Since 2005, the who fctc is binding on the Netherlands. Since that time, the Dutch courts have addressed Articles 8.2 and 5.3 fctc on three occasions. In this article, we review these three cases in order to analyze the legal... more
Since 2005, the who fctc is binding on the Netherlands. Since that time, the Dutch courts have addressed Articles 8.2 and 5.3 fctc on three occasions. In this article, we review these three cases in order to analyze the legal enforceability of Articles 8.2 and 5.3 fctc in the Netherlands. Special attention is paid to the role the guidelines and recommendations adopted by the Conference of the Parties played in these cases. We observe that the legal enforceability of both articles depends on the specific circumstances of the case. We argue that the Dutch courts should have given more careful consideration to the fctc guidelines and recommendations
Die Einführung von Einheitsverpackungen (Plain Packaging) für Zigaretten ist derzeit in aller Munde. Von Australien über die EU bis hin zu mehreren südamerikanischen Staaten erwägt man die Einführung einer neutralen Verpackung für... more
Die Einführung von Einheitsverpackungen (Plain Packaging) für Zigaretten ist derzeit in aller Munde. Von Australien über die EU bis hin zu mehreren südamerikanischen Staaten erwägt man die Einführung einer neutralen Verpackung für Tabakprodukte, die keinerlei Marke trägt und lediglich Warnhinweise enthält. Der nachfolgende Beitrag widmet sich der damit verbundenen verfassungsrechtlichen Problematik und kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Einführung von Einheitsverpackungen, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund des Schutzes der Jugend und der Gesundheit der Bevölkerung, mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar ist.
Plain packaging is the WHO’s new concept to fight the global tobacco epidemic. Already adopted in Australia, other countries are certain to follow and are already evaluating its introduction. However, plain packaging is not as carefree... more
Plain packaging is the WHO’s new concept to fight the global tobacco epidemic.
Already adopted in Australia, other countries are certain to follow and are already evaluating its introduction. However, plain packaging is not as carefree and unproblematic as the WHO considers it to be. The idea of dictating to tobacco producers the way they must present their product provokes heavy protest on political and legal levels. This article analyses the compatibility of plain packaging with WTO-law.
World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (the FCTC) was adopted on 21st May 2003 and came into force on 25 th February 2005. Since its adoption, Indonesia has never signed and ratified this Convention. Currently,... more
World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (the FCTC) was adopted on 21st May 2003 and came into force on 25 th February 2005. Since its adoption, Indonesia has never signed and ratified this Convention. Currently, Indonesia is the fifth largest tobacco market in the world and the third largest cigarrete consumer (WHO data in 2008), thus it is obligatory for Indonesia to obey the minimum standards of tobacco control under the FCTC. There are two problem formulations that will be answered by this writing: first, what are the obstacles faced by Indonesia during the ratification's plan of the FCTC? Second, how far the FCTC ratification is effective in protecting public health in Indonesia? This study is normative research by using statute and comparative approaches. Indonesian policy on tobacco control always face with obstacles in the area of politic, economic, and human rights side. Most of the laws are still abstract to support public health in general. Particular researches prove that ratification efforts done by Indonesia would not cause adverse impacts to the economic advantages of tobacco but yet would be able to give effective implementation and legal certainty to protect the public health.
Peter Henning and Leonid Shmatenko discuss in this article the legal obstacles that are likely to be faced by proposed reforms to the European Union’s (‘EU’) Tobacco Directive in EU law. The structure of the article is as follows: (1)... more
Peter Henning and Leonid Shmatenko discuss in this article the legal obstacles that are likely to be faced by proposed reforms to the European Union’s (‘EU’) Tobacco Directive in EU law. The structure of the article is as follows: (1) Part 1 examines whether the EU Commission and Parliament have the legal competence to introduce plain packaging laws; (2) In Part 2, the authors discuss the likely compatibility of plain packaging laws with primary EU law, particularly the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The authors conclude that the plain packaging measures would require a balancing between the rights of manufacturers to display their trademarks on the one hand and the perceived public health benefits of plain packaging on the other hand. In order to pass the EU law hurdles, the plain packaging measures are likely to need to satisfy a three-step test of adequacy, requiring the suitability, necessity and proportionality of each measure.
The caption was done in distinctive cigarette-pack typeface, ‘Hysterica Bold’, they called it at the office. It said, WARNING: SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY ANYTHING TO SELL CIGARETTES. Ever since it was scientifically proven that smoking harms... more
The caption was done in distinctive cigarette-pack typeface, ‘Hysterica Bold’, they called it at the office. It said, WARNING: SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY ANYTHING TO SELL CIGARETTES. Ever since it was scientifically proven that smoking harms your health, legislators around the world have tried to enforce stricter tobacco control policy on the grounds of public health. Tobacco manufacturers, on the contrary, try to undermine this policy. The newest trend in tobacco control policy is the so-called plain packaging, a package with a standardised appearance containing large health warnings. Trademarks, logos, etc, are not allowed. Canada was the first government to try to introduce plain packaging in 1994. The introduction failed due to concerns regarding the trademark rights of the tobacco manufacturers. Concerns regarding violations of obligations under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement, in particular, caused the Canadian Government to abandon the plans. A few years later, the United Kingdom wanted to introduce plain packaging. However, almost the same considerations led to the cancellation of these plans. Additionally, the British Government considered that the measures would possibly violate the prohibition on restrictions on free movement of goods within the European Union (EU) pursuant to article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). On 28 November 2013, however, the British Department of Health requested an independent review of the current public health evidence on plain packaging.
Background: This study reports stakeholders' ratings, and perceived gaps in World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 8 implementation in Thailand viewed against WHO's Guidelines for Article... more
Background: This study reports stakeholders' ratings, and perceived gaps in World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 8 implementation in Thailand viewed against WHO's Guidelines for Article 8 and to inform action in preparing the 2017 Tobacco Product Control Act. Methods: Stakeholder ratings of Guideline provisions of Article 8 on a three-tiered scale of implementation from understanding to effectiveness and efficiency were used to identify gaps in enforcement and compliance important to success in meeting Article 8 goals. This stakeholder assessment occurred through a stakeholder meeting of 55 stakeholders in Bangkok, Thailand in June 2016. Results: The average of all assessment ratings by stakeholders on an ascending 0-3 scale had a mean score of 1.67, which means the level of implementation for Article 8 in Thailand was rated less than effective for enforcement. The assessment shows that the public understanding of smoke-free principles is also poor at a mean of 1.28, that there is incomplete effectiveness of smoke-free measures with a mean of 1.75, and only a general effectiveness that smoke-free protections are adequately covering most places with a mean of 1.98. More needs to be done to make all places compliant through enforcement efforts rated with a mean of only 1, and that more is necessary for protection from tobacco-smoke exposure in other public places and in private vehicles with mean ratings of 1.71 and 1.14. Conclusion: This stakeholder approach using a three-tiered rating scale found that the implementation of Article 8 in Thailand is still lacking. With this approach, stakeholders identified critical issues needing improvement and informed changes in the then-proposed Tobacco Product Control Act which later was adopted in 2017. Implications for policy makers A policy blueprint for policy-makers based on this study includes: • Examining Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) compliance through the stakeholder approach brings the realities of local implementation forward for policy-makers and researchers. • Limitations to policy effectiveness and efficiency are often most clearly identified from the bottom up regarding coordination and available resources. Implications for the public Public policy meets the needs of the public when it addresses several understandings of implementation. It commonly must be rational (evidence-based), balanced (addressing competing interests) and highly practical (actionable). Looking at the implementation in this way gives the public assurance that policy is being devised with the total context of societal needs in mind.
The article analyzes some dilemmas related to the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, underscoring the States parties' difficulties in adopting public policies with proven cost-benefit and aimed at reducing... more
The article analyzes some dilemmas related to the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, underscoring the States parties' difficulties in adopting public policies with proven cost-benefit and aimed at reducing tobacco's supply and demand. Specifically, the article examines the recommendation to adopt policies for plain cigarette packaging, as provided in the guidelines for implementation of the Convention's Articles 11 and 13. Based on case analysis, we identified political and legal factors that hinder the Convention's implementation, including the regulatory chill produced by legal claims filed by the tobacco industry, which uses investor-State arbitration clauses from bilateral investment agreements. The article concludes that despite the costs imposed on States and the delays in the adoption of such policies , in the medium and long term the rulings handed down by the arbitration courts and the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body can consolidate the understanding of the legality and effectiveness of policies that adopt the model.
Several countries now restrict the use of particular ‘flavours’ in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Various flavours may make cigarettes more attractive to consumers in general (for example by making them easier to smoke) or to... more
Several countries now restrict the use of particular ‘flavours’ in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Various flavours may make cigarettes more attractive to consumers in general (for example by making them easier to smoke) or to particular groups such as children and young people. Domestic regulatory measures restricting tobacco flavouring therefore have a clear health objective. Nevertheless, tobacco companies may threaten to challenge these measures under international investment law, as they have done recently in relation to other tobacco control measures. Understanding the nuances and complexities of bilateral investment treaties (and investment chapters of preferential trade agreements) is therefore crucial for governments in designing flavouring measures and withstanding complaints in the context of foreign investment. Investment obligations do typically incorporate flexibility for governments to implement public health and other public policies, but governments must carefully craft flavouring measures for the relevant health purpose, avoiding unnecessary discrimination against foreign investors or investment. Governments should also take care in making any representations to existing or potential investors about the future of tobacco regulation in their territory. An analysis of flavouring measures under international investment law is vitally important as the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control gets underway.
Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über den wesentlichen Inhalt und die Besonderheiten des neuen russischen Gesetzes über den Schutz der Bevölkerung vor den Wirkungen des Tabakkonsums (TabakG). Dieses Gesetz orientiere sich auch an den... more
Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über den wesentlichen Inhalt und die Besonderheiten des neuen russischen Gesetzes über den Schutz der Bevölkerung vor den Wirkungen des Tabakkonsums (TabakG). Dieses Gesetz orientiere sich auch an den Richtlinien der WHO "Framework Convention on Tobacco Control". Der Regierung der Russischen Föderation und den russischen Behörden werden im TabakG auch umfangreiche Ermächtigungen zur Einschränkung des Tabakkonsums eingeräumt. Das TabakG enthalte zahlreiche Verbote zur Begrenzung des Tabakkonsums. So bestehe zum Beispiel ein Rauchverbot in bestimmten öffentlichen Bereichen und geschlossenen Räumen. Auch gebe es ein Verbot der Werbung und des Sponsorings von Tabakprodukten. Ferner werde genau festgelegt, an welchen Orten Tabak noch vertrieben werden dürfe. Außerdem solle auch durch steuerliche Maßnahmen und Preisregulierung der Tabakkonsum weniger attraktiv gemacht werden. Ferner untersucht der Autor die Vereinbarkeit des TabakG mit sonstigen internationalen bzw. völkerrechtlichen Regelungen (beispielsweise WTO-Recht, TRIPS-Übereinkommen). Es wird aufgezeigt, dass das TabakG nicht unter das SPS-Übereinkommen falle. Im Hinblick auf das TBT-Übereinkommen über technische Handelshemmnisse werden vor allem die Aspekte der Meistbegünstigung, Inländerbehandlung und der Handelshemmnisse behandelt. Schließlich widmet sich der Aufsatz im Bereich des GATT 1994 Fragen des allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgebots sowie der Diskriminierung.
