No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF THE GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEGAL ORDER: EMERGENCE OF A ‘NETWORK AGENDA’?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2014
Abstract
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) had sought to augment intellectual property (IP) enforcement practices, to counter the proliferation of counterfeit and pirate goods and to regulate digital infringements. This paper examines the collapse of ACTA and challenges the traditional orientation of the debate concerning the tension between the ‘enforcement’ and ‘development’ agendas. The ACTA negotiating partners, mainly developed states, created a forum outside the aegis of international IP norm-making bodies to avoid the distractions posed by developing countries whilst promoting an alternative ‘enforcement agenda’. Despite this effort, ACTA collapsed from ‘within’. The paper argues that ACTA failed due to the extemporaneous emergence of a random configuration of civil society groups, academics, ‘netizens’ and legislators within ACTA negotiating countries independently pursuing an agenda that can be called the ‘network agenda’. This new agenda aimed to protect the right to privacy, data protection and freedom of speech within the digital medium. While current debates on the global IP legal order are generally limited to, and characterised by the Global North-South considerations, the ‘network agenda’ cuts longitudinally through territorial configurations and squarely places the interests of the IP owner against those of the public. Consequently, the paper highlights the potential of the network agenda to dilute the existing polarities in the IP debate and impact on the dynamics of international intellectual property law by creating an inclusive platform within IP discourse that attempts to integrate colliding rationalities present within the world society.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2014
References
1 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Final Text <http://www.ustr.gov/acta>.
2 Art 39 ACTA [other WTO members may sign if ACTA partners agree by consensus].
3 As a ‘mixed agreement’, the EU and all Member States had to approve the ACTA. Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Netherlands and Slovakia delayed signing ACTA due to procedural issues. Croatia joined EU only in July 2013.
4 Art 40 ACTA.
5 Joint Press Statement of ACTA Negotiating Parties <http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/october/joint-press-statement-anti-counterfeiting-trade-ag>.
6 No other WTO Member State expressed interest in signing ACTA. See also M Ermert, ‘German Ministry Advises Developing Countries Not to Sign ACTA’ (8 May 2012) Intellectual Property Watch.
7 Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Minutes 24–25 October 2011; 17 November 2011) IP/C/M/67 (15 February 2012), IP/C/M/61 (12 February 2012); C Saez, ‘ACTA as a Sign of Weakness in Multilateral System, WIPO Head Says’ (30 June 2010) Intellectual Property Watch.
8 Yu, P, ‘ACTA and Its Complex Politics’ (2011) JWIP 3Google Scholar; Yu, P, ‘The ACTA/TPP Country Clubs’ in Beldiman, D (ed), Access to Information and Knowledge (Edward Elgar 2013) ch 10Google Scholar.
9 Braithwaite, J and Drahos, P, Global Business Regulation (Cambridge University Press 2000) 564–71Google Scholar; Sell, S, ‘The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts’ (2010) PIJIP Working Paper 15Google Scholar; Li, X and Correa, C (eds), Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2009) 145Google Scholar; Correa, C (ed), Research Handbook on the Interpretation and Enforcement of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules (Edward Elgar 2010) vol 2, 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 ACTA, Chapter V: Institutional Arrangements; J Love, ‘KEI Comment on US Signing of ACTA’ (3 October 2011) <http://keionline.org/node/1291> Knowledge Ecology International; Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘In the Matter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ (15 February 2011) <https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode//EFF%20ACTA%20submission%20110215.pdf>.
11 WTO Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 (2001); WIPO, ‘Development Agenda for WIPO’ <http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/>; WIPO, ‘Patent Agenda: Options for Development of the International Patent System’ WIPO Doc A/37/6 (19 August 2002).
12 The Enforcement Agenda will shift the focus from increasing substantive IP provisions to enforcement of rights through measures such as criminalization, border search and seizures thereby increasing public costs. See Braithwaite and Drahos (n 9); Sell, S, ‘TRIPS Was Never Enough: Vertical Forum Shifting: FTAS, ACTA, and TPP’ (2011) 18 JIPL 447Google Scholar; Flynn, S, ‘ACTA's Constitutional Problem: The Treaty Is Not a Treaty’ (2011) 26(3) AmUIntlLRev 903Google Scholar, 905; see also (nn 223 and 224).
13 Especially in relation to access to essential medicines. See eg Ruse-Khan, HG, ‘A Trade Agreement Creating Barriers to International Trade?: ACTA Border Measures and Goods in Transit’ (2011) 26(3) AmUIntlLRev 646Google Scholar.
14 Elaborated in section IIC below.
15 Hauben, M and Hauben, R, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet (Wiley-Blackwell 1997)Google Scholar.
16 For example, US Congressional Research Service, ‘The Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Background and Key Issues’ 7-5700 (19 July 2012) 4 [‘CRS Report for Congress’]; Australia National Interest Analysis: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement [2011] ATNIF 22 Summary section 7 and 29–30; Knowledge Ecology International, ‘De Gucht Responds to MEP Françoise Castex: Says ACTA Is Binding Agreement, Consistent with EU “Acquis”’ (7 February 2011) <http://keionline.org/node/1073>.
17 European Parliament Resolution (18 December 2008) P7_TA (2008) 0634, section 27, 54, 67; European Parliament Resolution P7_TA (2010) 0058 section 12; Amnesty International, ‘EU Urged to Reject International Anti-Counterfeiting Pact’ (10 February 2012) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/eu-urged-reject-international-anti-counterfeiting-pact-2012-02-10>; Free Speech ‘Does ACTA Threaten Online Freedom of Expression & Privacy?’ <http://freespeechdebate.com/en/media/acta-the-internet-freedom-of-expression-privacy/>; <http://freeknowledge.eu/acta-a-global-threat-to-freedoms-open-letter>.
18 This lends further credence to the ‘internet exceptionalism’ theory. See eg Szoka, B and Marcus, A, The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet (Tech Freedom 2010) ch 3Google Scholar; also Mansell, R, Imagining the Internet: Communication, Innovation, and Governance (Oxford University Press 2012)Google Scholar.
19 The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a proposed Free Trade Agreement which is being negotiated between US, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Brunei. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Negotiations <http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/index.html>.
20 This issue has however been covered extensively in the literature.
21 Organisation for Security and Cooperation, ‘Draft Declaration on Fundamental Freedoms in the Digital Age’ PC.DEL/1022/12/Rev.2 (7 December 2012); UN Human Rights, ‘Freedom of Expression and New Media’ (1 September 2011) <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/FreedomExpressionandnewmedia.aspx>.
22 See references in Section III.
23 ‘Policy laundering’ describes efforts by policy actors to have policy initiatives seen as exogenously determined by routinely pushing for the establishment of regulatory standards in international policy venues and thereafter aligning them to domestic policies ‘under the requirement of harmonisation and the guise of multilateralism’. See Herman, B and Gandy, O Jr., ‘Catch 1201: A Legislative History and Content Analysis of the DMCA Exemption Proceedings’ (2006) 24 CardozoArts&EntLJ 121Google Scholar, 128; For general discussion on policy laundering, see Hossein, I, ‘The Sources of Laws: Policy Dynamics in a Digital and Terrorized World’ (2004) 20 Information Society 187Google Scholar; Yu, P, ‘The Political Economy of Data Protection’ (2010) 84 Chi-KentLRev 777Google Scholar; see also <www.policylaundering.org/PolicyLaunderingIntro.html>.
24 For instance, see Bridy, A, ‘Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse-Theoretic Perspective on ACTA, SOPA and PIPA’ (2012) 30 CardozoArts&EntLJ 153Google Scholar; Levine, D, ‘Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security and the Creation of International Intellectual Property Law’ (2012) 30 CardozoArts&EntLJ 105Google Scholar (pointing out that the bills entitled Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) failed to pass despite engaging in a ‘transparent and accountable process’ in comparison to ACTA); also A Powell, ‘Assessing the Influence of Online Activism on Internet Policy Making: SOPA and ACTA’ <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031561> (updated version of the paper as at 8 April 2013).
25 478 MEPs voted against ACTA and 39 in favour. 165 abstained following refusal to delay the final vote until the ECJ had ruled on ACTA's compatibility with EU treaties as requested by the centre-right European People's Party group. Parliament Press Release ‘European Parliament Rejects ACTA’ (4 July 2012); EU Observer, ‘ACTA in Tatters after MEPs Wield Veto’ (4 July 2012); Frontier Economics & Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy ‘ACTA, in the EU: Assessment of Potential Export, Economic and Employment Gains’ (June 2012) <http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Bascap/International-engagement-and-advocacy/ACTA/ACTA-in-the-EU-Assessment-of-Potential-Export_-Economic-and-Employment-Gains_-June-2012/>.
26 See EU Observer, ‘Sighs of Relief as EU Parliament Approves “Swift” Deal’ (8 July 2010); European Parliament News, ‘MEPs Reject Extension of the EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement and Call for a Better Deal’ (14 December 2011).
27 Referring to the social structure connecting ‘networked individualists’ of the network society which in turn refers to varied social, cultural, political and economic changes attributed to electronically processed informational networks. For theory on ‘networked individualism’ see Rainie, L and Wellman, B, Networked: The New Social Operating System (MIT 2012)Google Scholar; For further discussion on network society, see Castells, M, The Rise of the Network Society: Economy, Society and Culture vol 1 (Blackwell 1996, 2000)Google Scholar; Castells, M and Cardoso, G (eds), The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy (Johns Hopkins CTR 2005)Google Scholar; van Dijk, J, The Network Society (3rd edn, Sage 2012)Google Scholar; Barney, D, The Network Society (Polity Press 2004)Google Scholar; van der Vleuten, E and Verbong, G, ‘Introduction: Networking Technology, Networking Society, Networking Nature’ (2004) 20(3) History and Technology 195–203Google Scholar; Dalhbom, B, ‘Postface: From Infrastructure to Networking’ in Cibbora, C (ed), From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures (Oxford University Press 2000) 225Google Scholar states: ‘A networking nomadic society may perhaps be better described with verbs rather than nouns. It is a networking society, not a network society. It is activities and actions rather than organizations and agents that make up that society.’
28 For example, Switzerland Federal Department of Justice and Police Press Release, ‘Switzerland Defers Signature of the ACTA Agreement’ (9 May 2012); S Bell, ‘ACTA Ratification Faces NZ Hurdle’ PC Advisor (17 June 2012); see Recommendation 9, Australian Government, ‘Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report: Report 126: ACTA’ (November 2012).
29 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Press Release, ‘Conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by Japan’ (5 October 2012); Electronic Frontier Foundation ‘Japan's Copyright Problems: National Policies, ACTA and TPP in the Horizon’ (21 August 2012); J Hilvert, ‘Anonymous Protests ACTA Ratification in Tokyo’ IT News (10 September 2012); Z Walton, ‘ACTA Ratified in Japan, Citizens Plan Protest’ WebProNews (6 September 2012); Anti-ACTA Protest Video for Japan <https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/anti-acta-protest-video-for-japan.106316/>.
30 Teubner, G, Law as an Autopoietic System (Bankowski, Z (ed) (trans. Bankowska, A and Adler, R) (Blackwell 1993) 100Google Scholar.
31 RAND Corporation Report, Measuring IPR Infringements in the Internal Market: Development of a New Approach to Estimating the Impact of Infringements on Sales (2012) section 4.2 and 4.6; US Government Accountability Office ‘Intellectual Property Observation on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods’ GAO-10-423(2010) 16 [‘2010 GAO Report’].
32 Blakeney, M, Intellectual Property Enforcement: A Commentary on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Edward Elgar 2012)Google Scholar.
33 OECD, The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy (Paris, 2008) and Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update (Paris, 2009).
34 2010 GAO Report (n 31) 18–19 (For example, The GAO Report found that the FTC ‘was unable to locate any record or any source of th(e) estimate [MEMA's reference to FTC estimates, see section 9.10 2008 OECD Report] within its reports or archives, and officials could not recall the agency ever developing or using this estimate’).
35 This would be worth an estimated $600bn a year. See International Chamber of Commerce <http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/fighting-commercial-crime/counterfeiting-intelligence-bureau/>; see eg COM (2000) 789 final 4.
36 CEBR Report for the European Commission, ‘Counting Counterfeits: Defining a Method to Collect, Analyse and Compare Data on Counterfeiting and Piracy in the Single Market’ (15 June 2002) 18; see F Salmon, Finance Blogger, Reuters (9 June 2005) at <http://www.felixsalmon.com/2005/06/all-counterfeiting-statistics-are-bullshit/>.
37 Frontier Economics, Estimating the Global Economic and Social Impacts of Counterfeiting and Piracy (2011) section 4.2, report commission by Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (an initiative of the International Chamber of Commerce).
38 P Stryszowski, ‘Measuring Counterfeiting and Piracy’ (OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry) Presentation at CCAP Congress (Cancun, 1–3 December 2009).
39 T Rogers and A Szamosszegi, ‘Capital Trade Inc., Fair Use in the US Economy: Economic Contribution of Industries Relying on Fair Use’ Reports (2007), (2010) and (2011) <www.ccianet.org>; F Oberholzer-Gee and K Strumpf, ‘The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis’ (2007) 115(1) JPolEcon 1–42; Y Qia, ‘Counterfeiters: Foes or Friends? How Do Counterfeits Affect Different Product Quality Tiers?’ NBER Working Paper 16785 (2011; revised 1 July 2013); See Raustila, K and Sprigman, C, ‘Fake It Till You Make It: The Good News about China's Knock off Economy’ (2013) 92(4) Foreign Affairs 25Google Scholar.
40 Statement of the International Trademark Association, HR 2511 (7 December 1995) (the figure of $200bn was attributed to Forbes magazine article dated 25 October 1993, 170); H Williamson, ‘Forgery Trade Losses “under $200bn”’ (7 May 2007) Financial Times; J Sanchez, ‘750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits behind the War on Piracy’ (8 October 2008) ars technica <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/4/>.
41 See also The Economist, ‘Intellectual Property in Brazil: Owning Ideas, Getting Serious about Patents’ (3 November 2012); N Hoffelder, ‘Amazon and Apple Are Once Again the Subject of Piracy Complaints in China’ The Digital Reader (1 July 2013); The Indian Express, ‘US to Work with India to Crackdown on Piracy, Counterfeit Pharma’ (14 January 2011); BBC News, ‘Police in Bollywood Piracy Raid’ (15 March 2005) and ‘Piracy “Rife” at Bollywood Stalls’ (17 June 2008); International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ‘“Operation Counterfeit” Hit Russian Pirates’ (6 November 2007).”
42 See eg COM (2007) 165 final (3 April 2007) at 14; OJ EU C 129 (26 May 2005) at 3.
43 See <http://www.ccapcongress.net/6_Paris.htm> (Sixth GCCCP, Paris). This is a steady increase from the second GCCCP which was attended by around 500 delegates from 66 countries.
44 First Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting (Brussels, 2004) Final Doc 4-5 (17 June 2004).
45 Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (Morocco, 1994); The Internet Treaties refer to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty that supplement the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations.
46 EFF v USTR Civil Action number 1:08-cv-01599-AMC (D.D.C. 29 May 2009) Declaration of Stanford McCoy section 9.
47 See Blakeney, M, ‘Covert International Intellectual Property Legislation: The Ignoble Origins of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ (2013) 21(1) Michigan State International Law Review 87Google Scholar.
48 T Gerhardsen, ‘Japan Proposes New IP Enforcement Treaty’ Intellectual Property Watch (15 November 2005); The Second GCCCP (Lyon, 2005) – The Lyon Declaration, 2.
49 H Arai, ‘Japan's Perspective on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy’ Third GCCCP (Geneva, 30 January 2007); ‘Third GCCCP: Shared Challenges, Common Goals’ (Geneva, 2007).
50 Gerhardsen (n 48) [Japan met EU and US officials ‘a number of times’ to discuss the proposed treaty. US officials ‘applaud[ed] the energy that Japan brings to this issue’, but focused on the implementation of anti-counterfeiting issues ‘right now’ targeting ‘actions and results’.]. The US Strategy Targeting Intellectual Property Initiative was introduced.
51 By June 2007, the US was in discussion with Canada, Switzerland and the EU. See P Yu ‘Six Secrets (and Now Open) Fears of ACTA’ (2011) 64 SMULRev 975, 982; ACTA not pursued in the 2006 G8 Meeting, ‘Combating IPR Piracy and Counterfeiting’ (16 July 2006, St. Petersburg) (Note: Russia was not a WTO member until 22 August 2012).
52 WIPO WO/GA/31/11 (27 August 2004) Thirty-First Session, 2004 Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO’; See also T Gerhardsen ‘EU Gets Little Support for Enforcement Proposal at WTO’ Intellectual Property Watch (16 June 2006) and ‘Developed Countries Seek to Elevate Enforcement Measures in TRIPS Council’ Intellectual Property Watch (25 October 2006) and ‘WTO TRIPS Council Stumbles over Inclusion of Enforcement’ Intellectual Property Watch (27 October 2006).
53 Communication from Japan IP/C/W/501 (11 October 2007); Switzerland IP/C/W/492 (31 May 2007); Switzerland and the United States IP/C/W/488 (30 January 2007); EU, Japan, Switzerland and US Joint Communication IP/C/W/485 (2 November 2006), and EU IP/C/W/468 (10 March 2006) and IP/C/W/448 (9 June 2005).
54 TRIPS Council, Minutes of Meeting 13 February 2007 IP/C/M/53 (22 March 2007) sections 2, 5, 91, 107.
55 Combining the ‘Advisory Committee on Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights’ and ‘Advisory Committee on Management and Enforcement of Copyright & Related Rights in Global Information Networks’.
56 WIPO General Assembly Twenty Eighth Session, Geneva (23 September 2002–1 October 2002) WO/GA/28/4 ‘Matter Concerning the Status of the Advisory Committee(s) on Enforcement’ and on 1 October 2002 WO/GA/28/7 at section 114(ii), section 120; WIPO General Assembly Thirty First Session, Geneva (27 August 2004) WO/GA/31/11; also WO/GA/34/16 (12 November 2007) 46; WIPO A/43/16 at 148.
57 WTO TRIPS Council, IP/C/W/501 (11 October 2007). (Item 45 of the WIPO Development Agenda called for enforcement to be approached ‘in the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented concerns’.)
58 Kaminski, M, ‘Recent Development: The Origins and Potential Impact of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ (2009) 34 YaleJIntlL 247Google Scholar; Li and Correa (n 9) 133.
59 Australia DFAT, An International Proposal for a Plurilateral ACTA (2007).
60 WIPO General Assembly Thirty Fourth Session (24 September 2007–3 October 2007) WO/GA/34/16 (12 November 2007).
61 For general discussion: Yu, P, ‘TRIPS and Its Discontents’ (2006) 10 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 369Google Scholar; ‘Ambassador Schwab Announces US Will Seek New Trade Agreement to Fight Fakes’ (Press Release, USTR, 23 October 2007); Rapid Press Release, ‘European Commission Seeks Mandate to Negotiate Major New International Anti-Counterfeiting Pact’ (23 October 2007).
63 TRIPS Council, Minutes of Meeting 8–9 June 2010 IP/C/M/63 (4 October 2011) section 252–279.
64 ibid at section 282.
65 TRIPS Council, Minutes of Meeting 26–27 October 2010 IP/C/M/64 (17 February 2011) section 440–459.
66 ibid at section 469; K Mara, ‘TRIPS Council Discusses Efficacy of ACTA, Public Health Amendment’ Intellectual Property Watch (29 October 2010).
67 The Fourth and Fifth GCCCP did not comment on ACTA. See ‘GCCCP: Dubai Declaration’ (2008) and ‘GCCCP: Cancun Declaration) (2009) <www.ccapcongress.net>.
68 Sixth GCCCP (Paris, 2011) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMc-qOoQUY>; Ruse-Khan (n 13) 647.
69 The Economic Times (India), ‘Anonymous Protest Fail to Gather Support in Bangalore’ (9 June 2012); MediaNama, ‘Motion For Annulment Of India's IT Rules Defeated in Rajya Sabha; IT Minister Promises Consultation’ (18 May 2012); TechDirt, ‘As Feared, Brazil's “Anti-ACTA” Marco Civil Killed off by Lobbyists’ (27 November 2012); L Pelicci, ‘China and the ACTA – ACTA Faith or ACT Futility?: An Exposition of Intellectual Property Enforcement in the Age of Shanzhai’ (2012) 1(1) Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 121; The Economic Times (India), ‘India Plans Front to Nip New Piracy Law’ (29 May 2010).
70 Letter from JP Albrecht, MEP et al. Greens/European Free Alliance to WTO (15 April 2010).
71 ibid.
72 Letter from WTO to EU MEPs (4 May 2010) <http://keionline.org/node/838>; K Mara, ‘WIPO, WTO Requested to Advise on Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty’ Intellectual Property Watch (15 April 2010).
74 USTR Memo: W Maruyama, ‘Memorandum for All Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiators’ (2 August 2008) 27.
77 Stanford McCoy (n 46) at section 35, 46, 63–65 and 67.
78 5 USC section 552(b)(1), Executive Order 12958, as amended by EO 13292 section 1.4 , section 6.1(r); see also Vaughn v Rosen 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Southern News v INS 674 F Supp 881, 885 (D.D.C. 1987).
79 Senate Report number 93-1299, reprinted in 93 USCCAN 7186, 7251.
80 USTR Memo (n 74) at 27.
81 See Stanford McCoy (n 46) at section 15.
82 Foundation of Free Info Infrastructure, ‘EU Council Refuses to Release Secret ACTA Documents’ (10 November 2008).
83 The Guardian, ‘US Embassy Cables: Italy, the EU and the Anti-Counterfeit Trading Agreement’ (22 December 2010) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/176810>.
84 ibid; The Guardian, ‘US Embassy Cables: Sweden's Concerns about ACTA Negotiations’ (22 December 2010) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/236363>.
85 The Guardian (n 83).
86 J Love, ‘Who Are the Cleared Advisors That Have Access to Secret ACTA Documents?’ Knowledge Ecology International (13 March 2009).
87 See 19 USC, ch 12, The Trade Act of 1974 section 2155(g).
88 73 Federal Register 8910 (15 February 2008); 19 USC, ch 12, section 2155.
90 Sweden v Council, Joined Cases C-39/05P and C-52/05 P, 2008 ECR I-4723, section 59.
91 ACTA Negotiating Parties Press Release, ‘ACTA: Summary of Key Elements Under Discussion’ (6 November 2009).
92 Knowledge Ecology International, ‘ACTA Is Secret. How Transparent Are Other Global Norm Setting Exercises?’ (21 July 2009); see (n 24).
93 Knowledge Ecology International, ‘White House Shares the ACTA Internet Text with 42 Washington Insiders, under Non-Disclosure Agreements’ (13 October 2009).
95 B de Winter, ‘Dutch Internal ACTA Documents’ (25 February 2010) & ‘New ACTA Leak Reveals Internal Conflicts among Negotiators’ Computerworld (26 February 2010) [UK, Netherlands, Poland, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Japan were in favour of disclosure. Germany, Denmark, Singapore and South Korea opposed and US was silent and EC had not made a decision.].
96 See Stanford McCoy (n 46) at section 41.
97 M Geist, ACTA Guide Part Three: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy (27 January 2010) <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4737/125/>; Blakeney (n 47) 104–5.
98 European Commission held two further stakeholder conferences on 22 March 2010 and 25 January 2011. For other examples, see <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/ip-pi/consult-03.aspx?lang=eng>; <http://www.computerworld.co.nz/article/492224/med_seeks_further_comment_acta/>; and <http://www.dfat.gov.au/ip/factsheet.html>.
99 For example, Opinion of European Academics on ACTA (2011) 2(1) JIPITEC 65; S Flynn et al., ‘ACTA Public Comments: Submission of Legal Academics’ Docket number USTR-2010-0014 (2011).
100 European Parliament Resolution of 10 March 2010 ‘Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA Negotiations’ (P7_TA(2010) 0058) 2.
101 Consolidated Texts for Public Release (21 April 2010); Deliberative Draft (2 October 2010) and Final Version (3 December 2010).
102 G Philipson, ‘Digital Copyright: It Is All Wrong’ Sydney Morning Herald (10 June 2008); M Kaminski (n 58) 247.
103 S Condon, ‘Bush Administration Defends Secrecy over Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty’ CNET (22 September 2008); European Commission: K De Gucht ‘Think before You Tear into ACTA’ (Editorial) (28 February 2012).
104 Art 14 ACTA.
105 M Ermert, ‘Treaty Negotiators Turn to ACTA-Lite in Hopes of Closure’ Intellectual Property Watch (8 September 2010); R Rangnath, ‘What We Won in ACTA’ Public Knowledge Policy Blog (3 October 2011).
106 B Fox, ‘EU Parliament Joins Commission on ACTA Court Probe’ EU Observer (2 March 2012).
107 D Lee, ‘ACTA: EU Court to Rule on Anti-Piracy Agreement’ BBC News (22 February 2012); New York Times, ‘EU to Seek Legal Opinion on Anti-Piracy Treaty (23 February 2012); B Fox, ‘New MEP Appointed to Head-up ACTA Dossier’ EU Observer (8 February 2012).
108 G Hatton, ‘ACTA Is a Crucial Step Forward’ EU Observer (27 March 2012); H Mahony, ‘EU Commission Admits Mistake on ACTA’ EU Observer (20 March 2012).
109 COM(98) 569 final; COM (2000) 789 final.
110 Council Regulation 1383/2003 OJ L 196 (2 August 2003); see also Council Resolution 2006/C 67/01 (18 March 2006).
111 Directive 2004/48/EC OJL 157 (30 April 2004), corr OJL 195 (2 June 2004); considerable delay in transposition of the Directive in Member States, and difficulty in assessing impact of Directive COM (2010) 779 final (22 December 2010).
112 COM (2007) 165 final (3 April 2007); see also OJ C (2005) 129 (26 May 2005); COM (2006) 567 final.
113 <http://eeas.europa.eu/us/sum06_06/docs/ipr_strategy_200606_en.pdf>; see also US-EU Working Together to Fight against Global Piracy and Counterfeiting <http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/48387.htm>; 2006/C 67/01 OJ 67 (18 March 2006).
114 Now, European Observatory on Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights COM (2008) 465 final; COM (2009) 467 final; See Reg. 386/2012 (19 April 2012), OJEU L 129 (16 May 2012).
115 COM (2011) 285 final, 2011/0137 (COD), C7-0139/11.
116 Application of Directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of IP Rights COM (2010) 779 final; Enforcement of IP Rights OJ C 56 (6 March 2010); see also European Parliament Resolution 2009/2178(INI), A7-0175/2010.
117 Council Resolution OJC 253/1 (4 October 2008); European Commission Conference ‘Making European Copyright Fit for Purpose in the Digital Age: The Next Steps’ (6 December 2012); Commission Conference: ‘IPR Enforcement in the Digital Era’ (22 November 2011); S&D Conference ‘Copyrights and Intellectual Property in the Digital Age’ European Parliament (29 June 2011).
118 H.R 3261 introduced 26 October 2011 by Rep. Lamar Smith, 112th Congress (2011–2013).
119 Senate Bill 968 introduced on 12 May 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy, 112th Congress (2011–2013) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s968>; PIPA is a rewrite of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) that narrowly failed to become law in 2010.
120 McManis, C and Pelletier, J, ‘Two Tales of a Treaty Revisited: The Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ in Rosen, Jan (ed), Intellectual Property at the Crossroad of Trade (Edward Elgar 2012) 182Google Scholar.
121 Official White House Response to ‘Stop the E-PARASITE Act’ and ‘VETO the SOPA Bill’ <https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet>.
122 Huffington Post, ‘SOPA And PIPA Protest Organized by NY Tech Meet up outside Senators’ Offices’ (18 January 2012).
124 N Ingraham, ‘On SOPA Blackout Day, Senate Web Sites Experience ‘Technical Difficulties” Washington Post (18 January 2012); J Wortham, ‘With Twitter, Blackouts and Demonstrations, Web Flexes its Muscle’ New York Times (18 January 2012) (‘Engine Advocacy, that helps people call their local members of Congress, said that as many as 2,000 a second were trying – demand so heavy that many of the calls could not be completed.’); J Weisman, ‘In Fight over Piracy Bills, New Economy Rises against Old’ New York Times (18 January 2012); J Wortham, ‘Public Outcry over Anti-Piracy Bills Began as a Grass-Roots Grumbling’ New York Times (20 January 2012); S Sengupta, ‘Big Victory on Internet Bouys Lobby’ New York Times (27 January 2012).
125 Google ‘Take Action’ <https://www.google.com/takeaction/past-actions/end-piracy-not-liberty/index.html>.
126 L Johnson, ‘SOPA and PIPA Bills: Lawmakers Shift Stance on Anti-Piracy Legislation’ Huffington Post (18 January 2012); D Rushe and R Devereaux, ‘SOPA Support Drops off as Blackout Protest Rattles the Internet’ The Guardian (18 January 2012).
127 Hauben and Hauben (n 15).
128 The word is used to refer to the internet activist who hacks websites either to effect social change or at an extreme to engage in cyberterrorism. See generally Greenberg, A, This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Hacktivists and Cypherpunks Are Freeing the World's Information (Dutton Books 2012)Google Scholar.
129 BBC News, ‘Thousands March in Poland over ACTA Internet Treaty’ (26 January 2012); M Masnick, ‘Polish Government's Plan to Sign ACTA gets the SOPA Treatment’ TechDirt (23 January 2012).
130 Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, the Netherlands and Slovakia did not sign ACTA due to procedural issues. Croatia joined the EU in July 2013.
131 N Perlroth, ‘Hackers Step up Attacks after Megaupload Shutdown’ New York Times (24 January 2012); R Adekoya, ‘Poland Signs ACTA Treaty: That's Despite Protests across the Country’ Warsaw Business Journal (26 January 2012).
132 European Digital Rights, ‘ACTA and its “Safeguards”’ <http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_5_20120120.pdf>; Amnesty International ‘EU Urged to Reject International Anti-Counterfeiting Pact’ (10 February 2012) <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/eu-urged-reject-international-anti-counterfeiting-pact-2012-02-10>; The Data Protection Working Party ‘Letter to EU Commissioner De Gucht’ (15 July 2010) <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/others/2010_07_15_letter_wp_commissioner_de_gucht_acta_en.pdf>; Consumers International <http://a2knetwork.org/acta>; See also Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (2011) <http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration-html>.
134 The seventeenth century Englishman who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
136 EU Observer's articles: ‘Bulgaria Postpones ACTA Ratification’ (15 February 2012); ‘Czech Republic Stops Ratification of Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty’ (7 February 2012); ‘Poland Suspends Ratification of ACTA Bill’ (6 February 2012); ‘German Government Suspends ACTA Ratification’ (10 February 2012).
137 Full Statement of H Zorko ‘Why I Signed ACTA’ (31 January 2012) <http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/>.
138 <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/february/tradoc_149102.pdf>; EIS European Report ‘ACTA Continues to Divide MEPs’ (27 April 2012).
139 European Parliament News, ‘Parliament to receive 2.4 million petition signatures against ACTA’ (27 February 2012).
140 B Fox, ‘Battle Lines Drawn up in EU Row on ACTA’ EU Observer (3 February 2012).
141 House of Lords: European Union Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2007–08 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: An Impact Assessment’ vol 1, HL Paper 62-I (2008) 65–72; see art 269 TFEU.
142 Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 90 International Agreements, available at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getLastRules.do?language=EN&reference=TOC>.
143 Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission OJ l 304/47 (20 November 2010) [‘Framework Agreement’].
144 Section 23–25 Framework Agreement ibid; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (March 2012) Seventh Parliamentary Term, Rule 90(1); Point 6 of Annex III of the Framework Agreement; art 207(3) TFEU; art 133(3) Nice Treaty required reporting only to the Special Committee.
145 Objections to the Framework Agreement raised by the Council 15018/10 (Brussels, 18 October 2010) at <http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st15/st15018.en10.pdf>.
146 V Pop, ‘Member States Threaten MEPs and Commission with Legal Case’ EU Observer (21 October 2010); Literature on inter-institutional politics include Hix, S, The Political System of the European Union (Palgrave 2005)Google Scholar; G Tsebelis and G Garrett, ‘Legislative Politics in the European Union’ (2000) 1 European Union Politics 9.
147 Art 83(2) TFEU (discussions on ACTA's general provisions being led by the European Commission, and matters relating to criminal provisions being led by the Rotating Presidency on behalf of the Member States).
148 See generally Hillion, C and Koutrakos, P, Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World (Hart Publishing 2010)Google Scholar.
149 See arts 207 and 218 TFEU.
150 Doc 15486/07 PI 47 UD 116 MI 303 JUSTCIV 311 COPEN 165 DROIPEN 112 WTO 249; see SEC(2007) 1377 final A.7 (Declassified); also Christiansen, T, ‘Intra-Institutional Politics and Inter-Institutional Relations in the EU: Towards Coherent Governance?’ (2001) 8(5) JEPP 747Google Scholar.
151 SEC (2008) 255 final.
152 C Arthur, ‘ACTA Goes Too Far, Says MEP’ The Guardian (1 February 2012) referring to Arif statement; Open Rights Group, ‘MEPs Demand Fundamental Rights for Citizens in ACTA Deal’ (8 September 2010) <https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/mep-demand-fundamental-rights-for-citizens-in-acta-deal>.
153 European Parliament Resolution on Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA Negotiations P7_TA (2010) 0058, 2.
154 Arts 207 and 218 TFEU.
155 European Parliament Resolution on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (24 November 2010) P7_TA (2010) 0432.
156 Ibid at section 7.
157 ibid at 14–15.
158 <http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/democratic_deficit_en.htm>; see generally Steffek, J et al. , Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? (Palgrave Macmillan 2007)Google Scholar.
159 Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, art 46; European Council, The Laeken Declaration on the Future of Europe (15 December 2001); European Parliament, ‘The Participation of Citizens and Social Actors in the EU Institutional System’ Rapporteur Herzog (29 October 1996) DOC PE A403338/96; Kohler-Koch, B, ‘The Three Worlds of European Civil Society – What Role for Civil Society for What Kind of Europe?’ in Liebert, U and Trenz, H (eds), The New Politics of European Civil Society (Routledge 2011) 56Google Scholar.
160 European Commission, Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth COM (2010) 2020 final (3 March 2010) 26–28.
161 Kohler-Koch (n 159) 56–7.
162 For example, D Porta, ‘The Europeanization of Protest: A Typology and Empirical Evidence’ and Greven, M, ‘Some Considerations on Participation in Participatory Governance’ in Kohler-Hoch, B and Rittberger, B (eds), Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union (Rowman and Littlefield 2007) 197Google Scholar, 241; C Snowden, ‘Euro-Puppets: The European Commission's Remaking of Civil Society’ Institute of Economic Affairs Discussion Paper 45 (6 March 2013); Monaghan, E, ‘“Communicating Europe”: The Role of Organised Civil Society’ (2008) 4(1) Journal of Contemporary European Research 18Google Scholar; J Dempsey ‘EU Elites Keep Power from the People’ New York Times (22 August 2011); Maloney, W and Van Deth, J, Civil Society and Activism in Europe: Contextualising Engagement and Political Orientations (Routledge 2010)Google Scholar.
163 C Arthur and agencies, ‘ACTA Criticised after Thousands Protest in Europe’ The Guardian (13 February 2012); D Lee, ‘ACTA Protests: Thousands Take to Streets across Europe’ BBC News (11 February 2012); RT News, ‘Caught in the ACTA: Protests Sweep Europe’ (9 June 2012).
164 D Lee, ‘European Parliament Rapporteur Quits in ACTA Protest’ BBC News (27 January 2012).
165 C Arthur, ‘ACTA Goes Too Far, Says MEP’ The Guardian (1 February 2012).
166 A Willis, ‘MEPs Demand More Transparency on ACTA Talks’ EU Observer (11 February 2010).
167 Hathaway, O and Kapczynski, A, ‘Going it Alone: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement as a Sole Executive Agreement’ (24 August 2011) 15(23) ASIL InsightsGoogle Scholar.
168 Art 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU; see also Rule 90(8) of Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (March 2012); art 11, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union OJ 2000/C 364/01; V Reding, European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship <http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/pdf/quote_statement_en.pdf>; New York Times, ‘EU to Seek Legal Opinion on Anti-Piracy Treaty’ (23 February 2012); European DG Trade News, ‘European Commission Officially Referred ACTA to the European Court of Justice’ (Brussels 11 May 2012).
169 European Parliament News, ‘ACTA: Reasons for Committee Vote against Referral to Court of Justice’ (28 March 2012) [21 MEPS against, 5 in favour and 2 absent]; see European Parliament, Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (March 2012) Rule 81, 90(6), 91 and 128.
170 Art 218(11) TFEU; M Schulz, Head of the European Parliament (‘by taking the court step, the Commission had removed the immediate chance for Parliament to discuss an issue that citizens feel strongly about’); European Commission Press Release, ‘Update on ACTA's referral to the ECJ’ (4 April 2012).
171 S&D Group ‘S&Ds Welcome Commission's Withdrawal of ACTA Appeal to EU Court’ (19 December 2012).
172 M Schulz, ‘European Democracy's Victory in a Treaty's Defeat’ (5 July 2012) (original emphasis) <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/european-democracy-s-victory-in-a-treaty-s-defeat>.
173 Art 40 ACTA: ‘This Agreement shall enter into force thirty days after the date of deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.’
174 Australia Joint Standing Committee on Treaties ‘Report 126: Review of Treaty’ tabled on 21 November 2011.
175 Switzerland Federal Department of Justice and Police ‘Switzerland Defers Signature of the ACTA Agreement’ Press Release (9 May 2012).
176 Office of the United States Trade Representative, The 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Trade Policy Report (March 2013) 169 [‘2013 USTR Trade Report’].
178 M Geist, ‘New ACTA Leak: US, Korea, Singapore, Denmark Do Not Support Transparency’ (25 February 2010) <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2010/02/acta-transparency-leak/>; M Geist, ‘Talks on Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Spring a Leak’ Toronto Star (12 April 2010) at B2; The UK, Poland, the Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Austria were in favour of full disclosure. See leaked Dutch document available at <http://www.bigwobber.nl/2010/02/25/dutch-internal-acta-documents/>.
179 J Love, ‘Ambassador Kirk: People would be “walking away from the table” if the ACTA text is made public’ Knowledge Ecology International (3 December 2009) <http://www.keionline.org/node/706>; Deere, C, The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries (Oxford University Press 2009) 314Google Scholar.
180 EU–Korea FTA (2011/265/E) OJ L 127 (14 May 2011).
181 D O'Brien, ‘Blogging ACTA across The Globe: Lessons from Korea’ (29 January 2010) Electronic Frontier Foundation <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/acta-and-korea>.
182 S Baek, ‘The Outline of ACTA and Implementation in Korea’ presentation by Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2012) <http://www.unescap.org/tid/projects/trips2012-baek.pdf>.
183 Europa Press Release, ‘EU and Singapore Agree on Landmark Trade Deal’ (16 December 2012); <http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/singapore/press_corner/all_news/news/2012/20121216_01_en.htm>.
184 Europa Press Release, ‘Facts and Figures: EU Trade Agreement with Singapore’ MEMO/12/993 (16 December 2012) <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-993_en.htm>; Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry Press Release, ‘Singapore and the European Union Successfully Conclude EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement’ (16 December 2012); WIPO Seminar for Asia and the Pacific Region on the Internet and the Protection of IP, WIPO/INT/SIN/98/10 (April 1998) for Singapore's views on digital enforcement issues.
185 US International Trade Commission, ‘US–Singapore FTA: Potential Economywide and Selected Sectoral Effects’ USITC Publication 3603 (June 2003) 91–100; see also ACTA Blog, ‘Text of trade agreement with Singapore will be published before the summer’ (15 April 2013) <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1822>.
186 2013 USTR Trade Report (n 176) 139–40.
187 M Geist, ‘What's Really Behind Canada's Anti-Counterfeiting Bill?’ (13 March 2013) <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6806/159/>; Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘US Trade Office Calls ACTA Back from the Dead and Canada Complies’ (1 March 2013).
189 <http://www.internetlockdown.ca/> ‘Canadians Oppose an Internet Lockdown’ petition addressed to the Canadian Prime Minister stating: ‘I'm against the Internet lockdown. I am against initiatives that put individual citizens’ rights last, such as Bill C-56, ACTA and the TPP. I think it's unfair to allow private interests to police what I do online through website blocking, Internet access terminations, or digital locks. I call on decision-makers to stand up for the open Internet.’<http://www.petitiononline.com/actanono/petition.html>.
190 M Rimmer, ‘Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011’ Supplementary Submission 1.1 (TT on 21 November 2011) 7.
191 Australian Government, ‘Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report: Report 126: ACTA’ (November 2012) Recommendation 8 at 4; B Winterford, ‘Australia Comes Clean on ACTA Role’ IT News (11 March 2010); Australia kept options open to complete ratification on time by rejecting calls to wait until the Law Reform Commission completed its review on Copyright and the Digital Economy in 2013.
192 ibid (2012 Australia Report) at 4, 5; J Taylor, ‘Australian Government Rejects Delaying ACTA Ratification’ (29 November 2012) <www.zdnet.com/au/aust-govt-delaying-acta-ratification-7000008065/>.
193 S Bell, ‘ACTA Ratification Faces NZ Hurdle’ PC Advisor (17 June 2012) (‘Any decision by the [NZ] government about ratification would naturally take into consideration developments in other ACTA signatory countries.’); New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade ‘ACTA: FAQs’ (12 March 2010).
194 CRS Report for Congress (2012) (n 16) 11; J Goldsmith and L Lessig, ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Agreement Raises Constitutional Concerns’ Washington Post (26 March 2010).
195 CRS Report for Congress (2012) (n 16) 12.
196 Hilvert (n 29).
197 With regard to copyright issues, Morocco is signatory to Berne, Brussels (Distribution of Program-Carrying Satellite Signals) and Universal Copyright Convention. Adopted WTO TRIPS. US and EFTA FTAs require Morocco to affirm WIPO Internet Treaties and Rome Convention 1961. Aghrib, S et al. , ‘Morocco’ in Armstrong, C et al. (eds), Access to Knowledge in Africa: The Role of Copyright (UCT Press 2010) 126–60Google Scholar. See also US & Foreign Commercial Service and US Dept of State, ‘Morocco Country Commercial Guide FY 2004’ US & FCS Market Research Reports (2004) ch 7, 1–4.
198 United States Trade Representative, Foreign Trade Barriers National Trade Estimate Report (2013) 262.
199 US–Morocco FTA (15 June 2004) came into force 1 January 2006 <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/morocco-fta>; Industry Functional Advisory Committee on IPR for Trade Policy Matters Report (IFAC-3), ‘The US–Morocco FTA: The IP Provisions’ (6 April 2004) 2.
200 34-05 (14 February 2006) Copyright Law (Amendment) (Dahir 1-05-192, 2006); UNESCO World Anti-Piracy Observatory: Morocco (2009) <http://www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/morocco_cp_en>; Circular 5051/410 (2007) <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=191456>; US ITC ‘US–Morocco FTA: Potential Economywide and Selected Sectoral Effects’ Number TA-2104-14, Pub 3704 (2004) 87–9.
201 Aghrib et al. (n 197) 131, 145, 146 (‘fewer than 10 {theses and dissertations} regarding copyright’); C Ncube, ‘ACTA & Access to Learning Materials in Morocco’ (2012) PIJIP Research 2012-01, American University Washington College of Law.
202 See for more information Aghrib et al. (n 197) 145, 147–8 for details of impact assessment interviews with public officials in Morocco.
203 Deere (n 179) 232, 240–86, 306.
204 2013 USTR Report (n 176) 262.
205 D Cevallos, ‘G8: Despite Differences, Mexico Comfortable as G5 Emerging Power’ Inter Press Service (5 June 2007); see generally Kirton, J, G20 Governance for a Globalised World (Ashgate 2013)Google Scholar; J Aguilar, ‘Twenty Years Later, NAFTA Remains a Source of Tension’ New York Times (7 December 2012); Congressional Research Service, ‘NAFTA and the Mexican Economy’ (3 June 2010) reporting mixed results in terms of economic growth; H.R.156 – To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (4 January 2013) and H.R.4759 (3 April 2010).
206 Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial, ‘Mexico signs the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’ IMPI Press Release: IMPI-010/2012 (11 June 2012); LXI Legislatura Senado de la República, Segundo Año Segundo Receso Comisión Permanente (Gaceta: 15, 22 February 2011).
207 Office of the United States Trade Representative ‘U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Mexico as a New Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiating Partner’ (18 June 2012) <http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/june/ustr-mexico-new-tpp-partner>.
208 ibid.
209 See LXII Legislatura Tercer Año Segundo Periodo Ordinario (Gaceta 344; 21 February 2012), LXII Legislatura Tercer Año Segundo Receso Comisión Permanente (Gaceta 21; 25 June, 2012) <http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=busca>.
210 2013 USTR Report (n 176) 257.
211 IFAC-3 Report (n 199) 3–5; see Helfer, L, ‘Regime Shifting in the International Intellectual Property System’ (2009) 7(1) Perspectives on Politics 39Google Scholar; Helfer, L, ‘Regime Shifting: The TRIPS Agreement and the New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking’ (2004) 29 YaleJIntlL 1Google Scholar; Sell, S, ‘Intellectual Property and the Doha Development Agenda’ in Lee, D and Wilkinson, R (eds), The WTO after Hong Kong: Progress in, and Prospects for, the Doha Development Agenda (Routledge 2007) 56Google Scholar.
212 See (nn 9, 12 and 209); S Sell, ‘The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play’ P2P foundation (17 December 2011) <http://p2pfoundation.net/IP_Maximalists>.
213 M Geist, ‘Part III: The Trouble with ACTA: An Analysis of the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ DG for External Policies ‘Workshop: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ 42; WTO News, ‘China Slams Nearly Completed ACTA, Questions its WTO Compatibility’ World Trade Online (4 November 2010).
214 New York Times, ‘EU to Seek Legal Opinion on Anti-Piracy Treaty’ (23 February 2012).
215 ACTA's IP rights enforcement provisions were modelled out from provisions within US Free Trade Agreements with Australia, Morocco, Singapore and South Korea. CRS Report for Congress (2012) (n 16) 14; Letter from Ron Kirk to Ron Wyden: (28 January 2010) 3 <http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/ustr-responds-to-wydens-questions-concerning-acta>.
216 For example, D Levine, ‘Intellectual Property Law without Secrets’ (2012) at 337 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2207038>.
217 L Floridi, ‘ACTA: The Ethical Analysis of a Failure, and its Lessons’ (2012) ECIPE Occasional Paper 4/2012, 5 <http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/OCC42012.pdf>.
218 See European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies, Policy Department ‘The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): An Assessment’ 7, 32–46.
219 ibid 6–7, 15–18.
220 For instance, art 14 ACTA includes small consignments of commercial nature, but the broad definition given to ‘commercial nature’ in ACTA does not clarify what quantity of songs, or audio-visual material would constitute enough to become ‘commercial’ (see (n 213) 54); Similarly the lack of specific safeguards when applying provisional measures without the defendant being heard may be inconsistent with art 6 of EU IPR Enforcement Directive which provides for such safeguards (see (n 213) 27–8); see also La Quadrature Du Net ‘ACTA: Updated Analysis of Final Version’ <https://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version>.
221 J Love and K Cox, ‘ACTA is Not Consistent with US Laws on Injunctions and Damages’ Knowledge Ecology International Policy Brief (3 October 2011); Memorandum from BT Yeh, Legislative Attorney, Cong. Research Serv., to the Hon R Wyden, United States Senate, Potential Implications for Federal Law Raised by the October 2010 Draft of the ACTA (29 October 2010) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/16580813994/crs-report-withheld-ustrconfirms-that-acta-language-is-quite-questionable.shtml>.
222 Floridi (n 217) 6; Cottier, T and Foltea, M, ‘Global Governance in Intellectual Property Protection: Does the Decision-Making Forum Matter’? (2012) 3(2) JWIP 161Google Scholar; Geiger, C, ‘Weakening Multilateralism in Intellectual Property Law-making: A European Perspective on ACTA’ (2012) 3(2) JWIP 166Google Scholar; For discussion on the use of vague provisions in international agreements, see Sunstein, C, ‘Problems with Rules’ (1995) 83 CLR 953CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raustiala, K, ‘Form and Substance in International Agreement’ (2005) 99 AJIL 581Google Scholar; Guzman, A, ‘The Design of International Agreements‘(2005) 16 EJIL 579Google Scholar.
223 S Sengupta (n 124); Centre for Responsive Politics (computer and internet industries spent $125m on lobbying in 2011, outpacing the $122m spent by the entertainment industry. Google more than doubled its spending to $11.4m in 2011, and Facebook's $1.4m represented a 288 per cent increase from the previous year. Copyright, patent reform and privacy were the top issues) <http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2012>.
224 Art 17, OJ C 83/389 2010/C 83/02 (30 March 2010); also arts 8, 11, 13, 47.
225 J Boyle, ‘A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property’ (2004) Duke Law & Technology Review 9; Halbert, D, ‘The Politics of IP Maximalism’ (2011) 3(1) JWIP 81Google Scholar.
226 Broude, T and Shany, Y (eds), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law (Hart Publishing 2011)Google Scholar; L Lessig Code: Version 2.0 (Perseus 2006) 184.
227 Example, Opinion of European Academics on ACTA (2011) 2(1) JIPITEC 65.
228 See generally Teubner, G and Fischer-Lescano, A, ‘Regime Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law’ (2004) 25 MichJIntlL 999Google Scholar.
229 For varied interpretations on World Society see Luhmann, N, ‘The World Society as a Social System’ (1982) 8 International Journal of General Systems 131Google Scholar; Krücken, G and Drori, G, World Society: The Writings of John W Meyer (Oxford University Press 2009)Google Scholar; Habermas, J, The Divided West (trans. Cronin, C) (Polity Press 2006) 175Google Scholar; Buzan, B, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization (Cambridge University Press 2004)Google Scholar.
230 See Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission – A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights COM (2011) 297 final INT/591 section 3.13. The rhetoric normally adopted by lobbyists such as ‘piracy’, ‘robbery’ and ‘theft’ in relation to IP infringement has entered legalese—suggesting a tilt in favour of IP owners. See Patry, W, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars (Oxford University Press 2009)Google Scholar; also Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine [2004] HCA 14 (High Court of Australia); Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning [1995] RPC 683 at 700; Waddams, S, Dimensions of Private Law: Categories and Concepts in Anglo-American Legal Reasoning (Cambridge University Press 2003) 175–6Google Scholar; Ibcos Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd [1994] Fleet Street Reports 275 at 289; Cantor Fitzgerald Intl v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] RPC 95 at 133.
231 H Mahony, ‘EU Commission Admits Mistake on ACTA’ EU Observer (20 March 2012).
232 Gervais, D (ed), Intellectual Property, Trade and Development (Oxford University Press 2007) 13–15Google Scholar.
233 For overview of the transformation of international IP law so far, see generally Drahos, P and Braithwaite, JInformation Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (Routledge 2002)Google Scholar; Sell, S, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights (Cambridge University Press 2003)Google Scholar; Maskus, K, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (Peterson Institute for International Economics 2000)Google Scholar.
234 Raustiala, K, ‘Density and Conflict in International Intellectual Property Law’ (2007) 40 UCDavisLRev 1021Google Scholar; Raustiala, K and Victor, D, ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’ (2004) 58 IntlOrg 277Google Scholar; Krasner, S, ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regime as Intervening Variables’ in Krasner, S (ed), International Regimes (Cornell University Press 1983) 1–21Google Scholar.
235 E Kain, ‘Final Draft of ACTA Watered Down, TPP Still Dangerous on IP Rules’ Forbes (28 February 2012); S Sell, ‘Cat and Mouse: Forum-Shifting in the Battle over Intellectual Property Enforcement’ (International Studies Association Conference, Montreal, March 2011; Silva, A, ‘Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights by Diminishing Privacy: How the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Jeopardizes the Right to Privacy’ (2011) 26 AmUIntlLRev 601Google Scholar.
236 An early version of the IP chapter of the TPP was leaked by Wikileaks in November 2013.
237 Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, The 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement (June 2013).
238 Action of Second Continental Congress, ‘The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America’ (4 July 1776 Congress).