《反垄断法》实施的预期效应探究

我国的《反垄断法》是国家基于“公平与效率”的价值追求而创设的市场经济基础·肄法律，旨在维护市场有序竞争，落实国家竞争、产业等经济政策，实现国家经济管理职能。它的实施必将产生一系列预期效应：国家竞争政策统一、反垄断指南具法律效力、“成文法”与“判例法”相融合、为保护国家利益增添新的法律手段以及促进我国行政管理体制的进一步改革等。     

中国企业在美国反垄断诉讼中的挑战与应对:基于对相关判决的质疑

中国企业在美国的一系列反垄断诉讼发生在中国加入世界贸易组织后与美国在经贸关系中博弈摩擦不断升级的背景之下,其中涉及了美国反托拉斯法的域外适用、国际礼让原则、外国法查明、外国政府对本国法律解释的效力等一系列焦点问题。在相关案件的判决中,美国法院就上述问题的观点和论述存在诸多漏洞和偏颇之处,包括限缩适用"国际礼让原则"中"真实冲突"的条件、外国法查明中客观性的缺失等。而未来随着中国企业日益成为美国反托拉斯重点关注对象,中国企业会面临更多挑战,需从美国国内法、国际法、中国相关政策法规的制定以及企业自身行为的合规性等方面积极应对。     

COMPETITION POLICY IN CHINA AND ITS RELEVANCE TO SMES

Competition policy has great relevance to all the firms in any economy. Even though it is unlikely that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have enough market power to constrain competition through a misuse of such power, they may still face prosecution if they are involved in a boycott of competitors or suppliers, price-fixing, output-restriction and other monopoly agreements. This article discusses antitrust issues pertaining to SMEs with a focus on China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) and its implementation rules. Contrary to the popular view that SMEs benefit from competition laws, evidence shows that they are reluctant to get involved in antitrust litigation against large firms partly because of the high legal costs involved. There is an urgent need to promote an awareness of antitrust compliance in China and to educate SMEs about the need to avoid breaching the new antitrust law and its associated regulations. In the meantime, SMEs should take full advantage of the antitrust laws to fight against the abuse of market dominance directed at them, and to gain equal opportunities to market access.     

反垄断法中联合限制竞争行为的比较研究

联合限制竞争行为的主体必须为两个或两个以上,且目的在于限制竞争;根据不同的分类法,可将其分为横向与纵向、协议与协同、禁止与豁免等种类;考虑其在经济上既能产生消极效果亦能产生积极效果,因此不能简单适用本身违法原则,有时需通过经济学分析以区别豁免情形;欧美竞争法规制联合限制竞争行为在立法体例、价值目标、执法机制、例外制度方面等均不尽相同;我国反垄断立法应以欧美竞争立法经验为基础,同时体现我国的特色.     

法官能动性与公正再论

法院的判决宣示着法的精神,引导着民众的行为.诉诸于法院各种诉讼请求,即是将各种矛盾呈现在法官面前.法官必须判断何种诉求为正当,只有当案件事实符合法律规范的构成要件,且案件事实中蕴涵的法律价值和所适用的法律规范的价值取向相一致时,才可以依据该法律规范对案件事实作出判决.法官在运用国家的制定法以回应民众的要求时,将一些明显不当的有违民意的规定加以过滤,能动地对制定法加以填充修正.刘荣军教授亦言:"处于社会与国家立法机关之间的司法,应当以并不完整的法律作为基本的支撑,寻找制定法之外的法源,将社会的正义、公平的观念和价值导入司法程序之中,创造出能够解压、还原法律本意的规则,以作为裁判的依据."     

反垄断法再分配功能初探

法律是社会利益资源和权利的分配书。经济法是利益资源和权利的一种再分配法,是在民商法等法律所作的权利分配的基础上,对原有权利安排作出适当调整和再分配。反垄断法同样具有再分配功能,通过对美国反托拉斯法的产生历史的考察可以证明这一点。我国的社会现实也需要反垄断法再分配功能的发挥。     

显现的法律与隐在的法律——从语言学的角度分析

当今各国的法律主要是以语言作为载体表现出来的，但法律创制者（成文法的制定者、判例法的创立者）所欲表达的信息与意义，一旦通过言语的方式固化后，其所传达给受众的信息与意义在不同程度上会发生扭曲或变异，成文法与显现的法律相当，隐在的法律必须被置于“活法”中加以考察，对真实法律判断不但要考察法律的形式，同时，也需要从互动的角度加以观察。     

TPP与中国的经济一体化法动向和对策

在APEC框架下进行的TPP（环太平洋战略性经济合作协定）是一种广域经济一体化的实践,突破了传统的区域经济一体化法的地理邻接性的空间限制,而其中的美国、日本等国的动向对中国经济贸易发展有重大影响,因此中国有必要在战略高度上审视其经济一体化对策,积极应对TPP带来的新挑战。从国家利益出发权衡利弊,中国应该积极参与到TPP谈判进程中。     

反垄断法的价值构造

价值问题是反垄断立法和实施中的核心和前置性问题,在当前中国反垄断法实施面临制度分裂、"纸面上的法"与"行动中的法"相背离等背景下,对这一话题的研讨尤为重要。成熟反垄断法律制度的实体价值主要表现在自由、效率和公平等诸方面,在经济理性的作用下,这些价值呈并存、竞争和融合的矛盾运动之势。受制于政治、经济、社会文化以及制度等因素的影响,中国反垄断法表现出来的自由价值和经济理性等先天不足,是该法实施乱象的重要根源,亟待通过制度实践和竞争文化培育凝聚更多价值共识。     

Empirical assessment of the role of economic analysis in the Russian antitrust: Why is economic analysis used?

Economic analysis is an important tool for the modern antitrust. This article provides an empirical study of its role in the Russian antitrust law enforcement practice in order to answer the following question: Has the understanding of the usefulness and importance of economic analysis in the Russian antitrust been achieved, or has economic analysis been applied formally? The study is based on the sample of official records on published decisions by the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation, created specifically for this research.     

反垄断执法和解中的利益平衡

允许执法者与企业就垄断行为达成和解,是现代反垄断执法的重要特征之一。执法和解反映了企业自治在现代反垄断法上地位的提升,虽能在一定程度上缓和传统执法方式的不足,大大节约执法资源从而促进效率,却易造成公共利益的损失,也可能对相关主体的利益照顾不足;因此,在以和解程序处置垄断案件的同时,必须防止对公共利益的“私相授受”,并对相关主体的利益维护提供制度保障,以实现主体间的利益平衡。     

反垄断法宽恕制度的理论基础与实效保障

发源于美国反垄断法之宽恕制度,具有明显的依赖性、契约性和威慑性特征。由于该制度在反垄断执法中对于及时发现和查处秘密卡特尔发挥了重要作用,因此,被许多国家和地区反垄断法所参照,成为推动反垄断法有效实施的重要工具之一。坚实的经济学基础和法理学基础,是该制度合理性的依据所在,也是其功效得以发挥的重要基础;具体的适用条件、严厉的处罚措施、确定的减免待遇和诚实信用原则的遵守是其效力得以实现的重要保障。我国《反垄断法》虽然也引进了宽恕制度,但未设计具体有效的实效保障措施,应借鉴其他国家和地区的经验予以完善。     

The Damage Done: Cocaine Methods in Detroit

The pro-competitive antitrust doctrine has originated in the free-market economies of Western capitalist countries but with economic transformations in Eastern Europe the doctrine ceased to be an exclusive Western concept. Using the example of the Polish law on combating Trust in the National Economy of 1987, the author demonstrates the spread of the antitrust doctrine from capitalism to socialism. Apart from these changes, the doctrine has been spreading on the international level because increasingly it has found application not only within particular countries but also with regard to trade and commerce between and among countries. The multidimensional nature of the antitrust doctrine has important implications for combating both domestic and international antitrust crime. The efficiency of efforts to combat abuse of a dominant market position, limiting access to the market or other forms of restraining competition will depend increasingly on the degree to which organs responsible for fighting antitrust crimes are willing to benefit from the multi-dimensional nature of the antitrust doctrine.     

论中国反垄断执法机构的设置

以维护自由公平竞争秩序为己任的反垄断法是现代市场经济的基本法律之一,而其功能的有效发挥离不开一个权威、独立的执法机构。反垄断执法机构的科学设置及其职责的合理确定是中国反垄断法制建设中的重要一环,也是行政管理学和行政法学中的一个重要问题。本文首先分析国外反垄断执法机关的设置及其职能,作为我国反垄断执法机关的设计参考。在确定中国反垄断执法机构的设置时要考虑到反垄断法本身的特点、现有相关机构的设置情况以及外国经验的比较借鉴等因素,通过中西方政府职能的发展比较,对我国反垄断执行机构的地位作出合理的定位。最后,我国反垄断执法机关的设置,要遵循权威独立、依法设置、精干效能等原则。据此,不宜在现有机构中指定反垄断执法机构,而应该单独创设专门的执法机构,其可以称为"国家反垄断委员会"或"国家公平交易委员会",并只在中央和省两级设立。这是由于反垄断法更注重维护宏观经济秩序、防止市场竞争不足从而具有政策性、灵活性和行政主导性的特点决定的。这样的机构应拥有调查检查权、审核批准权、行政处罚权、行政强制措施权和行政裁决权,并应拥有对地方各级政府及其部门和国务院各部门的限制竞争行为(行政垄断行为)直接进行处理的权力。     

试论我国反垄断法的域外适用——以"两拓"合并案为视角

反垄断法的城外适用是有其理论基础的,"两拓"并购案促使我们有必要分析我国反垄断法域外适用的依据及可行性,从而对我国适用反垄断法以规制跨国公司并购对我国产生的负面影响进行探讨,进而督促我们更好地反思和完善我国反垄断法的域外适用机制.     

The balance between equity and efficiency; reflections on the goals of the new Nigerian competition law

In January 2019, the Nigerian Government finally enacted its first competition law after several attempts to do so previously failed. Since all competition regimes advance one or more goals, the paper provides a critical evaluation of what the goals of the Nigerian Competition Law ‘is’ or ‘are’ and/or what they should be. This paper posits that discussion on goals must relate fundamentally to the true reason(s) the nation ‘needs’ an antitrust legislation and the relationship between these reasons (as reflected in the preamble of the legislation) and the prohibitory aspects of the law.Although the goal of competition is generally thought to be relating to promoting economic efficiency, however, for developing countries (including Nigeria), competition must compose of an important equity dimension. Ironically, the work uses the ‘developed’ experience of the EU in later stages to show that the goals of an antitrust policy are never static but dynamic and may not necessarily always admit of ‘efficiency’ considerations. This paper’s argument is that Nigeria needs a welfarist approach to competition which means efficiency should sit as a top objective and that any compromise on economic efficiency as the goal must be accommodated only to the extent that basic principles of a market driven competition is not harmed. Consequently, the work reflects on how the new Nigerian law has provided a balance between market efficiency and other goals of competition and how the new Nigerian competition body can operationalise this balance in the development of the nation’s antitrust policy. In this regard, the EU also provides some important enforcement lessons.     

The economic analysis of antitrust consents

Henry G. Manne, our friend, Mentor, and colleague, was a pioneer in the economic analysis of law. By consistently challenging the notion that existing institutions were well understood, he expanded the domain of economics to new and fertile ground. In that spirit, our goal in this article is to bring out of the shadows an institution that has thus far evaded the light of economic analysis: antitrust consents. In our view, competition authorities around the world should be asking themselves what ratio of litigation to settlement is optimal for their agency. Over the last 35 years, the United States Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice have shifted dramatically toward greater reliance upon consent decrees than upon litigation to resolve antitrust disputes. As an aid to national competition agencies considering the desirability of adopting a similar approach, we focus upon the importance of economic analysis in evaluating movement along the continuum from a law enforcement model to a regulatory model of agency behavior. We draw upon the U.S. experience to substantiate our claim that the costs associated with a shift toward the regulatory model, including the potential distortion in the development of substantive antitrust doctrine, may be under-appreciated and discernable only in the long run. We acknowledge that consent decrees can and should be an important tool in an antitrust agency’s toolkit for resolving antitrust disputes. We contend, however, that a full economic analysis of reliance primarily upon consent decrees is necessary to inform each competition agency’s strategic decision about the optimal mix of law enforcement and regulatory techniques.     

反垄断法视野中的低于成本价销售行为

反垄断法规范限制竞争的低于成本价销售行为虽然在一定程度上限制了市场主体的经营自主权 ,但却维护了竞争机制 ,有利于实现社会整体利益最大化。试图从现有的法律规定出发来研究反垄断法规范低于成本价销售行为的一些具体问题 ,揭示出反垄断法并不是禁止所有的低于成本价销售行为 ,而只是禁止具有市场支配地位或者经济优势的企业从事目的在于限制竞争 ,行为后果已经限制或可能限制竞争的低于成本价销售行为 ,防止竞争执法机构陷入禁止所有低于成本价销售行为的执法误区     

企业混合合并的竞争法分析

企业合并控制制度一直是各国反垄断法中的重要内容。随着我国经济逐步融入全球经济和市场经济的不断发展，企业合并的经营者集中越来越成为我国企业的普遍选择，其中混合合并因为便于企业实现多元化经营和经营战略转移形成效率抗辩，且一般不直接限制或妨碍竞争而与反垄断法无涉，从而形成市场和政府的双重偏好。然而通过非合作效应和合作效应分析可以得出混合合并在一定条件下也会产生反竞争效果。近年来，欧盟、澳大利亚的立法变革都明显提高了对混合合并反竞争效果的立法警觉。我国需要从竞争法视角重新审视企业混合合并，对其反垄断规制要坚持效率抗辩和整体权衡，反对弊大于利的合并，使混合合并在我国经济发展中避害扬善。     

Towards a Theory of Institutionalized Judicial Exceptionalism

What happens when the exception becomes the norm, what happens when the law becomes a form for that which cannot have a legal form, that is, the political? The focus of this article is a form of power politics that is institutionalised and set up to work side by side with the existing legal system as a sort of normalized, co‐ordinated court procedure, initiated with the aim of subjecting specific groups (terrorists, criminals) to extended regulatory control and enforcement. These strategic bureaucratic mechanisms of exclusion appear as security enforced measures, which side by side with the existing ‘normal’ legal system govern a specific judicial‐political area. The normalised (or rooted, if one wishes) incorporation of extra‐judicial authority within the legal system will in the article be refered to as institutionalised judicial exceptionalism. The purpose of the article is to theorise and conceptualise the in many ways murky or indistinct phenomenon of institutionalised judicial exceptionalism.This task includes suggesting a model capable of assimilating within its theory the displacement in the relationship between the state, the law and the citizen that stems from the fact that the ever more securitized discourses on terrorism and crime increasingly take priority over the ordinarily non‐derogable principle of equality before the law.