Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T08:24:04.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How Trade-Restrictive Is Standardized Packaging? Economic and Legal Implications of the WTO Panel Reports in Australia–Tobacco Plain Packaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Kristy Buzard*
Affiliation:
Maxwell School, Syracuse University
Tania Voon*
Affiliation:
Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

Abstract

The lengthy and long-awaited WTO Panel Reports in Australia–Tobacco Plain Packaging contain a host of material for reflection, particularly in relation to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. While two of the Panel Reports proceed to appeal, we consider with respect to the two adopted Panel Reports the Panel's reasoning in relation to Article 2.2 of the TBT, focusing on the meaning of trade-restrictiveness. This concept central to WTO law has been under-examined to date, and these Panel Reports demonstrate some of the complexities in identifying trade-restrictive measures, particularly where they are non-discriminatory. The Panel found that Australia's measures restrict trade because they contribute to their objective of reducing tobacco consumption. Therefore, any equally effective alternative will similarly restrict trade. This curious result under TBT Article 2.2 may be particular to non-discriminatory measures that target ‘socially bad’ products such as tobacco.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (2018) The Global Cigarette Industry, www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/pdfs/en/Global_Cigarette_Industry_pdf.pdf.Google Scholar
Crowley M and Howse R (2014) Tuna–Dolphin II: A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Report. World Trade Review 13(2), 321355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavroidis, P and Saggi, K (2014) What is Not So Cool about US–COOL Regulations? A Critical Analysis of the Appellate Body's Ruling on US–COOL. World Trade Review 13(2), 299320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollo, M and Bayly, M (2019a) 10.3 The Manufacturing and Wholesaling Industry in Australia: Major International Companies, in Scollo, MM and Winstanley, MH (eds.), Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria, www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-10-tobacco-industry/10-3-the-manufacturing-and-wholesaling-industry-in-australia.Google Scholar
Scollo, M and Bayly, M (2019b) 10.6 Retail Value and Volume of the Australian Tobacco Market, in Scollo, MM and Winstanley, MH (eds.), Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria, www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-10-tobacco-industry/10-6-retail-value-and-volume-of-the-australian-tobacco-market.Google Scholar
Voon, T (2015) Exploring the Meaning of Trade-Restrictiveness in the WTO. World Trade Review 14(3): 451477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S, Liberman, J, and Ricafort, E (2018) The Impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Defending Legal Challenges to Tobacco Control Measures. Tobacco Control, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S and Liberman, J (2018) The Global Tobacco Epidemic and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: The Contributions of the WHO's First Convention to Global Health Law and Governance, in Burci, GL and Toebes, B (eds.), Research Handbook on Global Health Law, Edward Elgar, pp. 340388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar