United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Indirect expropriation — Regulatory expropriation (or regulatory taking) — Arbitrary (unreasonable) & discriminatory treatment standard — Denial of justice — Fair and equitable treatment standard — Legitimate expectations — Umbrella clause — Concurring, dissenting, separate, joint or individual opinions — Costs and expenses
Core Issue(s)
Whether a trademark confers a right to use or only a right to protect against use by others, and whether the challenged measures indirectly expropriated Philip Morris' investment. — Whether Uruguay's enactment of the challenged measures were arbitrary, violated Philip Morris' legitimate expectations, and/or undermined the stability of Uruguay's legal system. — To what extent a tribunal may give deference to a State's exercise of its police powers, particularly in regulating for the public health. — Whether a trademark can be considered a commitment under general legislation or as a specific commitment to a specific investment or investor for the purposes of creating legitimate expectation or invoking an umbrella clause. — Whether conflicting decisions by domestic courts, or their references to incorrect parties or evidence not submitted, amount to a denial of justice.
