November 18, 2011

A partly secret ratification process… How deep do you want to sink?

Print More

The European Parliament partly released the legal service’s opinion on ACTA, but left out the analysis on ACTA. Why?

“Important trading partners of the EU, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea and Switzerland are contracting parties to the ACTA agreement. Disclosure of the parts of the legal opinion under consideration dealing with questions 1, 2 and 3 would seriously interfere with the complex ratification procedures of the ACTA agreement and the EU’s relations with the other contracting parties, as it might prejudice the ratification procedures by these countries.”

Really. The ACTA text is published. Everyone can now analyse it. Evidently, the analysis may show ACTA is very bad. That would jeopardize the ratification process – deservedly so. That is all in the game in a democracy. But the European Parliament is not interested in democracy, apparently.

A partly secret ratification process… How deep do you want to sink?

See also: Confirmatory application for legal service’s opinion on ACTA (Updated)

In related news, today it became clear there is a parallel secret track: the Legal Affairs committee also asked for an opinion.

Update: On 20 November I requested the minutes of the Legal Affairs Coordinators meetings dealing with ACTA, the communication between the Legal Affairs committee (Chair) and the legal service and this second legal service’s opinion on ACTA, and any other legal services’s opinions on ACTA, as soon as it is (they are) available.

9 thoughts on “A partly secret ratification process… How deep do you want to sink?

  1. Pingback: ACTA Secrecy Continues in the EU

  2. Interesting digging!

    Here is something for you, UK delegation 2010:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/73110536/st11440-re01

    “ACTA text 2.3 – Criminal Enforcement based on doc 11203/10 17 June 2010
    From the EU and Member State point of view, the UK cannot see how final agreement can be reached in Lucerne on a text that has not been approved by the relevant Committees and Member States as required by the mandate. Any text agreed in Lucerne would need to be subject to final approval by the relevant Committees and Member States.”

    • 日方按經緯線劃分法將釣魚台劃入版圖,在國際法上無法律效力。如將中日兩方論據綜合起來分析,日方的「無主地先佔法」已不能成立,日本官方近年以來的聲明亦不再強調。被他們反覆強調的是「經緯線劃分法」,即堅稱釣魚台是日本領土不可分割的一部分,而事實上釣魚台是在一九五三年美國琉球民政府劃定的經緯線內,並且在其有效控制之下。

      對此,中方必須從歷史文獻、地理和地質構造以及國際法理的整體分析,方能有效推翻日方的「經緯線劃分法」,贏得國際輿論的支援。

      就目前的國際法標準來看,中國對釣魚台島嶼擁有兩項權利是無可剝奪的:

      (一)因發現、命名、使用而取得的「原始權利」 (Inchoate Title)。

      (二)根據「大陸架公約」第二條規定: 「海岸國有行使發掘大陸架與利用其天然資源之主權權利 (Sovereign Rights)」 而取得的「主權權利」。

      以上兩項權利已構成對日方所持「經緯線劃分法」的本質性否定。據此,向中國政府提出解決釣魚台問題的建議。

      第一步,收回原始權利 (Inchoate Title)。 釣魚台最早是由中國人發現、命名和使用的。據史籍記載,自從一四0三年至一九六九年這五百年間,中國人自由來往釣魚台,視為家常便飯,並且留下大量文字紀錄。近三十多年來,日本政府突然宣佈釣魚台為其治下領土,不許中國人自由往來釣魚台,剝奪了中國人五百年來自由來往釣魚台的權利,這不但違反國際法理,而且違背人類公理。

      因此,我們要求兩岸政府一致對日本,循外交途徑收回釣魚台的原始權利,恢復中國人五百年間往來釣魚台的自由,禁止日本海上自衛隊在釣魚台列嶼周圍十二海里範圍內的活動。這完全是合乎人類公理的正當要求。

      第二步,積極行使主權權利 (Sovereign Rights)。美國總統杜魯門於一九四五年九月二十八日發表的有關大陸架的一項聲明指出:「美國政府認為大陸架之底土及海床所有天然資源,由土地連接國家行使管轄權,是合理及公正的。」根據該項聲明精神,聯合國於一九五八年簽訂了《大陸架公約》(Continental Shelf),其中第二條規定:「海岸國有行使發掘大陸架、與利用其天然資源之主權權利。」

      釣魚台位於中國東海淺大陸架上,中國作為海岸國,毫無疑問擁有釣魚台天然資源的主權權利。中國政府應積極行使這項主權權利,發掘和利用釣魚台的天然資源,同時應根據《大陸架公約》的原則恢復對釣魚台行使管轄權,這完全合乎國際法理的。

  3. Pingback: Ein teilweise geheimer Ratifizierungsprozess für ACTA – wie tief wollen wir sinken?

  4. Pingback: Confirmatory application for legal service’s opinion on ACTA | ACTA

  5. Pingback: ACTA-bloggen » EU-Parlamentet skjuter upp hemligt utskottsmöte om ACTA

  6. Pingback: La Petite Souris » Les gouvernements de l’UE adoptent ACTA, désormais entre les mains du Parlement

  7. Pingback: Les gouvernements de l’UE adoptent ACTA, désormais entre les mains du Parlement « trucbuntu

  8. Pingback: ACTA влиза в Европейския парламент. Петиция