Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/550304
64 tobaccoasia specifically to protect brands, intellectual property, branding, ongoing busi- ness enterprises and other forms of investment. PMA claims that Australia's new rules are in breach of these terms and cause it substantial financial injury. Specifically, the action says the Australian government violated the BIT in three key areas: it deprives PMA of the real value of its investments in Australia (that is, its brands, branding, and intellec- tual property); denies PMA "fair and equitable treatment"; and unreasonably impairs PMA's investments. The company is asking the arbitration panel to suspend the law and award substantial compensation. A country's domestic law must be consistent with the provisions of an investment treaty, and any damages awarded under a BIT would be enforceable in Australian domestic courts. Under the provisions of the BIT, and the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010, a tribunal of three arbitrators will hear and decide the dispute. One each was chosen by PMA and the Australian government and the other by the Permanent Court of Ar- bitration at The Hague, which provides certain administrative assistance. The arbitration will consist of several hearings and is expected to be completed at the earliest by 2015. Following preliminary hearings in 2012, which focused on procedural matters, the tribunal issued an order on confidentiality. The hearings and transcripts of the arbitration will be confidential, but any final awards and other orders will be public and each party can publish its own submissions. Last year, PMA filed its Statement of Claim, to which Australia responded in October with its Statement of Defense. At the hearing in February, the parties will present arguments on whether the tribunal should split the case into two phases, one to address jurisdictional arguments, and the other to the cover the merits of the dispute. In a previous and separate domestic case challenging the new regulations, Australia's High Court already agreed that plain packaging deprives tobacco Above: Consump- tion of illegal branded cigarettes is climbing