by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
acta, copyright, eu, mexico, switzerland, us

EU, Mexico & Switzerland Will Not Sign ACTA This Weekend, Despite The 'Signing Ceremony'

from the a-brief-reprieve dept

With Japan announcing a signing ceremony this Saturday for those who negotiated ACTA, it seemed reasonable to think that most of those listed as planning to attend would be signing. Of course, we wondered about the US, the EU and Mexico -- as there have been legal questions and challenges raised to ACTA in all three cases, with Mexico's Congress specifically telling the President it will not ratify the treaty. The EU had also been investigating whether or not ACTA was in line with EU law, and that process has not been completed, so we thought it was premature for the EU to sign onto ACTA.

Thankfully, the EU Commission agrees... and has now said that it will not be signing ACTA this weekend, and also saying that Mexico and Switzerland have also said they won't sign... yet:
"The EU has not yet completed its internal procedures authorising the signature, therefore it will not be signing ACTA at this event," the Commission spokesperson said in a statement. "Neither will Mexico and Switzerland, since they did not conclude their domestic proceedings."

"For the EU, the domestic process for signature is that the Council [of Ministers] adopts a decision authorising a EU representative to sign ACTA. Since this required the translation of the treaty in all the EU languages, such decision has not yet been adopted. It may still require a couple of months for the EU to be able to sign ACTA. After the signature, the European Parliament will have to vote its consent of ACTA,"
Of course, this is not a complete rejection of ACTA, but it is a reprieve. It also sounds as though all the other countries listed will be signing, including the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Korea, Morocco and Singapore. That's a pretty bold move by the Obama administration, considering the evidence that signing ACTA in this manner without Senate approval is unconstitutional. I guess actually expecting the president to follow the Constitution is only important when you're not in office. Once you get there, all bets are off...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:43pm


    I agree. If he tries to make this an "executive agreement" then it should have NO force of law. Anything else would just about give the President sole control over everything, as he could just enter an "executive agreement" with the Cayman Islands or Micronesia to pass whatever was on his agenda.

    The President has full control over the executive branch, appoints federal judges (and a lot of other people), is commander in chief, has veto power over legislation, and is the only one who can sign treaties. Is this not enough power? Is it too much to want the Senate to actually have to ratify those treaties, like the Constitution specfies?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.