Search results

Abstract
In the wake of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, governments globally have intensified efforts to localize the production of pharmaceuticals, leveraging local content requirements and incentives to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities. This shift has revealed tensions with World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations, notably highlighted in Turkey—Pharmaceutical Products (EU). This article explores policy-based flexibilities within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement that may justify measures inconsistent with WTO norms under specific conditions. Analysing public health exceptions, national security imperatives, and government procurement policies, the paper elucidates how these flexibilities can be mobilized to support onshoring initiatives while adhering to international trade obligations. The findings suggest a nuanced approach to reconciling public health goals and economic strategies with global trade rules, providing a critical framework for policymakers navigating the complex interplay between national interests and international legal commitments.

ABSTRACT
In contrast to international investment tribunals, World Trade Organization (WTO) adjudicators have been reluctant to acknowledge the inherent right to regulate under international law explicitly. Policy-based considerations arising from such a right have not been viewed as a standalone component under interpretive analyses in WTO dispute settlement. Instead, they have been integrated only to the extent they find expression in the treaty. This article explores how, on occasion, WTO adjudicators have departed from this orthodox approach by choosing to proactively interpret the WTO Covered Agreements in a way that presupposes a States' right to regulate, even where this may seem contrary to, or unsupported by, the treaty text. In these cases, the question has not been whether such a right subsists within substantive WTO disciplines, but rather how such a right can be read into these disciplines in a manner that comports with the ordinary rules of treaty interpretation. While this unorthodox approach has resulted in interpretations that appear unclear and uncertain, these outcomes are ultimately explicable in terms of a general principle of regulatory autonomy that can form the basis for more principled interpretive choices.

In 2011, the Australian Government introduced plain packaging as part of a comprehensive suite of new and existing tobacco-control measures. The plain packaging measures fully standardized the appearance of tobacco products and their retail packaging. It prohibited the use of certain trademarks and other marks to be used on tobacco products and their packaging (e.g. stylized word marks, composite marks and figurative marks) and permitted the brand, company, or business name and the variant name of the tobacco product to be printed only in a typeface, colour, style and font size prescribed by the regulations. These measures were challenged before the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the ground that they were inconsistent with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The Panel dismissed all the claims brought by the complainants and the Appellate Body upheld its findings. The Appellate Body's affirmation of the legality of Australia's plain packaging measures means that countries are likely to follow suit in implementing similar measures, and that they may do so with confidence about the legal status of those measures under WTO law. s findings. The Appellate Body's affirmation of the legality of Australia's plain packaging measures means that countries are likely to follow suit in implementing similar measures, and that they may do so with confidence about the legal status of those measures under WTO law.