This Article examines two of the more credible criticisms leveled against the ACTA and evaluates the credibility of each. First, some allege that the agreement is a treaty masquerading as an executive agreement. The distinction is significant because treaties may modify U.S. law and require congressional approval, while executive agreements must accord with existing law and require only presidential approval. The second criticism is the systemic lack of transparency throughout the negotiation process. Though these are not the only criticisms – far from it – they are the two most significant and stand on the most solid ground.

Document Type


Publication Date

Spring 2011