烟草在线据烟草世界报道编译　　参与在美国的跨太平洋自由贸易谈判的代表警告说，如果他们同意允许公司在国际法庭上起诉政府的话，他们的国家最终可能会像澳大利亚一样。

　　澳大利亚正在抵挡菲莫国际按照晦涩的香港投资协议对其卷烟包装法提出的挑战，而菲莫公司在最高法院起诉澳大利亚的案件已经败诉了。

　　“菲莫公司对投资者事件的国家争端解决程序紧追不舍的态度，表明这种行为威胁到了制定法律和国家司法决定的民主，”弗吉尼亚州李斯堡市的利益相关者论坛上澳大利亚的帕特丽夏·雷纳德表示。

　　在跨太平洋伙伴关系中，美国坚持所谓的投资者国家争端解决(SDS)地位，尽管与澳大利亚现有的贸易关系中没有包括这些条款，但是他说他将不会签署一份包括这些条款的协议。

　　跨太平洋伙伴关系将包括澳大利亚、文莱、加拿大、智利、马来西亚、墨西哥、新西兰、秘鲁、新加坡、美国和越南，其中的许多国家已经同美国签订了协议，包括允许公司在超国家的论坛中起诉政府的条款。

　　雷纳德博士称，在对澳大利亚开始提起起诉前不久，菲莫国际公司已将其澳大利亚的子公司总部搬到了香港，按照香港的条款，现在它是被管辖的商店了。

　　“当它向2010年美国贸易代表做维持在跨太平洋伙伴关系投资者国家争端解决过程介绍时，菲莫国际自称是一家美国公司。”

　　“然而，当乌拉圭引入限制烟草广告的法律，在根据乌拉圭瑞士投资条约，利用投资者国家争端解决过程起诉乌拉圭政府索赔损失时，它是瑞士公司。”

　　“在澳大利亚政府宣布有意为烟草平装立法时，菲莫公司还可能获得香港公司资格，因为菲莫亚洲公司，包括香港，投资于澳大利亚，成为菲莫(澳大利亚)公司的唯一股东。”

　　举办澳大利亚公平贸易和投资网络的悉尼大学学者称，在论坛上，澳大利亚的情况表明，谈判此协议的11个国家中没有国家必须同意允许公司起诉它们的额外条款，这是没有问题的。

　　美国国际业务委员会的肖恩·唐纳利对论坛称，投资者国家争端解决程序并没有超过为国际投资者提供法治的规定。

　　他说，企业希望得到更多的保护，但是相信美国正在提出严格的良好平衡的条款。

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