This sounds like it was a lot of fun:
In a dry run of one of the biggest legal battles in public health, an advocate for Australia's tobacco policies has delivered seemingly strong rebuttals of objections likely to be mounted in a landmark case at the World Trade Organization.
Two top academic lawyers presented the arguments at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, a stone's throw from the WTO, where Ukraine, Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic are trying to overturn Australia's radical tobacco packaging law.
Australia introduced the law late last year, requiring cigarette packs to be uniformly dark brown, emblazoned with health warnings, and with the name of the product printed in a standardized small font, with no colors or logos.
Its defense at the WTO is widely seen as the crucial battle that the tobacco companies must win if they want to halt the advance of anti-tobacco laws globally, which the World Health Organization says will result in a "brave new world of tobacco control".
Legal experts present at Tuesday's academic debate said the arguments were likely to be similar to the ones deployed when the case is litigated behind closed doors at the WTO.
"What is the core of this dispute is banning all trademarks on the pack," said Joost Pauwelyn, a leading expert on WTO disputes, who has advised Ukraine in the WTO dispute but said he was speaking in his own capacity.
"Do you really believe that this will stop young people starting to smoke? Will it make it easier for people to quit smoking? The trademark on the pack, is that something that starts people smoking?" asked Pauwelyn.
His opponent, Benn McGrady, a Georgetown professor who has advised the World Health Organization on plain packaging, said Australia had not in fact banned the use of trademarks.
"Trademarks are permitted on these packs. What is not permitted is a trademark other than a word. So for example a sign, a symbol, a color, some other design element."
But how about a bit of transparency? Why no webcast? Joost and Benn: Show us the video!
