What is often not understood, the planned ACTA is negotiated among a coalition of the willing. It is not primarily targeted at the nations which sit at the negotiations table but it aims at third nations, in particular emerging nations and BRIC. TRIPS included IPR ‘minimum standards’ under the premise of their misuse as a barrier to trade. The current ACTA negotiations leave that premise totally out of sight, negotiators are not aware of the difference or argue that is was just enforcement, not substantive provisions. The actual usefulness of ACTA lies in its applications beyond its original members.
Stanford McCoy (US): When talking about comprehensive free trade agreement, IP is a trading chip. When it is an IP focused agreement, can go to government and ask them if they will be strong on it… ACTA would sell itself if we have a package of appropriate measures.
Luc Devigne (EU): The value of ACTA is to bring the problem countries around to our side. We haven’t reached this step yet, because it is not final, but there are ideas on how to do it. ACTA is not new substantial law, only enforcement. Who can be against enforcement?
Moderator: Once ACTA completed, does that become part of FTA?
Stanford McCoy: That is already the case. It wouldn’t be a change. But ACTA also adds enforcement provisions, to give more tools.
At WIPO UN Charta principles apply.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
.. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, …
But ACTA is no international treaty negotiated at WIPO but a plurilateral “trade agreement” about legislation. With ACTA trade policy instruments are used to force a certain legal regime on the targeted nation. Essentially non-domestic laws are traded for bananas.