[A2k] Information Disclosure Suit on Korea-US FTA IPR Chapter

Heesob Nam hurips at gmail.com
Sat May 26 01:46:08 PDT 2018


On May 10th, the appeal court (Seoul High Court) upheld the lower court
decision, ordering Korea government to disclose all of documents for KORUS
IPR negotiation. It took three years and two months in getting this
decision from my FOIA request. But the appeal court limits the scope of
negotiation documents as listed in Appendix 1, which includes consolidated
texts for IPR Chapters exchanged at each round and proposals for a package
deal at the high level talk.

The decision of Seoul High Court in original Korean text is here https
://drive.google.com/file/d/1VEwf21DWnjXubXVtH07_S7Syj3ZPBOMg/view?usp
=sharing

Best,
Heesob

On 25 November 2016 at 17:37, Heesob Nam <hurips at gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, I'm glad to share this big news.
>
> Yesterday, the Korean Administrative Court ordered the Korean government
> to disclose all of the documents exchanged between the US and Korean
> negotiators for negotiating KORUS IPR Chapter. This decision was made
> through 9 hearings for one and half years. The documents to be disclosed
> include those exchanged at any unoffical or informal negotiations and at
> meetings held before official launch of the KORUS negotation. Court also
> ordered, as I requested, to disclose every negotiation documents and
> subsequent discussions related to the side letter on shuttiing down
> websites that permit the unauthorized reproduction, distributing, or
> transmission of copyright works.
>
> As for now, I have no time to translate the decision into English. If
> someone in this list help me, I would appreciate. Scanned copy of the
> decision is found here.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_JKlVyrXR0tbzR0NVNYcHEwdzA
> /view?usp=sharing
>
> Best,
> Heesob
>
> On 9 December 2015 at 23:24, <hurips at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes it is. So I think a parallel action is to be taken in the U.S.
>>
>> Best,
>> Heesob
>>
>> 나의 iPhone에서 보냄
>>
>> 2015. 12. 9. 오후 3:10 Jane Kelsey <j.kelsey at auckland.ac.nz> 작성:
>>
>> > Very interesting Heesob - this confirms it is a US initiated proposal
>> for all negotiated with it
>> >
>> > Prof Jane Kelsey
>> > Faculty of Law
>> > The University of Auckland
>> > New Zealand
>> > J.kelsey at auckland.ac.nz
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 9/12/15, 5:22 PM, "Heesob Nam" <hurips at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As part of the information disclosure request, the Korean government
>> >> sent me the letter between Wendy Cutler of USTR and Mr. Kim of SKG on
>> >> the handling of negotiating documents.
>> >>
>> >> They agreed that "Both sides plan to hold these documents in
>> >> confidence for three years after entry into force of the KORUS FTA."
>> >> Scanned copy is available at
>> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_JKlVyrXR0tQzZ5ajBxX0lIMk0
>> /view?usp=sharing
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Heesob
>> >>
>> >>> On 15 September 2015 at 01:00, Heesob Nam <hurips at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> In April 2006, Mr. Han, then the vice-Prime Minister of the SK
>> >>> government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Duck-soo) said that the
>> >>> US and Korea agreed not to make public every detail of the negotiation
>> >>> for three years from the effective date of FTA (March 15, 2012). He
>> >>> added that SK government intended to disclose it but the U.S. objected
>> >>> and asked to keep it confidential for ten years. According to him, the
>> >>> three years came from the Korean counter-proposal.
>> >>>
>> >>> When the three year period lapsed this March, I requested SKG to
>> >>> disclose all of the information on the negotiations related to IPRs.
>> >>> Specifically, I asked every material tabled or exchanged by the Korean
>> >>> and the US negotiation teams during the official and unofficial rounds
>> >>> of Korea-US FTA talks. SKG simply denied. So I filed an administrative
>> >>> suit (like an FoIA litigation) and SGK is strongly arguing that the
>> >>> information should not be disclosed. Their main grounds are two: it
>> >>> would "seriously undermine national interests;" and expose Korean
>> >>> strategy resulting in harm in future IPRs negotiations of SKG.
>> >>>
>> >>> In this context, I would appreciate if anyone help me concerning the
>> followings:
>> >>>
>> >>> - Did the U.S. really ask details of the FTA negotiation confidential
>> >>> for ten years? Is the non-disclosure period of three years known to
>> >>> the US Congress and any actions of US Congress or activists?
>> >>>
>> >>> - Any case laws on information disclosure of details of other FTAs or
>> >>> regional pacts (I know some material of FTAA was made public).
>> >>>
>> >>> - SKG argued that the US government was also requested to disclose
>> >>> information by someone, but it was held NO. Is there any case on this
>> >>> in the US?
>> >>>
>> >>> - I submitted leaked documents on RCEP and ACTA to show little risk of
>> >>> exposing SGK's strategy in the future FTA talks. For RECP, I used the
>> >>> link provided by Jamie (http://keionline.org/node/2239). But the
>> judge
>> >>> disallowed their proving power simple because they were leaked. Do you
>> >>> know any courts or authorities recognizing their authenticity.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Heesob
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: j.kelsey at auckland.ac.nz
>> .
>> >> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=91
>> 878466.b646888130d8f33831c488c4ec921e99&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=3349518
>> >> or send a blank email to leave-3349518-91878466.b646888
>> 130d8f33831c488c4ec921e99 at listserver.citizen.org
>>
>
>


More information about the A2k mailing list