Analysis And Enlightment Of PM V.Uruguary Case

On May 21,2003,in the 56 th the World Health Organization assembly,192 members unanimously passed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control(referred to as FCTC).On February 27,2005,FCTC has come into effect.In order to avoid or reduce the devastating consequences of worldwide health,social,economic and environmental because of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke,FCTC provides to a legal platform for International health cooperation and calls for the widest possible international cooperation.Uruguay is the first country in South American which joined FCTC,and participate actively in tobacco control technology cooperation and experience exchanges,assume the obligations on the basis of FCTC.But also led to debates and lawsuit on trademark rights and public health protection.Based on Philip Morris v Uruguay arbitration case,The author analyze the dispute focuses of the case to analysis the conflict and the balance between trademark rights and public health protection,and put forward proposal for the sovereign state in protection of public health and reduce or avoid related disputes.The main text is divided to three parts.The first part introduces related content of the arbitration case of Philip Morris v Uruguay.On March 26,2010,Philip morris(referred to as the "PM")brought a arbitration request to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID),and claim that the two tobacco control measures-SPR and 80/80 regulation that the Uruguay government implemented violated the Swiss-Uruguay agreement on investment promotion and protection(referred to as the Swiss-Uruguay BIT),and infringed its trademark rights.On July 8,2016,ICSID announced the award of the arbitration and the arbitration tribunal rejected the arbitration request of the applicant.And ruled the Uruguay government seven million dollars for compensation.The second part analyzes the dispute focuses of the case.including: first,Uruguay tobacco control measures whether or not constitute of indirect expropriate;Second,whether or not violate the fair and equipment treatment;Third,whether or not violate the umbrella clause.The author analyze the investor's claim is or not reasonable by comparing the views of the two sides and analyze the reason of the arbitration award,combined with the related cases,and explore the root of the conflict,lay a foundation for the conflicts between trade mark and public health in below address.The third part puts forward ways to solve the conflict of trademark rights and public health,on the one hand,harmonize trademark right and public health protection.on the other hand,from the perspective of host country,firstly,advice host country to harmonize investors-state arbitration system and local remedy.Secondly,improve BIT regulation.At last,the host state should improve its domestic legislation,try to avoid and reduce lawsuit.