國際投資法下徵收與國家規制權之探討—以菸品包裝之管制為中心

2011年，澳洲政府提出的菸品素樸包裝完全禁止任何商標使用於菸草產品上，對於菸草公司之商標權實屬相當極端的限制手段。然而，澳洲政府相信透過菸品包裝的加強管制，有助於降低菸品吸引力，進而達到提升國民健康之目的。同年，世界知名菸草商Philip Morris隨即對澳洲提起投資仲裁，其中包含控訴澳洲措施對其商標構成間接徵收。該案仲裁庭後來以無管轄權為由判定Philip Morris敗訴，並未進入實體爭點的討論。本文認為素樸包裝對於商標造成的影響確實可能達到如徵收般的效果，然而促進國民健康同樣為國家基本且核心的規制權限。在公共衛生意識高漲的時代，禁止菸商使用其商標係構成徵收或屬於國家規制權的合理行使？又菸品包裝可以管制到何種程度？本文透過大量仲裁前例的分析，發現規制權於間接徵收案件中的體現稍嫌不足，如此看來，素樸包裝於徵收補償規定下的合法性仍有所疑慮。然而，在研究過程中本文發現從徵收的分母議題著手，可能成為素樸包裝合法性的出路。在構成徵收的判斷要素中，最重要者莫過於措施對投資人的投資須造成重大剝奪，而「重大」係透過比較而得的結論。因此，若將「受素樸包裝措施影響的投資」視為菸商的整體菸草事業而非僅止於商標，重大剝奪的門檻將難以達到而使素樸包裝自始排除於徵收的認定。

關鍵字

國際投資法；間接徵收；國家規制權；菸品素樸包裝；分母議題

並列摘要

In 2011, the government of Australia implemented the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act and forbade the use of trademarks on tobacco product packages. This measure has posed great restrictions to tobacco companies’ trademark right. However, the government believes that strict packaging controlling measures would make tobacco products less appealing, thus promote the health of its people. During the same year, one of the largest tobacco company, Philip Morris, commenced investment arbitration proceedings against Australia, claiming that Australia’s measure has indirectly expropriated its trademarks. As the arbitral proceedings went on, the arbitral tribunal found that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the merits. Therefore the case never went through discussion on the substantive issues. This thesis holds the position that the effect of plain packaging toward trademarks may be equivalent to expropriation. However, the right to promote public health, on the other hand, should fall into a state’s right to regulate. Since public health has gained plenty of attention nowadays, is forbidding the use of trademarks on tobacco products an expropriatory measure, or just merely an exercise of the state’s right to regulate? Furthermore, how far can tobacco packaging controlling measures go? By studying through many investment arbitration cases, this thesis comes to the conclusion that the right to regulate has not been recognized widely enough to ensure the legitimacy of tobacco plain packaging under the rules of expropriation and compensation. However, by dealing with the denominator problem appropriately, the host state may be able to adopt such measure without compensating tobacco companies. To constitute expropriation, the foreign investment must suffer through substantial deprivation by the host state’s measure, however, the term “substantial” is a result of comparison. Therefore, if the investment being affected by plain packaging is defined as the entire tobacco business of a tobacco company, not as the trademark only, it would be much more difficult for the deprivation to be substantial thus avoid the existence of expropriation.