Link: Source
Also, there's the whole lie about how ACTA is not a treaty. Oh no no no. According to US officials, ACTA is merely an "executive agreement." Of course, if you talk to legal experts, they'll point out that the only real difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is whether or not the Senate has any say in approving it. Making it an executive agreement is just a ploy to avoid Senate hearings. It also raises serious constitutional questions, since the Executive branch of the US government has no mandate to approve such things.
But, to summarize: according to the US, ACTA is not binding in that it can ignore the parts it doesn't like, and it's not a treaty. Got it? Not binding. Not a treaty.
Okay, let's jump over to Europe. A few months back, we had noted that the EU's Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, who, more or less, was in charge of the EU's position on ACTA, insisted that it was a treaty. And the latest news is that, in response to a question from the EU Parliament's Francoise Castex, De Gucht has also said that ACTA is binding: "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a binding international agreement on all its parties, as defined and subject to the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)."
Apparently, MEP Castex sent the question about this way back at the beginning of November. The delay in response is allegedly due to De Gucht begging Castex to withdraw the question, perhaps knowing that the answer was going to get him in trouble.
So, if you're playing along with the home game, the EU says that ACTA is a binding treaty. The US says it's neither binding, nor a treaty.
Kinda makes you wonder what they spent so much time negotiating in secret, doesn't it.
Message Thread
« Back to index