煙草在線據煙草世界報道編譯　　參與在美國的跨太平洋自由貿易談判的代表警告說，如果他們同意允許公司在國際法庭上起訴政府的話，他們的國家最終可能會像澳大利亞一樣。

　　澳大利亞正在抵擋菲莫國際按照晦澀的香港投資協議對其卷煙包裝法提出的挑戰，而菲莫公司在最高法院起訴澳大利亞的案件已經敗訴了。

　　“菲莫公司對投資者事件的國家爭端解決程序緊追不舍的態度，表明這種行為威脅到了制定法律和國家司法決定的民主，”弗吉尼亞州李斯堡市的利益相關者論壇上澳大利亞的帕特麗夏·雷納德表示。

　　在跨太平洋伙伴關系中，美國堅持所謂的投資者國家爭端解決(SDS)地位，盡管與澳大利亞現有的貿易關系中沒有包括這些條款，但是他說他將不會簽署一份包括這些條款的協議。

　　跨太平洋伙伴關系將包括澳大利亞、文萊、加拿大、智利、馬來西亞、墨西哥、新西蘭、秘魯、新加坡、美國和越南，其中的許多國家已經同美國簽訂了協議，包括允許公司在超國家的論壇中起訴政府的條款。

　　雷納德博士稱，在對澳大利亞開始提起起訴前不久，菲莫國際公司已將其澳大利亞的子公司總部搬到了香港，按照香港的條款，現在它是被管轄的商店了。

　　“當它向2010年美國貿易代表做維持在跨太平洋伙伴關系投資者國家爭端解決過程介紹時，菲莫國際自稱是一家美國公司。”

　　“然而，當烏拉圭引入限制煙草廣告的法律，在根據烏拉圭瑞士投資條約，利用投資者國家爭端解決過程起訴烏拉圭政府索賠損失時，它是瑞士公司。”

　　“在澳大利亞政府宣布有意為煙草平裝立法時，菲莫公司還可能獲得香港公司資格，因為菲莫亞洲公司，包括香港，投資于澳大利亞，成為菲莫(澳大利亞)公司的唯一股東。”

　　舉辦澳大利亞公平貿易和投資網絡的悉尼大學學者稱，在論壇上，澳大利亞的情況表明，談判此協議的11個國家中沒有國家必須同意允許公司起訴它們的額外條款，這是沒有問題的。

　　美國國際業務委員會的肖恩·唐納利對論壇稱，投資者國家爭端解決程序并沒有超過為國際投資者提供法治的規定。

　　他說，企業希望得到更多的保護，但是相信美國正在提出嚴格的良好平衡的條款。

US: Big Tobacco Prevention in Free Trade Talks

　　Delegates participating in the trans-Pacific free trade negotiations in the U.S. are warning their country could end up like Australia, if they agree to allow corporations to sue the government in international courts.

　　Australia is fending off a challenge to his just laws cigarette packs of Philip Morris International in accordance with the terms of the investment agreement obscure Hong Kong, while Philip Morris has lost his case against Australia in the Supreme Court.

　　"Perseverance Philip Morris Company Investor event of a dispute settlement procedure of the state shows such a threat to democratically enacted law and national judicial decisions," said Australia Patricia Ranald stakeholder’s forum at the talks in Leesburg, Virginia.

　　The United States insists on the so-called investor state dispute settlement (SDS) position in partnership Trans Pacific, although he does not have them in their existing free trade agreement with Australia and even Australia, said that he would not sign a deal that includes them.

　　Trans-Pacific Partnership will include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam, many of whom already have in their agreements with the provisions of the United States, which allow corporations to sue government In supranational forums.

　　Philip Morris International has moved the head office of its Australian subsidiary in Hong Kong shortly before the start of action against Australia in accordance with the terms of Hong Kong is that Dr Ranald said was the jurisdiction of the stores.

　　"Philip Morris International has described himself as an American company, when she made a presentation to the 2010 U.S. Trade Representative maintain investor state dispute settlement process in the trans-Pacific partnership."

　　"However, he claimed that the Swiss company, when it is used investor state dispute settlement process to sue the Uruguayan government for the damage under the Uruguay-Swiss investment treaty when Uruguay introduced laws restricting tobacco advertising.

　　"Philip Morris may also qualify for a Hong Kong company, because Philip Morris Asia, including Hong Kong, invested in Australia, becoming the sole shareholder of Philip Morris (Australia) after the Australian government announcement of its intention to legislate for plain packaging of tobacco."

　　To host the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network Sydney University academic said no problem on the forum Australia showed none of the eleven countries negotiating the contract must agree to provisions that allow corporations to sue them additional scale.

　　Sean Donnelly of the U.S. Council for International Business told the forum investor state dispute settlement procedures did no more than provide international investors with access to the rule of law.

　　He said the business would like more protection, but believes that the U.S. was proposing strict right balance. Enditem