18
-
If the Treaty has a provien
ispute settlement, there might be
good arguments to have an easier amendment procedure than a Diplomatic Conference, as this would be the first time that such a mechanism had
been included in a WIPO Treaty, and difficulties as to its correct
functioning might occur In the beginning.
Paragraph (2) (Initiation and Notice of Proposals for Amendments)
This paragraph is acceptable.
Paragraph (3) (Required Majorities)
A three-quarter majority of the votes cast in the Assembly should
provide sufficient security to prevent undesired changes which would
bind the Community and its Member States, (this position is based on
the assumption that an appropriate compromise on the Community votes
can be reached see Article 9(3)).
-
Paragraph (4) (Entry into Force)
This paragraph is acceptable (see also comment on para 3); the risk
that the Community and its Member States may be bound by modifications
which they have not endorsed seems not too great having regard to the
possible majority situation of a future Assembly. In addition if only
the technical definitions the provisions of Article 10 and the dispute
mechanism are submitted to the proposed amendment procedure, the
binding character of the changes can be accepted.
Article 12 (Safeguard of Paris and Berne Conventions)
Community position
The present Article does not seem to be necessary and might prejudice the
Interpretation of the Interaction of international obligations under WIPO
treaties.
The Paris and Berne Conventions do not oblige the states party to these
Conventions to protect layout designs (topographies) of microchips. If it
were otherwise, the present Treaty would be either superfluous or certain