Plain packaging for the Pacific Rim: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and tobacco control

Big Tobacco has been engaged in a dark, shadowy plot and conspiracy to hijack the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and undermine tobacco control measures – such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products... In the context of this heavy lobbying by Big Tobacco and its proxies, this chapter provides an analysis of the debate over trade, tobacco, and the TPP. This discussion is necessarily focused on the negotiations of the free trade agreement – the shadowy conflicts before the finalisation of the text. This chapter contends that the trade negotiations threaten hard-won gains in public health – including international developments such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and domestic measures, such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products. It maintains that there is a need for regional trade agreements to respect the primacy of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. There is a need both to provide for an open and transparent process regarding such trade negotiations, as well as a due and proper respect for public health in terms of substantive obligations. Part I focuses on the debate over the intellectual property chapter of the TPP, within the broader context of domestic litigation against Australia’s plain tobacco packaging regime and associated WTO disputes. Part II examines the investment chapter of the TPP, taking account of ongoing investment disputes concerning tobacco control and the declared approaches of Australia and New Zealand to investor-state dispute settlement. Part III looks at the discussion as to whether there should be specific text on tobacco control in the TPP, and, if so, what should be its nature and content. This chapter concludes that the plain packaging of tobacco products – and other best practices in tobacco control – should be adopted by members of the Pacific Rim.

Senator Elizabeth Warren fights the White House over the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership #TPP #TPPA

In his visit to the G20 in Brisbane, President Barack Obama sought to promote his ambitious Pacific Rim trade agreement — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). He told an audience at the University of Queensland: We’ll keep leading the effort to realize the Trans-Pacific Partnership to lower barriers, open markets, export goods, and create good jobs for our people. But with the 12 countries of the TPP making up nearly 40 percent of the global economy, this is also about something bigger. It is our chance to put in place new, high standards for trade in the 21st century that uphold our values. So, for example, we are pushing new standards in this trade agreement, requiring countries that participate to protect their workers better and to protect the environment better, and protect intellectual property that unleashes innovation, and baseline standards to ensure transparency and rule of law.

Our future is at risk: Disclose the Trans-Pacific Partnership now

Christmas has come early this year for big corporations. Wikileaks has revealed that the Trans-Pacific Partnership contains a swag of corporate gifts and baubles. The leaked intellectual property chapter of the TPP looks like it has been dictated by the United States Chamber of Commerce. Among other things, the agreement seeks to provide for longer and stronger copyright protection for transnational corporations. - See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2013/11/15/our-future-risk-disclose-tpp-now#sthash.axbmON9X.dpuf

Aaron's army fights the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In light of the death of internet activist Aaron Swartz, there is a need to reconsider intellectual property enforcement standards in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 16th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are taking place in Singapore until March 13. There have been concerns that the Intellectual Property Chapter would “ratchet up IP enforcement at the expense of digital rights”. Maira Sutton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation fears that “the Trans-Pacific Partnership could turn Internet Service Providers into copyright cops, prompt ever-higher criminal and civil penalties for sharing content, and expand protections for Digital Rights Management”. The case of Aaron Swartz highlights the need for a reconsideration of punitive and excessive intellectual property enforcement provisions in trade agreements.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Halloween horror-show

The latest draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, released by WikiLeaks, is a literal Mickey Mouse agreement, writes Dr Matthew Rimmer, associate professor at ANU college of law.

‘We are here to make history’: The United Nations climate summit 2014

In the wake of the 400,000 strong Climate March in New York and the Flood Wall Street protest, the United Nations hosted a Climate Summit in New York on the 23 September 2014. The event was intended to be a catalyst for the development of a binding, fair, and ambitious international agreement upon climate change.

Open for litigation: Australia, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

On the 28th May 2014, a petition signed by 1.8 million people worldwide was delivered to the Australian Parliament to protest against the radical secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Hawai’i, clean energy, and climate action

Hawai’i is a leader in clean energy and climate action in the Pacific and the United States. With the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawai’i has been at the forefront of climate research. The state has a special vulnerability to the impacts of climate change — particularly in respect of the marine environment, water resources, biodiversity, and human costs. Hawaii has promoted a Clean Energy initiative and passed legislation on climate adaptation. State and national leaders — most notably, United States Senator Brian Schatz — have shown great initiative in respect of clean energy and climate action. As such, it is worthwhile considering Hawaii as a case study of climate leadership in the Pacific and the United States.

‘Not a criminal in the classic sense': @DrRimmer on the sentencing of Jono Moylan #leardblockade #standwithjono

On July 25, 2014, Justice David Davies sentenced Jonathan Moylan at the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a breach of section 1041E (1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The ruling is a careful and deliberate decision, showing equipoise. Justice Davies has a reputation for being a thoughtful and philosophical adjudicator. The judge convicted and sentenced Moylan to imprisonment for 1 year and 8 months. The judge ordered that Moylan be “immediately released upon giving security by way of recognisance in the sum of $1000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years commencing today”.

Fossil free Stanford: Universities, climate ethics, and fossil fuel divestment

There has been an international movement led by 350.org, Bill McKibben, and student groups to encourage schools, universities, and educational institutions to divest their endowments of fossil fuel stocks. The decision of Stanford University on coal divestment should an inspiration for elite universities around the world.

Smoke and mirrors in trade disputes will harm public health

The 2014 World Cancer Report, issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), indicates that the number of new cancer cases has reached an all-time high. On the 19 May 2014, Dr Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO, gave a stirring speech to the 67th Health Assembly on the heavy health burden associated with cancer. Chan was particularly interested in public health measures designed to combat the global tobacco epidemic...

The solar capital: Canberra, clean tech, and climate change

There has been an increasing focus upon the role of cities and local government in respect of action upon climate change...

Will the TPP feed consumers to the wolves of Wall Street?

In the wake of the global financial crisis, there’s been a push by policy-makers for greater regulation of banks, financial institutions and the “wolves of Wall Street”. This was accompanied by a highly visible Occupy Wall Street movement, demanding political and legal reform. But could new trade agreements undermine consumer protection?