Health

The investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions proposed in trade agreements give pharmaceutical corporations the right to sue governments for compensation if domestic laws negatively affect future earnings on their intellectual property or investments, and even if these laws are in accordance with public interests. Better access to medicines or preventing unsafe or ineffective medicines from entering the market could prove problematic.

Major US, Canadian and French pharmaceutical companies have recently challenged pro-public health measures through ISDS disputes brought under ISDS provisions.

Chemical corporations have also used ISDS in numerous occasions to challenge national bans on hazardous substances.

Most well-known cases include:

• Ethyl (US) vs. Canada: following Canada’s ban on the toxic petrol additive MMT, the US producer sued for US$201 million in compensation. In 1998, Canada agreed in a settlement to pay US$13 million and withdrew the ban (NAFTA invoked).

• Philip Morris Asia (Hong Kong) vs. Australia: When Australia introduced plain packaging for all tobacco products in 2011, Philip Morris sued Australia before an arbitral tribunal. In its December 2015 decision, the tribunal dismissed the case, albeit on legal grounds only. Australia spent A$24 million in legal costs but Philip Morris only paid half, leaving the Australian taxpayers to pay the other half. As a consequence of this case, countries ranging from Namibia, Togo to New Zealand decided to wait to introduce their own plain packaging for tobacco products. (Australia-Hong Kong BIT invoked)

• Dow Chemical (US) vs. Canada: the chemical corporation initiated a dispute for losses it alleged were caused by a Quebec provincial ban on lawn pesticides containing the active ingredient 2,4-D, classified as a possible carcinogen and one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the herbicide widely used during the Vietnam war. In a settlement in 2011, the ban was sustained but Quebec was required to state that “products containing 2,4-D do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment provided that the instructions on their label are followed.” (NAFTA invoked.)

Photo: Aqua Mechanical / CC BY 2.0

(March 2020)

Globalization and Health | 8-Sep-2021
Given the potential for wider use of the ISDS mechanism, strategies to protect public health policy space in the context of both international trade and investment treaty and dispute settlement contexts remain important.
CIAR Global | 28-Jun-2021
Los Derechos Humanos están en el centro de numerosas demandas de arbitraje de inversiones.
ISDS Impactos | 25-Jun-2021
Bufetes de abogados y empresas amenazan con demandar a Estados por medidas contra Covid-19
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 27-May-2021
The patent waiver initiative may give rise to claims under the expropriation standard, and to a lesser degree, under the FET standard.
The Ecologist | 18-May-2021
The shadowy parallel court system of major trade agreements makes it difficult for countries to ban broad-spectrum insecticides.
Interfax | 10-Dec-2020
Philip Morris Ukraine, a large tobacco manufacturer, will file a motion with the ICSID in response to the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on a UAH 1.2 billion fine.
Le Temps | 23-Oct-2020
Le Pérou, le Mexique et l’Argentine sont menacés de plaintes par des multinationales pour des mesures adoptées pendant la crise. Le Chili aussi, où un référendum pour une nouvelle constitution a lieu le 25 octobre
Friends of the Earth International | 20-Oct-2020
Our call to suspend all ISDS cases during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis.
Friends of the Earth International | 20-Oct-2020
Notre appel à suspendre tous les procès ISDS pendant et après la crise de la COVID-19.

0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | ... | 200