The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Posted on

by

Opponents criticized the law for its negative effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and the privacy of communications. [81] [87] [90] The Electronic Frontier Foundation mocked, among other things, the exclusion of civil society groups, developing countries and public opinion from the negotiation process of the agreement and called political money laundering political money laundering. [96] [97] The signing of the EU and many of its Member States led to the resignation in protest against the rapporteur appointed by the European Parliament (Kader Arif) and widespread protests throughout Europe. [72] [73] [81] [98] Commission recommendation to the Council to authorise the Commission to open negotiations for a multi-lateral trade agreement in the area of anti-counterfeiting (SEC (2008) 255 final/2), Brussels, 27 February 2008, ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/2/2008/EN/2-2008-255-EN-F2-0.Pdf (called 14 October 2012). Since ACTA is an international treaty, it is an example of political money laundering used to introduce and implement legal changes. Money laundering allows the dissolution of the legislation through negotiations between private members of the signatories` executive bodies. This method avoids the application of public legislation and its judicial review. Once ratified, non-member businesses may be required to comply with ACTA requirements or they will not be protected by port security. Similarly, the use of trade and other incentives to encourage other nations to adopt treaties is a standard approach in international relations. Other signatories should accept the terms of ACTA, without too much room for negotiation.

[117] Even if a country does not participate in the ACTA negotiations, it is likely that country membership and implementation of its provisions will be a condition imposed in future free trade agreements and will be evaluated in content industry submissions to The 301 Annual Special Report. Ultimately, it will limit the ability of nations to choose policy options that best align with their domestic policy priorities and level of economic development. Blakeney, M. (2012). Application of intellectual property: a comment on the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (Acta). Cheltenham, United Kingdom; MA Northampton: Edward Elgar Pub. Among the many analyses available, Mercurio (2012) is particularly informative. It aims to “show that the importance of ACTA goes beyond the text and goes to the centre of international intellectual property policy. In this case, the article analyzes some of ACTA`s alleged progress and briefly compares these benefits with the existing legal framework of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS AGREEMENT) and elsewhere.


Comments are closed.