J Epidemiol Community Health

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2006;60:751-756; doi:10.1136/jech.2005.043794
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Read responses to this article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Assunta, M.
Right arrow Articles by Chapman, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Assunta, M.
Right arrow Articles by Chapman, S.
Topic Collections
Right arrowRelevant Article

EVIDENCE BASED PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY AND PRACTICE

Health treaty dilution: a case study of Japan’s influence on the language of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Mary Assunta, Simon Chapman

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
MsM Assunta
School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; marya{at}health.usyd.edu.au

Background: The Japanese government is an important shareholder in the Japanese tobacco industry. Negotiations to develop the WHO’s historic Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) were based on consensus, resulting in countries needing to agree to the lowest acceptable common denominator in clause development.

Objective: To illustrate Japan’s role in negotiating key optional language in the FCTC text.

Methods: Summary reports, text proposals, conference papers, and speeches related to the six FCTC negotiation sessions were reviewed for repeated words, concepts and emerging themes. Key stakeholders were interviewed. Key words such as "sovereignty", "appropriate", "latitude", "individual", "flexibility", and "may" representing optional language were examined.

Results: The Japanese government’s proposals for "appropriate" and optional measures are reflected in the final FCTC text that accommodates flexibility on interpretation and implementation on key tobacco controls. While Japan was not alone in proposing optional language, consensus accommodated their proposals.

Conclusion: Japan’s success in arguing for extensive optional language seriously weakened the FCTC. Accordingly, international tobacco control can be expected to be less successful in reducing the burden of disease caused by tobacco use.


Abbreviations: FCTC, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; JT, Japan Tobacco; JTI, Japan Tobacco International; WHA, World Health Assembly; INB, intergovernmental negotiating body; BAT, British American Tobacco; NGO, non-governmental organisation

Keywords: Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; Japan; public health law; treaty negotiation


Relevant Article

In this issue
Carlos Alvarez-Dardet and John R Ashton
J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 60: 737. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
H. M. Mamudu, R. Hammond, and S. A. Glantz
Project Cerberus: Tobacco Industry Strategy to Create an Alternative to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Am J Public Health, September 1, 2008; 98(9): 1630 - 1642.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Well researched, well written.
Manabu Sakuta
J Epidemiol Community Health Online, 18 Dec 2006 [Full text]



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.