| Popis: |
Chinese Abstract: 在国际投资仲裁案件菲利普·莫里斯烟草公司（Philip Morris）诉乌拉圭案中，仲裁庭驳回了菲莫关于乌拉圭的反吸烟立法侵占了烟草公司商标的主张。仲裁庭在裁判说理中，大体上遵从了乌拉圭为减少烟草公司的经营活动以增强公共卫生的政策决定。菲利普·莫里斯诉乌拉圭案提出了这样一个问题，即除了公共卫生之外，法庭还应考虑其他一些公共政策考虑因素，例如促进外国投资和保护知识产权。本文探讨了“公共政策”的概念，以及与知识产权相关的投资仲裁法律制度也即知识产权法、世界贸易组织法以及国际投资法是如何处理公共政策方面的问题的。本文还回顾了与知识产权相关的投资仲裁案件例如菲利普-莫里斯诉乌拉圭（Philip Morris v. Uruguay）、礼来公司诉加拿大（Eli Lilly v. Canada）以及普利司通诉巴拿马（Bridgestone v. Panama）案件之中的公共政策考量。 English Abstract: In the investment arbitration Philip Morris v. Uruguay the arbitral tribunal rejected Philip Morris’ claim that Uruguay’s anti-smoking legislation expropriated the tobacco company’s trademarks. In its reasoning, the tribunal largely deferred to Uruguay’s policy decision to curtail tobacco companies’ business operations for the purpose of enhancing public health. Philip Morris v. Uruguay raises the question of whether there are, apart from public health, other public policy considerations which the tribunal should have given more weight to, e.g. the promotion of foreign investment and the protection of intellectual property (IP). The chapter explores the concept of ‘public policy’ and how IP law, WTO law and international investment law, i.e. the legal regimes relevant to IP-related investment arbitration, deal with public policy considerations. The chapter also reviews the handling of public policy considerations in the IP-related investment arbitrations Philip Morris v. Uruguay and Eli Lilly v. Canada, as well as Bridgestone v. Panama. |
