Originally from Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law - Volume 6

MR. WEILER: So, we are going to begin the last session. In a way, I guess, we saved the best for last because we have a panel that’s going to tackle a topic which promises to be a flashpoint for some time to come. I have a personal interest in it because in investment cases I’ve both worked for tobacco makers and written an opinion for people who didn’t like tobacco makers, so it’s a very interesting area.

I always was concerned that it would be tobacco companies that would blow this whole thing up, and we have yet to see whether that will happen. But the two new cases, of course, the one against Australia and the one against Uruguay, both brought by Philip-Morris International subsidiaries, have really driven home that very uncomfortable distinction between trade and investment and what in trade law we would call the trade and issues, the other issues.

And, with that, I welcome Matthew to introduce your panel, and we’ll get going.

MODERATOR SLATER: Welcome. I’m Matt Slater. I’m a partner with Cleary Gottlieb here in Washington, focusing on international arbitration and litigation. Our speakers are Justin Jacinto of Curtis Mallet here in Washington and Matthew Hodgson with Allen & Overy in Prague, and they will be addressing the question of whether there has been any sort of chilling effect as to the ability of States to regulate in the interest of public health and welfare.

The panelists today to my left are Ms. Andrea Menaker, a partner of White & Case here in Washington, formerly with the NAFTA team in the State Department and involved in many important treaty cases both under NAFTA and then subsequently in private practice;