As US Insists ACTA Is Not A Treaty, EU Trade Commissioner Admits It's A Treaty
from the ooooops dept
We've already posted about David Kappos' non-response to legality questions about ACTA, but at the bottom of KEI's coverage of this story there's another interesting point. ACTA supporters in the US have been bending over backwards to insist that ACTA is not a treaty. Any time anyone mentions it as a treaty in the comments here, one of the ACTA supporters among our readership will quickly admonish them for being clueless about the law and will insist that this is nothing more than an "executive agreement," which does not need Senate approval. It's one of ACTA supporters' favorite talking points. Of course, there are some serious constitutional questions about that.However, much more telling is that many ACTA supporters will outright admit it's a treaty. We already noted that the Business Software Alliance (BSA) did just that a few weeks ago (and also falsely claimed it had already been signed by 37 countries). However, much more telling is that the EU's Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, has also admitted that the document is really a treaty. Apparently in a communication to the EU Parliament, De Gucht specifically and formally noted three times that ACTA is, in fact, a treaty. I can't wait for the responses in our comments about how it's not a treaty now.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, executive agreement, karel de gucht, treaty
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't that kind of make the point that there's no real difference between them... and raise serious questions as to why the US will not allow it to go through the standard treaty process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And is it just me, or has the tone of Mike's articles and comments become noticeably more bitter lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the question for our friends supporting this becomes "how can you call this an Executive Agreement when it requires changes to existing law?"
The are two possible answers - (1) "Actually, it doesn't" or (2) "Well, actually it does, so you're right, this is a treaty."
Given that one of this is a flat-out lie, you can be absolutely sure which one you'll get. Hint: it's not #2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think that's right. Where does it say an executive agreement can't change the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what everyone who has been supporting ACTA -- including the USTR -- has been saying all along. Are you now suggesting otherwise?
I believe the argument is that the executive branch has no authority to change the law. That's the legislative branch's job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and that's a problem.
If it remains an "executive agreement," then no changes to domestic law (for any signature countries) is needed. It will then pass, without any democratic process.
What then happens is that these "executive agreements" are then used to pressure our government (and every other) into compliance with the "agreement."
It's a way to change U.S. law through a back door, without going through any sort of democratic process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest
http://arstechnica.com/business/problem-solving/2010/11/part-3-analogies-in-argument.ars
What you are promoting is a false analogy.
In fact, what they are TRYING to say is that a "salmon" is NOT a "fish." So, yeah...
There.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a country has no concept of a species of fish named "salmon", then it would be impossible for them to call it one. In many states there are many definitions and species of "fish", the same word is used to mean more than one species of "fish". So what someone in Europe may call a "fish", someone in the USA may call a "salmon", and it wouldn't change a thing.
There.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interestingly if a majority of those parties classify it as a treaty and therefore treat it as an international instrument (or fundamental constitutive document) that binds them into an agreement (treaty) with other sovereign powers then it is therefore under both diplomatic precedence and "customary international law" a treaty that is BINDING on all parties.
WIPO is like that, so is the UN Treaties that have been signed (though the UDHR is really a binding instrument on member states it is still classified as a treaty by all signatories) and one other contentious (for the USA) treaty is very similar to ACTA. This is the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" which every other country in the world has signed with the exception of Somalia and the United States.. Why has the US refused to sign? because it is a treaty that would override most domestic laws on children and families (as it should) due to the US Constitutions Supremecy clause in Article 6
Therefore whether the USA calls ACTA a treaty (in public mind you) or not is irrelevant. It will still be binding, it will still come under diplomatic precedence and it will most definitely come under customary international law. If the USA states that it is NOT a treaty then the USA (or any country) will have a very hard time in using it as a stick, and the Rights holders like RIAA/MPAA etc will find the first time they want to prosecute that any defendant worth their salt will immediately use as a defence that it is NOT a treaty and the jurisdiction where they reside (or are tried) cannot use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOPS
I didn't realise I was logged out..
oh well ..so being an anony mouse.. do I get cheese? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Viet Nam War was not a war but a "police action". Waterboarding is not torture but "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Suggested reading: 1984 by George Orwell. It provides an excellent perspective on governments propensity for finding pleasant sounding euphemisms for heinous things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's "executive agreement" AND a "treaty", as convenient.
But, again, doesn't *matter* what term they use for some ink or pixels, all that matters is that they'll *enforce* whatever they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spin
Mike, it's not a treaty.
That's like a kick me sign. Can't help but oblige.
It's all about the spin. As Neil Young said..."We've got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder gentler machine gun hand. Keep on rockin' in the free world."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they say its a treaty in canada too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transcript of the debate in Parliament
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treaty
A few days ago in a forum about Internet and Human Rights, the representant of Amprofon (a mexican riaa) shockingly explaining ACTA (not IMPI?!) said "This is the way treaties are negotiated" adding that by the way TRIPS is 15 years behing legislation they need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]