Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

    Blog Archive

    SMTWTFS
       1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    26272829

    The ACTA Transparency Scorecard

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Friday February 26, 2010
    With yesterday's leak of a Dutch government document revealing the positions on ACTA transparency of many of the negotiating partners, it is worth taking stock of the current positions on the issue:


    Country
    Position on ACTA Transparency
    Australia
    Support
    Canada
    Support
    Japan
    Support
    New Zealand
    Support
    Singapore
    Oppose
    South Korea Oppose
    United States
    Neutral (but indication that oppose)
    European Commission
    Oppose (fear it would set precedent for other trade talks)
    Austria
    Support
    Belgium
    Oppose
    Denmark
    Oppose
    Estonia
    Support
    Finland
    Support
    France
    Support (but fear U.S. retaliation)
    Germany
    Oppose
    Hungary
    Support
    Ireland
    Support
    Italy
    Support (but fear U.S. retaliation)
    Netherlands
    Support
    Poland
    Support
    Portugal
    Oppose
    Sweden
    Support
    United Kingdom
    Support

    Remaining European Union countries with positions unknown: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain.

    Remaining ACTA countries with positions unknown: Mexico, Morocco, Switzerland.

    If anyone has further updated information, feel free to email or post in the comments.
    Comments (18)add comment

    crade said:

    ...
    As far as I can tell, the leak only mentions some countries that oppose, and mentions a few in Europe that are in support, but does not go so far as to claim the ones not mentioned are all in support. I don't see Canada mentioned at all. Am I missing something?
    February 26, 2010

    crade said:

    ...
    Ah nevermind, I missed that the summary is not based solely on this report :)
    February 26, 2010

    Dan Goodchild said:

    Mexico's position
    Though unofficial, you might consider listing Mexico as "unknown (but indication that oppose)". I suggest this based on the NDRs at so-called public consultations. http://www.techdirt.com/articl...7875.shtml
    February 26, 2010

    StuartShawna23 said:

    respond
    According to my own investigation, millions of persons in the world get the mortgage loans at various banks. Thence, there is a good chance to receive a sba loan in every country.
    February 26, 2010

    Jason K said:

    ...
    These countries need not fear the US. A reminder goes out to the globe that the US is currently in crisis with respect to lobby influence on it's legislators. The global economy tanked due to "loop" holes in US law overlooked in main part due to the biggest lobby on Capital Hill "The bank lobby". If anything the global community needs to seriously look at any trade agreement with scrutiny so that we don't end up in another situation where the global economy is put at risk, because US law makers alone have way too much influance on the global economy.

    A lot of the lobby issues Washington was supposed to fix when Obama came into power. Not the case, and Lawrence Lessig over the past year, has moved from the issue of copyright to the issue of corruption in US politics, and identifying the power US corps have over the direction of that country rather than the Americans themselves.

    If anything the US should fear retaliation from other countries should they not support transparency. Currently the majority that support ACTA transparency have the upper hand economically, not the US.
    February 26, 2010

    Jaosn K said:

    ...
    Recommended viewing for those involved with ACTA is a great investigative piece done by PBS Frontline entitled "The Warning", and investigates how the global economic meltdown started. For Canada and the US it's viewable on the pbs.org website under the Frontline section. To the rest of the world, it's probably blocked due to "rights restrictions". lol
    February 26, 2010

    A. Rebentisch said:

    No legal base to oppose it
    The EU-Commission is legally bound by the EU TFUE Article 15 (Lisbon regime), which grants citizens a right. This is why the Commission blames it on the other delegations (current 1040/2001/EC Art 4 "international relations" exceptions). They formally lack competence to oppose transparency as this contravenes the treaty provisions, see below. If it is an EU process, it applies probably also to member states involved in the process which signed Lisbon. It seems legally impossible to hold that position in international fora because the treaty mandates the opposite:


    TFUE Article 15 (ex Article 255 TEC)
    1. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.
    2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.
    3. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with this paragraph. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
    Each institution, body, office or agency shall ensure that its proceedings are transparent and shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph.
    The Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank shall be subject to this paragraph only when exercising their administrative tasks.
    The European Parliament and the Council shall ensure publication of the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph.


    Furthermore the Article 218 (10) TFUE:

    10.The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at
    all stages of the procedure.

    That is an aspect the Parliament INTA raised this week in a hearing on ACTA. Here the Commission defended its ACTA transparency practice with the notion that they do not have a right to disclose the positions of other delegations.

    The open question is if the Commission is entitled to enter into such international talks at all when the transparency regime is incompatible with Article 15 TFUE. I am sure we will see some further technical debate on the matter.
    February 26, 2010

    MissPirata said:

    Position Mexico IMPI
    IMPI (negotiator) published yesterday this minute about the public hearing more than a month ago. It might help to have a picture about their position. http://j.mp/chWZI9 (PDF) No report on Guadalajara meetings yet.
    February 26, 2010

    evision said:

    February 27, 2010

    Anon-K said:

    ...
    A. Rebentisch, the out is at the end of para 1 to the article you quote. The article does not say it must always be conducted in an open manner, simply that "shall conduct their work as openly as possible". As such, they appear to be correct in a concern about creating a precedent; there is one other negotiation currently going on that is being conducted in an open manner, and is often cited as an example of how it should be done (it was mentioned on this blog but I can't remember which one off the top of my head). 13 years of negotiations and counting, and they appear to be no further along than ACTA appears to be. Based on that experience, I can understand a reluctance to force all economic treaty negotiations to be conducted in an open manner; the option for "closed" negotiations would appear to be a desirable option to have available, even if it is never used.
    February 28, 2010

    jv said:

    ...
    If 3 strikes isn't going to be part of ACTA we know why. It looks like the US wants to start regulating the internet and wants to "work" with other countries on it.

    "Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner."

    "All of these efforts must involve collaboration – among government agencies, foreign governments when appropriate, and key Internet constituencies—commercial, academia, civil society."

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2010/MediaInstitute_02242010.html

    I wish I understood how the media companies wield the unbelievable power they do.
    February 28, 2010

    Jason K said:

    @jv
    "I wish I understood how the media companies wield the unbelievable power they do."

    Through political lobbying, and political contributions. In the US they don't have publicly funded elections. The people don't own their government in the US, it's the corporations that do. That's why we are in a global recession. Civil society should be dictating public policy. At least here in Canada we had a public copyright consultation. Whether that means anything in this day in age will be determined soon when the Cons throw up the next copyright bill.
    February 28, 2010

    A. Rebentisch said:

    @Anon-K
    The 15(1) "shall conduct their work as openly as possible" is fresh and it is worded strongly. "shall" means mandatory as opposed to "should". As the competences of the Commission are defined by the Treaties the Commission lacks competence to *demand* less transparency from other parties. In the EU they claim that the other parties are holding them back. Notably, it is all not tested at the European Court of Justice, anyway. The treaties are different from a Contitution in the sense that they also represent a kind of political programmatics. The Commission is no government but it is the guardian of the Treaties. If their actions contradict the treaties that is a strong infringement of their duties.

    However, the classic meat is Art 15(2) TFUE, before Lisbon codified as Article 255. I grants all citizen a right of access to documents. It is implemented by EC/1049/2001.

    Unfortunately the implementation in 2001 did not imagine regulatory aspects of trade discussions. It is well understood that e.g. Trade negotiations about tarriffs should be confidential. Of course ACTA is no FTA but international legislation put into an FTA procedure. The current legal base to deny ACTA document access is EC/1049/2001 Art 4 "International Relations" exemptions.

    Basically it is enought to fix that Article 4 of EC/1049/2001. Watch the procedure COD(2008)0090 M.Cashman! Am109 in the recast opinion even created a lex specialis for ACTA transparency, but I expect we will get a generic solution.
    February 28, 2010

    Daniel said:

    Switzerland supports transparency
    According to the information we got from our representatives, Switzerland actually supports transparency (see protocoll of a civil society participant from a meeting with the Swiss Delegation (in German)).
    March 01, 2010

    Daniel said:

    March 01, 2010

    Nur affinah Mohd affaidi said:

    online course in Germany
    I have visited this site and start online course from my home and i got online degree. I am doing my course online from my home.


    online course
    April 07, 2010

    JennyRandall21 said:

    respond
    All people deserve wealthy life time and loans or collateral loan can make it much better. Because people's freedom is based on money state.
    May 26, 2010

    Jackie35Joyce said:

    reply
    The mortgage loans suppose to be important for guys, which are willing to start their own organization. As a fact, it's very easy to get a sba loan.
    July 04, 2011

    Write comment
    smaller | bigger

    busy
    Tags:
    , , , ,
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
    Related Items: