This is the part I was referring to: In a nutshell, it gives each signatory authority to create laws that satisfy ACTA's requirements. Without getti

This is the part I was referring to: In a nutshell, it gives each signatory authority to create laws that satisfy ACTA's requirements. Without getting into the issue of monism and dualism (international legal concepts for how treaties embed themselves into domestic law) it simply means that until signatory states create enforcing legislation, ACTA does nothing. An example would be that, once passed, a US federal act that enforces ACTA is immune from challenges over states rights (though not bill of rights challenges). To be frank this isn't too controversial, there is nothing in ACTA that doesn't satisfy the inter-state commerce clause anyway. So undersand that ACTA isn't really the issue. What people need to be prepared for is how states implement it, which is where scope for abuse is.