O artigo analisa alguns dilemas relacionados à implementação da Convenção-Quadro para o Controle do Tabaco, destacando as dificuldades dos Estados participantes para adotar políticas públicas, com custo-benefício comprovado, que visam à redução da oferta e demanda do tabaco. Especificamente, o artigo examina a recomendação para a adoção de políticas de padronização das embalagens de cigarro, presente nas diretrizes para a implementação dos Artigos 11 e 13 da Convenção. Por meio da análise de casos, identificamos fatores políticos e jurídicos que dificultam a implementação da Convenção, incluindo a inibição regulatória produzida pela abertura de litígios por parte da indústria do tabaco, que utiliza-se das cláusulas de arbitragem investidor-Estado existentes em acordos bilaterais de investimentos. Conclui-se que, apesar dos custos impostos aos Estados e dos atrasos na adoção dessas políticas, no médio ou longo prazo, as decisões proferidas pelos tribunais arbitrais e pelo Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio podem consolidar o entendimento acerca da legalidade e efetividade de políticas que adotam o referido modelo.

I. INTRODUCTION * Lecturer on International Law in the University of Brasilia, Brazil. The author wishes to thank Prof. M. H. Mendelson for commenting on earlier drafts of this article. 4. As Rudolf von Ihering has pointed out, the "act itself is never the purpose, but only a means to the purpose": Law as a Means to an End (1924), pp.8-10.

This article explores and appraises international legal developments regarding the right to self-defence against vicarious aggression -that is, armed attacks by non-state entities that are sponsored or hosted by a foreign state. Despite efforts to develop a normative framework and mechanisms of accountability to curb states' use of non-state entities as proxies for armed activity, some states continue to view these entities as valuable tools for the realization of their foreign policy goals. Consequently, international practice shows general recognition of a right of self-defence against non-state armed entities. There is also an emerging body of authoritative opinion, backed by an evolving state practice, that supports the extension of the application of this right against a non-state entity's host or sponsoring state, provided some conditions are met.

The historic Nuremberg trial represented a first step toward an adequate response by the international society to grave crimes under international law committed by individuals in position of governmental authority. This article discusses three particular ways in which the Nuremberg trial has advanced international justice. From a normative perspective, it has helped crystallise the principle of individual criminal responsibility for crimes under international law. Furthermore, the Nuremberg tribunal’s extraordinary jurisdiction paved the way for domestic and international courts’ jurisdiction over crimes under international law, while instigating the evolution of relevant law concerning immunity from jurisdiction. Finally, in associating international crimes with the maintenance of international peace and security, it allowed the UN system of collective security to consider situations involving the commission of those crimes as a threat to international peace and security, preventing impunity and promoting the efficacy of international humanitarian law.