ArticleGlobalization and health2025
Safeguarding health in bilateral investment treaties: the Uruguayan experience.
Article in Globalization and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe proliferation of International Investment Agreements (IIAs), as the result of globalization, has been identified as one of the factors contributing to policy inertia or chill on meaningful public health policy action. Health safeguards, i.e., specific clauses to protect the State's right to regulate, have been increasingly included in IIAs to protect health policy. However, an in-depth understanding of the processes involved in the diffusion of health safeguards in IIAs globally and the factors acting as barriers and facilitators for their uptake is still lacking. In this context, the present study intends to fill this research gap by analysing the uptake of health safeguards in the context of Uruguay, a developing Latin American country. The objectives were to: (i) examine the evolution of the inclusion of health safeguards in the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) signed by Uruguay until 2024, (ii) analyse how Uruguay has approached BITs after the Philip Morris ISDS case, (iii) explore Uruguayan stakeholders' perspectives on the inclusion of health safeguards in BITs, (iv) identify barriers and facilitators for the uptake of health safeguards in the BITs.
resultsDocumentary analysis of the BITs signed by Uruguay showed an ascending trend in the inclusion of health safeguards, reaching 100% since 2010. Interviews with key stakeholders suggested that health safeguards diffused from abroad through transnational transfer networks. While Uruguay has not faced challenges in including health safeguards in recent BITs, the renegotiation of old generation BIT agreements with developed countries has proven to be difficult. A wide range of factors that act as facilitators and barriers for the inclusion for health safeguards in the BITs were identified, which were related to both the national and intergovernmental levels.
conclusionsResults contribute to the understanding of the factors that influence the evolution of the interface between investment agreements and public health policy by analysing the adoption of health safeguards in BITs. Strong recommendations from international organizations to renegotiate old generation BITs may contribute to overcoming the existing power dynamics and support developing countries in the protection of their regulatory space.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.