According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs` website, in February 2012, the FER filed an application with the MINISTER of FOREIGN AFFAIRES to obtain key documents explaining the analysis of the constitutional basis of ACTA by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – the “Circular 175” memorandum and the accompanying protocol of law. Circular 175 is the way in which the State Department “attempts to confirm that the establishment of contracts and other international agreements by the United States is done within the framework of constitutional and other legal restrictions, taking due account of the external implications of the agreement and with the appropriate participation of the State Department.” Circular 175 must be accompanied by a legal form developed by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which generally contains a review of the appropriate legal analysis that unders florida for the implementation of the disputed treaty. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACAC) is an agreement to create new global standards for the application of intellectual property (IP) that go beyond existing international law and relocate the debate of more democratic multilateral for a such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to secret regional negotiations. With ACTA, the United States wants to give more powers to enforcement agencies to act on their own behalf, to seize all products related to counterfeiting activities (including domain names), to criminalize the circumvention of digital security technologies and to combat piracy on digital networks. During the ACTA negotiations, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has always maintained that this is a single executive agreement that deals with issues entrusted to the President by the pro-IP act and that it does not need congressional review and approval on that basis. The question is whether the USTR had the authority to conclude the IP implementation agreement on behalf of the United States when the U.S. Deputy Trade Ambassador signed ACTA in October 2011. The final text of ACTA contains provisions relating to the application of intellectual property, which have the potential to open the floodgates of negative national legislation, while strongly encouraging online service providers to pass the law in a way that could seriously infringe the privacy and freedom of expression of Internet users. As he reads, his language could also be interpreted to legitimize website filtering and blocking and Internet separation. Acta was negotiated between 2007 and 2010 by the United States, the EU, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Singapore, Morocco, Japan and South Korea.
Eight of the 11 negotiating countries signed the agreement in October 2011. The number of countries involved in these negotiations is limited, but the provisions of the agreement would have global implications for digital freedoms.