Profile picture
, 13 tweets, 8 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
NEW

1/11—A WTO appeal has upheld a first-stage “panel” ruling that Australia was fully within its rights to require tobacco products to be sold in uniform plain packaging, with no distinct branding.

The decision will be welcomed by health activists.

wto.org/english/news_e…
2/11—Today’s appeal report: docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/S….

Next: adoption by the membership

Not a bad way to say farewell.

The Appellate Body has no quorum—only one judge since Dec 20. It was allowed to complete work on a handful of reports that were dearly done. This is the last. Screenshot of the top of the report’s first pageScreenshot of the final section 7.4 Recommendation, with signatures
3/11—What are Australia’s plain packaging rules?

Uniform dull packaging, large warning, brandnames in uniform typeface, no logos

Details: health.gov.au/health-topics/…
Resources: health.gov.au/resources/coll…
Guide and images: health.gov.au/sites/default/… Screenshot of the page setting out the specifications the front of a cigarette pack with an image
4/11—The cases in the WTO accused Australia of violating companies’ rights to market products using branding (trademarks) and geographical indications (such as “Cuban” cigars), and of setting labelling requirements that were too restrictive for what they aimed to achieve Screenshot: The main WTO agreements involved in the plain packaging disputes: Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) — trademarks, geographical indications; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) —labelling and regulations
5/11—Originally, there were five cases.

DS434 was brought by Ukraine, puzzling most observers. Ukraine does not export tobacco products to Australia.

Ukraine let the case lapse before panellists were appointed for the first-stage dispute hearings

wto.org/english/tratop… Screenshot of the top of the linked page
6/11—The first-stage panel reports were merged for all the remaining four cases and ruled in favour of Australia on all points: “The complainants had not demonstrated that …”.

Report: docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/S…
Summary of key findings: wto.org/english/tratop… Screenshot of summary of key panel findings, down to point fScreenshot of summary of key panel findings, from point g to the end, continuing with paragraph 11 of the linked page
7/11—Two cases were not appealed, so the first-stage panel reports were adopted by the WTO membership in the Dispute Settlement Body.

DS458: brought by Cuba wto.org/english/tratop…
DS467: brought by Indonesia wto.org/english/tratop… Screenshot of the top of the linked page for DS458Screenshot of the top of the linked page for DS467
8/11—The first-stage panel rulings were appealed in two cases

DS435 brought by Honduras wto.org/english/tratop…
DS441 brought by Dominican Rep wto.org/english/tratop… Screenshot of the top of the linked page for DS435Screenshot of the top of the linked page for DS441
9/11—The appeal report upheld the first-stage panel ruling on all counts.

docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/S…. Screenshot of section 7.4 Recommendations and the 3 signatures on the final page
10/11—This brings to an end cases first filed in 2012, 8 yrs ago.

The discussion in the WTO dates back to 2011, in the “TRIPS” Council (intellectual property—for trademarks and geographical indications) and the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee (for labelling) Graphic showing activity on the issue from 2011 in the TRIPS Council, TBT Committee and dispute settlement
11/11—The case is being watched around the world, not least because similar regulations have been introduced or are planned in New Zealand, France, Ireland, the UK and elsewhere

Finally, here’s a fun summary from Jon Oliver from three years ago:
Typos: "dearly" should be "nearly". Mr Oliver is John, not Jon. Probably loads more
P.S. A friend kindly sent me this link to a 5-page pdf document listing all the countries that have implemented plain packaging. A few are in the process. With a lot of additional detail.

tobaccofreekids.org/assets/global/… Screenshot of the top of the first page, with
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Peter Ungphakorn

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CoppetainPU see all

Profile picture
Peter Ungphakorn
@CoppetainPU
1/20—Another look at what UK-EU trade “on WTO terms” means.

● It’s not just about “no deal”
● The more the UK & EU trade on WTO terms, the more trade barriers they raise against each other
● To minimise the hit, the talks will need more time

tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2020/05/27/sum…
2/20—The summary and the three longer pieces draw partly on a new @UKandEU paper, also revisiting UK-EU trade on WTO terms. My emphasis is different.

ukandeu.ac.uk/research-paper…

3/20—Here’s @anandMenon1’s thread on the new @UKandEU paper

Read 21 tweets
Profile picture
Peter Ungphakorn
@CoppetainPU
The suspended Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) meeting resumed today after Thailand and the Philippines agreed to continue consultations with the chair on procedure.

(Details are usually published on the WTO website later)

It contained a gem of a curiosity.

1/6
The DSB is the WTO membership meeting to manage and decide on legal disputes. Today, it adopted 2 appeal reports:

1. DS499: Russia — Measures affecting the importation of railway equipment and parts thereof (complaint by Ukraine) wto.org/english/tratop…

2/6
And

2. DS505: United States — Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from Canada wto.org/english/tratop…

In DS505, the US objected to adopting this appeal ruling, arguing that none of the three Appellate Body judges was eligible to serve.

3/6
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Peter Ungphakorn
@CoppetainPU
I see some analysts say ALL the level playing field provisions would be “dynamic alignment” with the EU.

Is it so clear-cut?

The umbrella paragraph says “… high standards over time with the Union standards as a reference point”.

But “reference point” is pretty vague.

1/3
On specific areas among these, all but one say something like “… common standards applicable within the [EU & UK] at the end of the transition period”. That’s not “dynamic”. It’s non-rollback

But for state aid: “application of Union state aid rules”. Deliberately different

2/3
So my take for what it’s worth

● The EU definitely wants dynamic alignment for state aid
● Other areas are at most vaguely “dynamic”, depending on how “reference point” is applied
● The UK would be a rule-taker in the transition. After, only on state aid, but no rollback

3/3
Read 3 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!