What Difference Would a Binding International Legal Instrument on Alcohol Control Make? Lessons from the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s Impact on Domestic Litigation

Abstract

Since the adoption of the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2003, public health professionals have debated similar conventions covering other health risks, including potentially a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control. Much of this debate has focused on the merits of binding versus non-binding instruments in terms of commitments at the international level. In this paper, I draw on lessons from the WHO FCTC to discuss instead what the difference between binding and non-binding international legal instruments might mean for domestic legal frameworks for implementing regulatory measures for alcohol control. The paper looks at possible impacts on the authority of various national authorities to implement new measures, the ability of civil society to bring cases compelling more comprehensive regulatory measures and the defence of litigation brought by commercial-sector actors to prevent, delay or weaken the implementation of laws and regulations. It reflects on what lessons these might have for alcohol control governance.

A framework of NGO inside and outside strategies in the commercial determinants of health: findings from a narrative review

“…Twenty-five studies (17%) attributed NGOs as making a substantive impact – that is, they significantly influenced commercial practices or government/intergovernmental policy and regulation [ 22 , 26 , 40 , 44 , 48 , 52 , 57 , 59 , 76 , 77 , 85 , 96 , 106 , 108 , 111 , 113 , 115 , 124 , 127 , 129 , 134 , 141 , 146 , 158 , 160 ] (see Table 4 ). A further 13 studies identified a partial impact on policy and regulation, in which NGOs temporarily influenced policy, such as halting mining licenses, or industry responded through voluntary actions [ 23 , 27 , 49 , 61 , 70 , 72 , 77 , 79 , 83 , 89 , 90 , 135 , 139 , 143 ].…”

Alcohol and Public Health: Failure and Opportunity

“…This should include regular meetings of signatories to monitor progress, update requirements and standards as needed, facilitate information sharing and assistance among governments, and promote ancillary civil society and scientific networks. 114 This ecosystem would require significant funding. Although WHO headquarters in Geneva recently roughly doubled its efforts on alcohol, the doubling occurred from a very low baseline.…”

“…A global treaty would not be a panacea; critically, it would need an accompanying “ecosystem” in support of its implementation. This should include regular meetings of signatories to monitor progress, update requirements and standards as needed, facilitate information sharing and assistance among governments, and promote ancillary civil society and scientific networks 114 . This ecosystem would require significant funding.…”

Alcoholic beverages in trade agreements: Industry lobbying and the public health interest

“…Three further forthcoming papers in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs consider issues around conflict of interest and alcohol industry submissions and involvement in national and international policymaking [4–6]. Eight forthcoming papers in the European Journal of Risk Regulation are concerned with issues in the global governance of alcohol in the context of the World Health Organization and other intergovernmental organisations and agreements [1,2,7–12]. Revisions of several other papers presented at the conference are also published or forthcoming in other journals [13–17].…”