1069控制煙草廣告挑戰(zhàn)

ChallengestoRegulatoryControlofTobaccoAdvertisingandPromotion

規(guī)范、控制煙草廣告的挑戰(zhàn)Overview概述Cross-borderadvertising跨國廣告Industrylobbying煙草業(yè)疏通Industryself-regulation煙草業(yè)自律Internationaltradelaw國際貿(mào)易法Newharmreductioninitiatives新的減少危害的啟動Enforcementoflawsagainst“hidden”formsof

promotion;promotionbythirdparties,etc.第三方變相促銷Datagatheringandanalysis信息收集和分析Cross-borderadvertising跨國廣告RequirementsofArticles13.2,13.3,13.6,13.7,13.8oftheFCTC框架公約13.213.313.613.713.8Workingpartybeganaddressingadoptionofaprotocol,accordingtoArticle13.8Researchunderway正在進(jìn)行的研究Keyissues關(guān)鍵信息IndustryLobbying煙草公司的活動NoobligationforpublichealthpolicymakerstoseekagreementofprivatetobaccocompaniesTobaccocompanyinterestsexclusivelycommercial;usuallyseektoshaperegulatorypolicysoastoavoidrestrictions,allowingcontinuedexpansionandgrowth=increasedpopulationharm

公共衛(wèi)生政策的制定者沒有義務(wù)尋求私有煙草部門的同意煙草公司通常是尋求政治上的規(guī)范：減少限制，允許擴(kuò)張＝增加對人類的危害IndustryLobbying煙草公司的努力Article5.3FCTCrequiresgovernmentsto“protect[tobaccocontrolpolicy]fromcommercialandothervestedinterestsofthetobaccoindustry”WHO,andSouthEastAsianTobaccoControlAlliance,havedevelopeddraftprinciplesforconsultingwiththetobaccoindustry公約的5.3條款要求政府使”控?zé)熣摺安皇苌虡I(yè)和煙草業(yè)的影響世界衛(wèi)生組織，東南亞控?zé)熉?lián)盟發(fā)展和煙草業(yè)打交道的原則草案。DraftPrinciples原則草案“DraftethicalprinciplesanddraftguidelinesforWHO/TFIcollaborationandpartnershipswithprivatesectorenterprises”“Sothetobaccoindustrywantstomeetwithanddiscusswithyou…Proposedethicalguidelinesonhowatobaccocontroladvocateshouldrespond”WHO/TFI和私有部門打交道的“倫理原理草案和規(guī)范草案”“如果煙草業(yè)代表希望會見并和你討論問題…給煙草控制倡導(dǎo)者如何反應(yīng)提供幫助IndustrySelf-Regulation行業(yè)自律Widelyrejectedbytobaccocontroladvocatesbecauseofhistoryofpliancebyindustry“InternationalTobaccoProductsMarketingStandards”Discussion–WHOpublication2001:“FatalDeception;Thetobaccoindustry’s“new”globalstandardsfortobaccomarketing”控?zé)煶珜?dǎo)者應(yīng)該拒絕因?yàn)闊煵輼I(yè)以往不服從的歷史“國際煙草產(chǎn)品市場標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”討論－WHO2001年出版物“欺騙－煙草工業(yè)新的全球市場標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”InternationalTradeLaw國際貿(mào)易法Whatare“internationaltradeagreements”?Alsocalled“freetradeagreements”Agreementsbetweengovernments,whichcontainmutualpromisestoeliminatebarrierstotradebetweencountries

什么是國際貿(mào)易協(xié)議所謂的“自由貿(mào)易協(xié)議”政府之間的協(xié)議，減少國家貿(mào)易之間的障礙

InternationalTradeLaw國際貿(mào)易法Barrierstotradeincludeimportfees(tariffs),customsfeesandprocedures,quantitativerestrictionsonimports,regulatorymeasuresFreetradeagreementsmayapplytotradeingoods,tradeinservices,orboth,i.e.theycouldapplytolawsonprovisionofadvertisingservices障案包括：進(jìn)口稅，海關(guān)費(fèi)用，產(chǎn)品和數(shù)量的限制自由貿(mào)易既包括物品也包括服務(wù)，他們可以應(yīng)用于廣告服務(wù)中。FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate

自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制RegulatorymeasuresmayhavearestrictiveeffectontradeMostfreetradeagreementsaimtoeliminatelaws,regulationsandpoliciesthat:

規(guī)制包括限制貿(mào)易大多數(shù)自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定是減少各類規(guī)制FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate

自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制

prejudiceoverseassuppliers,oracategoryofsuppliers,ofgoodsorservices;orunnecessarilyrestrictopportunitiestomarketandsellaproductorserviceExamples對國外廠商或是他們提供商品或服務(wù)的歧視不必要的限制例如FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate

自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制Q.Arecontrolmeasurespermittediftheyarenon-discriminatory?Often,yes,BUT:問題：如果沒有差異，是否還要控制？常常是，但是

FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate

自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制

Discriminationisjudgedaccordingtotheeffectofdomesticrules,nottheirwording,orpresence/absenceofintentiontodiscriminate.(Example:DominicanRepublic-Cigarettes)Othertradeagreementscontainrequirementsthatgofarbeyondnon-discrimination:按照國內(nèi)條例判定歧視，沒有他們的措詞、存在或是不存在歧視（案例，多美尼加共和國－煙草）其他貿(mào)易協(xié)定包含要求沒有歧視FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate

自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制“Scientificjustification”:Tradebodieshaverequiredthewithdrawalofoutright,non-discriminatorybansonproductsadoptedtoprotectpublichealth,becausetheydidnotaccepttheunderlyingscientificanalysis(Example:EC-MeatHormones)”科學(xué)判定”貿(mào)易體可以出于保護(hù)健康的角度，限制一些產(chǎn)品（如：歐共體的肉類激素案例）FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate

自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制InternationalintellectualpropertyrulesHarmonization:domesticstandards(eveniftheyapplyequallytodomesticandoverseassuppliers)mustbebasedoninternationalstandardsandmustnotbeanystricter國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)條例一致性：國內(nèi)規(guī)定必須服從國際條例沒有例外FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制Q.Whatabouttheexceptionclausesinmosttradeagreementsformeasuresnecessarytopursuepolicyobjectives,suchasprotectinghumanhealth?問：貿(mào)易協(xié)定中大都含有例外條款以適應(yīng)不同的政治情況，如：保護(hù)人類健康Theseexceptionstendtobesubjecttoconditionsthatarehardtosatisfy.答：這些例外條款允許成員在確有困難的情況下有所變通FreeTradeAgreementsandFreedomtoRegulate自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定和從自由到規(guī)制Example:DominicanRepublic–Cigarettescase(WTO).如：多米尼加共和國－－香煙案例Example:Thailand-Cigarettescase(GATT1947).如：泰國－－香煙案例（關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定1947）OfthemanypartiestoWTOdisputesthathavetriedtorelyonthegeneralexceptionclauseinGATT1994(ArticleXX),veryfewhavemetallthenecessarytests一些政黨向世貿(mào)組織爭辯，他們盡量遵守1994年制定的關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定的例外條款，但這些條款沒有經(jīng)過必要的檢驗(yàn)。The“ChillingEffect”激冷效應(yīng)Governments,especiallypartiestotheFCTC,mayhesitatetochallengeeachothers’tobaccocontrolmeasuresontradegrounds簽署FCTC的政府、政黨可能不愿意違反彼此有關(guān)貿(mào)易方面控?zé)煷胧㏒omefreetradeagreementsincludearightforprivateparties/corporationstobringactionsagainstgovernmentsthatviolatecertaintradeobligations,e.g.NAFTA(NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement)一些自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定規(guī)定，如果某些條款侵犯了某個黨派、法人有權(quán)利，他們可以采取措施反抗（如：北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定）The“ChillingEffect”激冷效應(yīng)Ifgovernmentsanticipateatradechallengeinresponsetonewtobaccocontrollegislation,thismaypreventadoptionofthenewlaws–the“chillingeffect”如果政府預(yù)計到新的控?zé)煼ㄒ?guī)會違背貿(mào)易協(xié)定，他們可能不采取新的法規(guī)Examples:Canada–genericpackagingandbanninguseofmisleadingdescriptors如：加拿大－－樸素的煙盒包裝、禁止使用誤導(dǎo)性的描述語Freetradeagreementsandadvertisinglaws自由貿(mào)易協(xié)議和廣告法DiscussionofGouldarticle“ReducedHarm”Products“減害產(chǎn)品”Claiminghealthbenefitsisaformofproductpromotion聲稱有益健康是一種促銷形式Whataboutclaimsbycigarettemanufacturersandmakersofothertobacco/nicotineproductsthattheyhavediscoveredalessharmfulproduct?生產(chǎn)煙草產(chǎn)品/尼古丁產(chǎn)品的廠家聲稱他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了減害產(chǎn)品？“ReducedHarm”Products“減害產(chǎn)品”Shouldtheybeallowedtomarkettheproduct?可以允許他們行銷這種產(chǎn)品嗎？Shouldtheybeallowedtomake“reducedharm”claims?可以允許他們將這種煙草制品稱為“減害產(chǎn)品”嗎？“ReducedHarm”Products“減害產(chǎn)品”Complexissuesarise,including:Identifyingpublichealthgoal:overallpopulationharmreductionorindividualharmreduction?(WhatiftheproductISlessharmful,butmanymorepeopleuseit?)確定公共衛(wèi)生目標(biāo)：減少總?cè)巳骸⑦€是個體的健康危害？（如果這種產(chǎn)品減害了，但更多的人使用呢？）Reducingharmtonicotineusersv.endingallnicotineuse–dowecondonenicotineaddictionwithouttheharmcausedbytobacco