite all the hype about the 'new' investment court system (ICS) that the EU has proposed being a real alternative to ISDS, if this or similar cases were brought through ICS, there would be no discernable difference in outcome, only in venue and perhaps the people who would be involved in the case - although that is by no means guaranteed.
4. Regulatory chill
The threat of such court cases, even if they are not successful, inhibit other governments from passing similar laws. The New Zealand government have been holding fire on introducing plain packaging on cigarettes while they see what happens to Australia. The negative effects on health are already being experienced thanks to this case.
There are other public health measures that could be targeted through ISDS. Until there is a full and uncompromising exemption in every Bilateral investment Treaty, in CETA, TTIP and TPP, they will always be vulnerable.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Guy Taylor
Guy Taylor is campaigner for Global Justice Now where he focuses on international trade, including opposition to the TTIP and similar deals. He previously worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of immigrants and before that for anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance.
Late last year tobacco company Philip Morris International's (PMI) attempted to sue the Australian government for billions over the introduction of plain packing of cigarettes. This court case happened in a secretive court system, just like the one that they are trying to introduce in the EU-USA trade deal, TTIP. PMI failed in their attempt and the case report has just been published.
It is indisputably a good thing that PMI lost the case. But people who argue in favour of the same 'corporate court' system in TTIP (the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism, or ISDS) are claiming this as proof that the system works, justice was done, and the ISDS system functions responsibly to make sure that corporations can't abuse it.
Here's five reasons why that's not true.
1. The cost to the Australian taxpayer was astronomical
The costs of the case are yet to be apportioned. The Australian Government says it has spent Aus$50 million defending this case. This sum might also include the legal costs of a similar challenge via the World Trade Organisation to plain packaging, but it's still an enormous amount. Under ISDS, the huge cost of defending these cases is often carried by the government, and therefore the taxpayer, regardless of the outcome.
2. The premise of plain packaging was not tested in this case
The case was lost on a technicality relating to which country PMI was registered in at the time that the relevant trade deal was agreed on. The issue of plain packaging and big tobacco's profits has not been tested in an ISDS case and it's likely that similar cases will be tried again in the fut
3. Investment Court System wouldn't make a jot of difference
Despite all the hype about the 'new' investment court system (ICS) that the EU has proposed being a real alternative to ISDS, if this or similar cases were brought through ICS, there would be no discernable difference in outcome, only in venue and perhaps the people who would be involved in the case - although that is by no means guaranteed.
4. Regulatory chill
The threat of such court cases, even if they are not successful, inhibit other governments from passing similar laws. The New Zealand government have been holding fire on introducing plain packaging on cigarettes while they see what happens to Australia. The negative effects on health are already being experienced thanks to this case.
There are other public health measures that could be targeted through ISDS. Until there is a full and uncompromising exemption in every Bilateral investment Treaty, in CETA, TTIP and TPP, they will always be vulnerable.
Guy Taylor
Guy Taylor is campaigner for Global Justice Now where he focuses on international trade, including opposition to the TTIP and similar deals. He previously worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of immigrants and before that for anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance.
Late last year tobacco company Philip Morris International's (PMI) attempted to sue the Australian government for billions over the introduction of plain packing of cigarettes. This court case happened in a secretive court system, just like the one that they are trying to introduce in the EU-USA trade deal, TTIP. PMI failed in their attempt and the case report has just been published.
It is indisputably a good thing that PMI lost the case. But people who argue in favour of the same 'corporate court' system in TTIP (the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism, or ISDS) are claiming this as proof that the system works, justice was done, and the ISDS system functions responsibly to make sure that corporations can't abuse it.
Here's five reasons why that's not true.
1. The cost to the Australian taxpayer was astronomical
The costs of the case are yet to be apportioned. The Australian Government says it has spent Aus$50 million defending this case. This sum might also include the legal costs of a similar challenge via the World Trade Organisation to plain packaging, but it's still an enormous amount. Under ISDS, the huge cost of defending these cases is often carried by the government, and therefore the taxpayer, regardless of the outcome.
2. The premise of plain packaging was not tested in this case
The case was lost on a technicality relating to which country PMI was registered in at the time that the relevant trade deal was agreed on. The issue of plain packaging and big tobacco's profits has not been tested in an ISDS case and it's likely that similar cases will be tried again in the fut
3. Investment Court System wouldn't make a jot of difference
Despite all the hype about the 'new' investment court system (ICS) that the EU has proposed being a real alternative to ISDS, if this or similar cases were brought through ICS, there would be no discernable difference in outcome, only in venue and perhaps the people who would be involved in the case - although that is by no means guaranteed.
4. Regulatory chill
The threat of such court cases, even if they are not successful, inhibit other governments from passing similar laws. The New Zealand government have been holding fire on introducing plain packaging on cigarettes while they see what happens to Australia. The negative effects on health are already being experienced thanks to this case.
There are other public health measures that could be targeted through ISDS. Until there is a full and uncompromising exemption in every Bilateral investment Treaty, in CETA, TTIP and TPP, they will always be vulnerable.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.