نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق تجارت و سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی، دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار، گروه حقوق تجارت بین الملل و حقوق مالکیت فکری و فضای مجازی، دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
سیاست کلی دولت میزبان و به‌تبع آن رویکرد معاهده مربوطه در خصوص رابطه سلب مالکیت و حقوق مالکیت فکری، نقش مهمی در تفکیک تنظیم‌گری دولت‌ها در حوزه حقوق مالکیت فکری از سلب مالکیت دارند. در این نوشتار ضمن تحلیل این موارد و اشاره به رهیافت فعلی ایران در این زمینه، به‌ضرورت تغییر آن پی خواهیم برد. سپس به بررسی دعوای مجموعه فیلیپ موریس علیه اروگوئه می‌پردازیم تا اولاً با توجه به اینکه معاهده مربوط به این دعوا از لحاظ مقررات مربوط به سلب مالکیت از حقوق مالکیت فکری، مشابه اغلب معاهدات ایران بوده و دولت اروگوئه موفق شد با دفاعیات صورت گرفته در این پرونده پیروز گردد، مهمترین دفاعیات صورت گرفته مشخص شود تا ایران نیز بتواند از دفاعیات دولت مزبور در دعاوی مشابه علیه خود استفاده کند. ثانیاً از آنجایی‌که صدور رأی به سود دولت میزبان در پرونده مزبور به این معنا نیست که دیوان‌های داوری در دعاوی مشابه علیه سایر دولت‌ها ضرورتاً به نتیجه مشابهی خواهند رسید، بندهایی مشخص به منظور درج در معاهدات حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری ایران پیشنهاد می‌شود تا در روند رسیدگی به دعاوی احتمالی سلب مالکیت در زمینه حقوق مالکیت فکری در جهت منافع عمومی قابل تفسیر باشند و از موارد الزام دولت به پرداخت غرامت بکاهند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Lessons Learned from Philip Morris V. Uruguay Regarding the Approaches Taken in the Investment Protection Treaties of Iran towards Expropriation of Intellectual Property
نویسندگان [English]
- Soroosh Falahati 1
- Mirghasem Jafarzade 2
1 Ph.D. Student, International Trade and Investment Law, Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of International Trade Law and Intellectual Property Law and Virtual Space Law, Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
In the field of intellectual property rights, host states’ policies, and accordingly, the approach of the relevant treaty towards expropriation and intellectual property rights play a key role when separating expropriation from regulatory measures. This article will analyze these issues as well as the approach adopted by Iran in this regard, while also discussing the necessity of changing the approach adopted in Iran's foreign investment protection treaties. It then continues to examine Philip Morris v. Uruguay because, firstly, although the relevant treaty contained expropriation provisions similar to those of most treaties to which Iran is a party, eventually Uruguay managed to win the case. Therefore, Uruguay’s defenses can be helpful for Iran in similar cases. Secondly, it will be shown that issuance of a favorable award for the host state in this case provides no guarantee that other
tribunals follow the approach adopted by that tribunal. Therefore, the article suggests specific clauses to be inserted into investment treaties of Iran that can be interpreted to the benefit of public interest and, as such, reduce the possible instances that require compensation to be paid by the government.
Research Question
- Which aspects of the host state’s defenses in Philip Morris v. Uruguay can be utilized by Iran in similar expropriation claims?
- When faced with similar expropriation disputes, would it suffice for Iran to rely on defenses similar to those of Uruguay in the said case?
- What is the best possible approach for Iran to adopt in its foreign investment promotion and protection treaties to avoid compensation in expropriation disputes?
Literature Review
The Persian legal database contains few studies examining the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case. They mostly contain overviews of the case and discuss the restrictions imposed on trademarks as a method of expropriating industrial property rights. However, no prior article has examined how the defenses used by Uruguay could be of use to Iran’s government when faced with similar expropriation claims. In this regard, the authors explain the importance of the state’s regulatory and policing powers and their degree of interference in the foreign investor’s property rights. Nevertheless, this piece indicates that the host state’s defenses in the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case cannot be relied upon in all similar instances, especially considering that Iran seems to have adopted the “high protection” policy towards foreign investments and has consequently opted not to discuss and define the connection between expropriation and governmental measures in the field of intellectual property rights in most of its BITs. The article suggests that Iran adopt the “increased predictability” or “qualified”
policy and set apart intellectual property rights-related regulatory measures from the scope of expropriation. A similar suggestion can only be found in an article written by the authors of this article titled “Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing under Patent Law: A Regulatory Measure or Expropriation?”. However, the said suggestion, unlike the suggestions in this article, was primarily focused only on a single regulatory measure of the host state i.e., compulsory licenses.
3. Methodology
This article uses a descriptive and analytical method and the authors have resorted to library research to gather the relevant resources. A wide range of resources including the most recent books, articles, dissertations, cases, and regulations have been used to author this piece. In particular, it has been attempted to examine different treaties on the protection and promotion of foreign investment so that the article would be of a comparative nature.
Conclusion
Treaties on the promotion and protection of foreign investment contain different views concerning the relationship between expropriation and governmental measures that are taken regarding foreign investors' intellectual property rights. Considering that the exclusion approach reduces the instances in which the host states would have to pay compensation, this article concludes that Iran's government should adopt this approach when drafting these treaties and set aside its current approach which is unclear about the relation between expropriation and regulatory measures in the field of intellectual property. Until then, due to the similarities between the approaches adopted by Iran and Uruguay regarding the relation between expropriation and governmental measures in the field of intellectual property rights, Uruguay's defenses in Phillip Morris v. Uruguay can be utilized by Iran in similar expropriation claims filed against it.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Police Powers Doctrine
- Expropriation
- No-reference Approach
- Exclusion Approach
- Limitation for Trademarks
مقاله‌ها
- رهبری، ابراهیم؛ شهابی، مهدی و فلاحتی، سروش، «تأملی بر ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع در پرتو عناصر متشکله سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم در حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی»، پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دوره 22، شماره 69، (1399).
- غمامی، مجید و صدیقی، ریحانه، «شرط انکار منافع در معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری»، مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره 48، شماره 1، (1397).
- میرعباسی، سیدباقر و قاسم‌زاده مسلبه، مجید، «امکان‌سنجی اعمال ضابطه رفتار ملل کامله الوداد در حل و فصل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 50، شماره 2، (1399).
References
Book
- R. Dolzer & C. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, First Edition (London: Oxford Publication International Law, 2008).
Articles
- Cairney, Paul, Mamudu, Hadii & Studlar Donley, “Global Tobacco Control – Power, Policy, Governance and Transfer”, Political Studies Review, Vol. 13, Issue 2, (2012).
- Clifton, Conrad, “Attacking Tobacco: Philip Morris International V. Uruguay”, (2017), Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn. com/ abstract= 2941581 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2941581.
- Gildemester, Arno E, “Burlington Resources, Inc V Republic of Ecuador: How Much is Too Much: When Taxation Tantamount to Expropriation?”, ICSID Review, Vol. 29, Issue 2, (2014).
- Halpern, Michaela S., “The Great Battle of Intellectual Property Versus State Sovereignty – Is Philip Morris V Uruguay a Good Referee?”, (2018), Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn. com/ abstract= 3333071 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333071.
- Hepburn, Jarrod & Nottage, Luke R., “Case Note: Philip Morris Asia V Australia”, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, Vol. 18, (2016), No. 2, pp. 307-319, Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn. com/ abstract= 2842065 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2842065.
- McGrady, Benn, “Implications of Ongoing Trade and Investment Disputes Concerning Tobacco: Philip Morris v. Uruguay”, (2011), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2046261.
- Melillo, Margherita, “Evidentiary Issues in Philip Morris V Uruguay: The Role of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control and Lessons for NCD Prevention”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 21, Issue 5, (2020).
- Mitchell, Andrew D., “Tobacco Packaging Measures Affecting Intellectual Property Protection Under International Investment Law: The Claims Against Uruguay and Australia”, The New Intellectual Property of Health: Beyond Plain Packaging, (2016), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2863335.
- Mostafa, Be, “The Sole Effects Doctrine, Police Powers and Indirect Expropriation under International Law”, AUSTL. INT’L L.J., Vol. 15, Issue 12, (2008).
- Roberts, A., “Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System”, American Journal of International Law, 107(1), (2012).
- Taylor, Allyn L, “An International Regulatory Strategy for Global Tobacco Control”, Yale J Intl L, 21, (1996).
- Unctad, “Expropriation: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II”, United Nations ,(2012).
- Upreti, Pratyush Nath, “Philip Morris V Uruguay: A Breathing Space for Domestic IP Regulation”, European Intellectual Property Review E.I.P.R., 40(4), (2018).
- Vandevelde, Kenneth J., “The Political Economy of a Bi-lateral Investment Treaty”, AM. J. INT’L L, 92, (1998).
- Voon, Tania & Mitchell, Andrew D., “Philip Morris Vs. tobacco Control: Two Wins for Public Health, But Uncertainty Remain”, Columbia FDI Perspectives on Topical Foreign Direct Investment Issues, No. 182, (2016).
- Voon, T. S. L. “Philip Morris V Uruguay: Implications for Public Health”, Journal of World Investment and Trade, 18, Issue 2, (2017).
- Weiler, Todd, “Philip Morris Vs. Uruguay an Analysis of Tobacco Control Measures in the Context of International Investment Law”, Report #1 for Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, (2010), available at: http:// arbitrationlaw. com/ files/ free_ pdfs/ 2010- 07-28_-_expert_opinion.pdf.
- Yang, Pei-Kan, “The Margin of Appreciation Debate over Novel Cigarette Packaging Regulations in Philip Morris V. Uruguay A Step toward a Balanced Standard of Review in Investment Disputes”, Brill Open Law, 7(1), (2018).
Documents
- Agreement on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, (2009).
- Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, (1988).
- Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, (1993).
- Agreement on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the Republic of Singapore and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, (2016).
- Agreement between Japan and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investment, (2016).
- Bilateral Investment Treaty between Islamic Republic of Iran and Russian Federation, (2015).
- Bilateral Investment Treaty between Islamic Republic of Iran and France, (2003).
Cases
- Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, (Investment Agreement), Award, 27 October 1989, 95 ILR 183.
- Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland), 1928 PCIJ (Ser. A), No. 17.
- Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. V. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3 (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v. Argentine Republic).
- Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2; Award: 16 March (2017).
- Metalclad Corporation V. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/1.
- Phelps Dodge Corp. and Overseas Private Investment Corp. V. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT Case No. 99.
- Philip Morris v Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, (2016).
- Philip Morris Asia Limited V. the Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12.
- Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3.
- Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton V. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, IUSCT Case No. 7.
- Total S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01.
)