A/69/299 international investment agreements. 43 Such agreements perpetuate and exacerbate an asymmetrical relationship between investors and States. 53. International investment agreements impose obligations on States vis-à-vis investors that may affect States’ power to introduce health laws in the public interest. States may have to modify their laws to accommodate investors’ rights, even though such modifications may increase the risk of violating individuals’ right to health. Free trade agreements, for example, may limit the enjoyment of the right to health of individuals by preventing States from using the public health flexibility under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 44 Pharmaceutical companies may be able to challenge the patent laws of host States if such laws do not comply with investors’ rights under the free trade agreement, even though such patent laws may be compliant with the Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. States may thus be unable to check the increasing cost of medicines, which undermines their core obligation to ensure access to health facilities, goods and services, including essential medicines, especially for vulnerable groups. 54. International investment agreements may provide for exceptions that can be used by States to defend laws in the public interest, such as public health laws. Even where international investment agreements contain such exceptions , however, investor rights may trump them. After Uruguay had entered into a bilateral investment treaty with Switzerland, it adopted public health measures on the packaging and advertisement of cigarettes, in accordance with local laws, which were enacted pursuant to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Although those measures accorded with the public health exception in the bilateral investment treaty, Phillip Morris International initiated a dispute against Uruguay, claiming that its law was unreasonable and breached the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment. 45 55. International investment agreements are treated as a stand -alone legal code and often do not contain references to the right to health. They should, however, be interpreted in a manner that does not conflict with human rights law because the purpose of both development-stimulating investment treaties and human rights laws is to benefit individuals. Under the current regime, States may be vulnerable to dispute settlement procedures when a State breaches an obligation under the agreement in order to comply with its human rights obligations. This was the case when the Ethyl Corporation submitted a claim against a public health decision by the Government of Canada to impose a trade ban on a controversial gasoline additive produced by Ethyl Corporation. 46 In another case, the tribunal noted that, though the claimant’s property was expropriated in furtherance of environmental __________________ 43 44 45 46 16/22 M. Toral and T. Schultz, “The State, a perpetual respondent in investment arbitration? Some unorthodox considerations”, in Michael Waibel and others, eds., The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (Kluwer Law International, 2010), p. 578. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, The Potential Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Public Health (Geneva, 2012). See International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Phillip Morris Brands Sàrl, Phillip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay , case No. ARB/10/7, decision on jurisdiction of 2 July 2013. Ethyl Corporation v. Canada, award on jurisdiction judgement of 24 June 1998. 14-59014