WRITTEN QUESTION No. 584/98 by Manuel PORTO to the Commission. UK-Korea agreement
Date: 1998-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, PORTO
Subjects: European Union, South Korea, agreement (EU), cooperation agreement, economic reform, framework agreement, intellectual property, political reform, protectionism, trade agreement













EUR-Lex - 91998E0584 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0584

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 584/98 by Manuel PORTO to the Commission. UK-Korea agreement  


Official Journal C 323 , 21/10/1998 P. 0049 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/98 by Manuel Porto (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)Subject: UK-Korea agreementSome months ago, when carrying out their preliminary assessment of the agreement with South Korea, various European Parliament committees expressed concern about compliance with social standards, copyright and protectionism, the continuing diminutive market presence of certain European industries such as automobiles was inexplicable in terms of quality or price differentials. Has there been any change in these areas?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)Notwithstanding current economic difficulties, Korea remains an important partner for the Community in Asia, not only because of significant two-way trade and investment but also for political and geostrategic reasons. In this context, the Framework Agreement, which was signed in October 1996, is a good agreement which will ensure that the Community is better able to pursue its interests vis-à-vis Korea in a broad range of areas. It is worth recalling the scope of the agreement, which is very far-reaching, and covers human rights, shipbuilding, science and technology co-operation, co-operation in the field of standards and technical regulation, intellectual property and the environment.The Commission is convinced that there should now be renewed efforts to bring the Framework Agreement into force. This would be one way in which the Community and in Member States could demonstrate political support for Korea, as it embarks on necessary, but painful, reform and restructuring. The Parliament could set a highly visible example to others involved in the ratification process if it now proceeded with an opinion. Such action would at the same time pass a message to the new Korean government about the priority the Parliament attaches to the relationship between the Community and Korea.Recently, as part of the wider reform process, there have been developments as regards labour standards. A new labour law was passed in February 1998, based on the recommendations of a tripartite commission, which had been convened by the President-elect, Kim Dae-jung. Representatives of the government, employers and labour were mandated to draw up a package of labour-market reform in the overall national interest. Easier worker dismissal in the event of merger or restructuring has been balanced with numerous safeguards (60-day 'cooling-off' period, mandatory consultation of unions), with an increase in unemployment insurance benefit, and with a significant upgrading of union rights through relaxation of the bans on political activities by unions and on association by public sector workers.Although the Community ran a trade surplus with Korea until last year, it is clear that some Community exports face market access difficulties in Korea. The Framework Agreement will provide additional instruments allowing Community trade interests to be defended. In the meantime, the Commission is firmly committed to resolving market access problems and is working actively to do so, as far as possible through discussions with the Korean authorities. In the very short term, the Commission does not necessarily expect Community export prospects in Korea to improve, given the macroeconomic situation. However, the new Korean government has firmly pronounced itself in favour of solutions based on transparent and open markets, and so far has backed up these statements with its actions. The Commission will work with the authorities in Korea to ensure that this course is maintained.Finally, it may be necessary to clarify the purpose of the Framework Agreement's intellectual property provisions. According to Article 9, 'The Parties confirm the importance they attach to the obligations contained in the multilateral conventions for the protection of intellectual property rights. The Parties shall make efforts to accede as soon as practicable to the conventions in Annex to which they have not acceded'. This 'best endeavours' clause is addressed to all the parties (the Community, its Member States and Korea) and indeed requires efforts from all of them to accede to the multilateral conventions in the annex. Korea has already acceded to several of these conventions, such as the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the Patent Co-operation Treaty, and the Budapest Treaty. It is furthermore considering actively the possibility of acceding also to the Nice Agreement and the International Convention for the protection of new varieties of plants.It is also worth noting that, pursuant to Article 9, ¶2 of the Framework Agreement, Korea agreed to advance considerably the implementation of the World trade organisation (WTO) Agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs). TRIPs provides for a strong protection of practically all intellectual property rights, such as copyright and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, and contains special provisions to guarantee their enforcement. Korea undertook to implement the obligations resulting from TRIPs as of 1 July 1996, only six months after the deadline fixed in Article 65.1 TRIPs for developed country members. As a result, the level of protection has already been considerably improved.