Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.7.3-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abstained from the vote on this matter because, in the plenary debate of the previous day, Commissioner Bolkestein did not respond to any of my questions regarding EU accession to the WIPO Treaties.
In institutional terms, there has been no clarification of what role the EP is to play in the further development of the WIPO Treaties. In addition, there is a clear tendency, in matters of international jurisdiction, more and more often to obtain a pure EU jurisdiction. When it is, then, still not clear to what extent the EP can participate in the decision-making processes, the question of legitimacy arises. Moreover, the concept of ‘author’ is not defined in the Treaties. In this regard, too, the Commission has not answered the question as to what definition it wishes to base its discussions on, and whether it wishes to settle foreseeable conflicts by imposing its own definition of the law on others. One of the trickiest aspects is the public interest: will ratifying and applying WIPO lead to the privatisation of culture?
And, finally, the matter of the relationship between TRIPs and WIPO must be clarified. Regarding this, too, there has been only silence by way of a response from the Commission.
If nothing helpful is forthcoming in the course of a parliamentary debate planned for clarification and orientation, then we must at least abstain from voting."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples