Premium
A ustralia's double standard on T hailand's alcohol warning labels
Author(s) -
O'Brien Paula
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
drug and alcohol review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.018
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1465-3362
pISSN - 0959-5236
DOI - 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00485.x
Subject(s) - harm , autonomy , alcohol consumption , opposition (politics) , political science , position (finance) , law , law and economics , politics , business , alcohol , sociology , finance , biochemistry , chemistry
and Aims Since 2010, members of the W orld T rade O rganization ( WTO ), including A ustralia, have opposed T hailand's proposal for graphic warnings on alcohol containers. This paper aims to provide an account of the arguments for/against T hailand and to examine the arguments' legal and political validity. Design and Methods This paper reviews primary WTO records in relation to T hailand's proposal to reveal the arguments for/against T hailand's proposal. The paper analyses these arguments in light of WTO cases to identify the legal strengths and weaknesses of T hailand's position. The paper then considers whether the attacks on T hailand by A ustralia are justified in light of the A ustralian G overnment's position on (i) alcohol warning labels in A ustralia and (ii) tobacco plain packaging. Results The legal arguments against T hailand are: only harmful alcohol consumption should be prevented; there is no evidence that graphic warning labels can reduce alcohol‐related harm; the labels unnecessarily restrict international trade. There are some legal weaknesses in T hailand's proposal. Yet, A ustralia's opposition to T hailand cannot be justified whilst A ustralia is (i) mandating pregnancy‐related alcohol warnings in A ustralia and (ii) defending its plain packaging law against similar WTO attacks. Discussion No WTO member is obliged to challenge another member for being non‐compliant. The case tests the willingness of WTO members like A ustralia to respect the autonomy of other countries to pursue their public health goals and trial novel interventions. Conclusions A ustralia's actions suggest it is willing to protect its alcohol industry at the expense of public health in T hailand.