反垄断法适用除外制度构建与政策性垄断的合理界定

反垄断法是规范市场行为、维护竞争秩序的“经济宪法” ;反垄断法适用除外制度是一项重要的法律制度。政策性垄断豁免适用反垄断法是各国法律的传统安排 ,这与各国基于社会经济总体和长远利益及政治、外贸、国防等方面的政策性考虑密切相关。在经济全球化的背景下 ,我国政策性垄断的合理界定是科学构建反垄断法适用除外制度的关键所在 ;当前尤其要注意区分政策性垄断与反垄断法重点规制的对象———行政 (性 )垄断。     

反垄断法豁免制度在我国的适用探析——以电信联通涉嫌垄断事件为例

豁免制度,作为反垄断法一项重要制度,伴随着反垄断法理论的成熟逐渐发展并完善。区别于反垄断法对垄断的原则性禁止,豁免制度允许某些合理垄断的存在,这体现着反垄断法维护有效竞争、促进市场资源合理配置、追求反垄断与实现社会经济发展有机结合的最终目标。我国的《反垄断法》于2008年8月正式实施,对限制竞争性协议、控制企业合并、滥用市场支配地位、行政垄断等方面进行了规制,但其对豁免制度的规定还较笼统。文章试从反垄断法豁免制度的概念入手,论述其适用的范围和模式,并以电信联通涉嫌垄断事件为切入点,探讨反垄断法豁免制度在我国的适用。     

我国反垄断法域外管辖制度初探

反垄断法域外管辖是对国外发生但是对国内市场产生限制、排除竞争影响的垄断行为适用国内反垄断法的制度。反垄断法域外管辖主要集中在国际卡特尔以及跨国并购领域,其本质是要通过反垄断法的域外管辖来规制跨越国界的垄断行为,维护国内市场的竞争秩序以及国家利益。反垄断法在实施域外管辖过程中会引起法律适用冲突。为了避免这种冲突,主要国家达成了反垄断双边合作模式。我国应该与相关国家签署反垄断双边合作协议,采取适合我国国情以及经济发展水平的反垄断法域外管辖制度。     

论反垄断法适用除外制度的理论基础

适用除外制度之所以成为反垄断法的一项重要制度,有其深刻的经济基础和法律基础。从经济基础上讲,垄断与竞争均是利弊兼具,垄断并不必然消灭竞争,甚至会使竞争加剧。适用除外制度的确立,有利于发挥垄断的积极作用, 克服竞争的某些消极作用。从法律基础上讲,反垄断法要解决虽然属于垄断、但又不予禁止的技术问题,只有通过适用除外制度加以解决;另一方面,适用除外制度还是反垄断法与其他法律进行协调的一项必不可少的措施。     

反垄断法实施的经济逻辑——兼论经济公益诉讼制度的引入

从经济学的角度探讨我国反垄断法对垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位、经营者集中以及滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争等垄断行为的规制效果,并进一步阐述经济公益诉讼制度在我国未来反垄断法实施过程中产生的积极作用,有利于提高我国《反垄断法》的实施绩效,促进市场主体及社会公众维护其自身合法权益。     

浅论我国反垄断法

垄断的原意是独占,即一个市场上只有一个经营者。反垄断法,顾名思义就是反对垄断和保护竞争的法律制度。它是任何市场经济国家必须存在的基本的法律制度。因此,反垄断法律制度是市场规制法的核心和最主要的内容,也是整个经济法体系中重要的法律制度之一。我国《反垄断法》的颁布和实施,对于预防和反对垄断行为,保护市场经济制度下的公平竞争,提高社会主义市场经济的运行效率,保护消费者的合法利益和全社会公共利益,促进社会主义市场经济的健康发展具有非常重要的现实意义。本文简要阐述了我国反垄断法的概况,客观分析了我国反垄断法的部分内容,并探讨了我国反垄断法的现实意义。     

论知识产权垄断法律控制的理论基础

伴随知识经济的快速发展,知识产权垄断的危害日益严重,迫切需要反垄断法予以规制.但产生并发展于工业经济时代的现有反垄断法,并无直接适用于知识产权垄断的具体规则,各国普遍尝试采用延伸法律解释或类推适用的方法,将现有反垄断法规则适用于知识产权垄断,但无论在理论上还是在实践中都遇到了严重的法律困惑和障碍.2007年8月我国颁布的<反垄断法>虽然规定知识产权垄断应受该法规制,但同样未解决"如何"规制的问题.因此,在反垄断法中构建新的知识产权垄断法律控制制度是解决知识经济条件下知识产权垄断问题的重要途径,而法哲学上的权力限制理论、知识产权法上的利益平衡理论和反垄断法上的竞争理论则为这一新制度的建立与运行提供了理论依据.     

浅析我国反垄断协议豁免制度

反垄断法是市场监管法的主要构成部分,垄断协议的豁免制度是反垄断法的重要制度之一。我国对于垄断协议的豁免制度规定于《反垄断法》第15条。但我国引入垄断协议的豁免制度目前还存在很多问题需要厘清。本文主要从豁免制度的基本概念,我国反垄断法有关豁免制度的具体规定,以及我国现行垄断法中豁免制度的缺陷这几个方面探讨我国垄断协议的豁免制度。     

论我国反垄断法的价值目标

在<反垄断法>即将出台之际,讨论我国反垄断法的价值有着极其必要的现实意义.反垄断法保护竞争并不是目的,而其仅仅是实现社会经济效率这一反垄断法终极价值的基本手段之一.而且反垄断立法不应并列多重价值目标,而应将经济效率作为根本价值目标,这是适应我国发展规模经济的客观需要,也是我国反垄断法中规制行政垄断的必然要求,同时也符合世界各国反垄断立法的发展趋势.     

反垄断法适用除外问题研究

反垄断法是规范市场行为、维护竞争秩序的“经济宪法”。垄断行为,一般都为各国法律所禁止,但也不是绝对的,由此而产生的反垄断法适用除外制度是一项重要的法律制度。随着市场经济在我国的建立和发展,垄断和反垄断的问题也越来越得到了人们的重视,许多过去被列为反垄断法适用除外的行业现在也都引入了竞争机制。尤其在全球经济一体化、知识经济的背景下,对合法垄断的界定及反垄断法适用除外制度的原则、价值取向等问题的认识显得尤其必要。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.