中美韩竞争法律制度比较

反不正当竞争法和反垄断法（以下简称竞争法）是大多数国家确立市场规则、调控市场活动、促进经济发展的基本法律规范，通常被称为经济宪法。仲华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》（以下简称《反不正当竞争法》）是我国历史上第一部专门的竞争法，该法的颁布标志着具有中国特色的社会主义竞争法律制度的初步确立。本文通过中美韩竞争法的立法模式、执法机构、调整范围的法律责任的比较，就我国竞争法律制度的完善谈谈个人看法。中美韩竞争法的立法模式美国竞争立法始于19世纪末。当时美国正处于工业化迅猛发展的时期，以托拉斯为主要表现形式的各…     

《反垄断法》的出台与我国竞争法体系的协调完善

一、《反垄断法》是我国竞争法体系中的龙头法 竞争法作为以规范市场竞争行为、维护市场竞争秩序为基本内容的法律规范的总称，其在各个国家和地区不仅在名称的使用上有差异，而且在内容方面也是不尽相同的。在一些国家和国际组织，竞争法就是用来指代反垄断法的，反不正当竞争的内容一般不包括在内，即使有，也属于附带而不占重要的地位。但是，多数国家和地区的竞争法除反垄断法外，还包括反不正当竞争法的内容，只是在具体的立法模式上，有的采取将反垄断与反不正当竞争合并立法，有的则是将反垄断与反不正当竞争法分别立法。     

“竞争权”驳论——兼论竞争法的利益保护观

竞争权从未在实然层面获得任何立法肯定,并且由于其无法关照潜在竞争者及其利益,竞争秩序作为整体利益无法分割为专属客体,加之竞争权没有明确权利内容,显示出竞争权在应然层面的逻辑困境。更为重要的是,这种设权思路与作为其基础的竞争法的不自洽,容易导致竞争法简化为竞争者之法,不仅忽视消费者利益,而且引致竞争法学的历史倒退,对于竞争法理论与实践存在重大误导和危害。竞争法利益承载的向度应选择法益模式。法益路径不减损对竞争利益的救济,法益保护模式与竞争法私人执行也并行不悖。特别是法益的消极保护性和弱稳定性,契合竞争利益的整体性和变动性特点,能够使竞争法保有弹性和开放性。     

浅析WTO竞争与协调机制下的中国竞争法

加入WTO后,中国经济将逐步走向全方位开放,民族产业将面临来自全球的挑战以及国际竞争中的各种贸易壁垒。在中国企业走出去的道路上,如何适应国际竞争规则,有效利用WTO框架下国际竞争规则协调机制来保护和促进我国民族工业的国际化发展,成为我国国内竞争法立法必需面对的问题。建立和完善同WTO竞争协调机制相适应的竞争法,不仅是促进我国对外贸易发展的需要,同时也是中国履行加入WTO承诺的必然要求。     

贸易自由化与统一国际竞争立法

贸易自由化被视为实现经济发展的重要途径,二战后,在关贸总协定和WTO中,贸易自由化取得了巨大进展,关税处于历史性的低水平状态,其他非关税壁垒也得到进一步遏制,全球经济因此得到了进一步的发展.但即使所有的关税和非关税壁垒都被消除,如果反竞争行为得不到规制,就会成为阻碍国际贸易自由化发展的另一种形式的壁垒,使通过政府间谈判而开放的国际市场因企业的反竞争行为重新被相互关闭和封锁起来.为使全球经济福利和效率最大化,贸易自由化政策必须与其他领域内的法律特别是最为重要的竞争法共同发挥作用.然问题在于,在较为完善的国际贸易法制促进的国际贸易自由化的背景下,竞争法仍停留在各国各自为政以及双边和多边合作的阶段,缺少全球范围内的国际竞争法体制.因此,为了避免因反竞争行为而导致贸易自由化倒退,有必要在完善各国内竞争法的同时,加快国际统一竞争立法的进程,而在WTO框架下建立国际竞争法具有必要性、可行性和必然性.     

对竞争立法模式的比较研究

对竞争立法模式的比较研究王学政本文对大陆法系国家的竞争法模式进行了比较研究。分析了分立式立法（即分别制定《反垄断法》和《反不正当竞争法》）与合并式立法的历史背景、特点以及长短，认为从发展中国家和地区角度出发，结合近年有关国际立法实践，有理由认为合并式...     

印度竞争法的域外适用及其对发展中国家的启示

传统竞争法具有严格的地域性,不可适用于域外的限制竞争行为.随着国际经济交往的日益频繁,跨国贸易的不断发展,很多限制竞争行为具有了远程效果,竞争法的属地性特征日趋淡化,域外效力逐渐得到认可.竞争法的域外适用不同于传统国际私法中的域外适用,其从产生伊始便饱受争议,但实践中几乎所有的发达国家的竞争立法中却都包含有域外适用效力的条款.发展中国家的竞争立法起步较晚,在不断深入的国际经济交往过程中饱受跨国限制竞争行为之害,也逐渐认识到竞争法的重要性以及竞争法域外适用的必要性.印度在竞争法的制定和实施方面走在发展中国家的前列,印度竞争法的域外适用问题在不断的执法探索、司法解释和立法更迭中经历着从不确定到明确否定再到有所发展的过程.这样的发展过程也给广大发展中国家带来诸多启示.     

国际竞争法基本问题初探

在国内竞争法基础上产生和发展起来的国际竞争法，以国际竞争关系作为自己独特的调整对象，是一个独立的法律部门，是国际经济法的一个分支。作为维护国际市场自由、公平竞争秩序的法律体系，国际竞争法包含了反不正当竞争和反垄断法两个方面的内容。     

印度：对谷歌开出天价罚单

<正>据德新社报道，谷歌在印度正面临一系列反垄断监管。根据《竞争法》，印度竞争委员会（CCI）在2022年10月下旬的两项决定中宣布对谷歌处以总计2.75亿美元的罚款。2002年印度《竞争法》印度是较早制定竞争法的国家。1969年，印度就制定了自己的第一部竞争法，即《垄断与限制性贸易行为法》。这部法律在借鉴发达国家竞争立法和司法经验的同时，也充分结合了本国的国情。     

竞争法构成体系的比较——试论反垄断法与反不正当竞争法的差别

竞争法作为调整市场竞争关系的法律规范,是经济法的核心。反不正当竞争法与反垄断法两大构成体系之间有着密切的关系,但在立法思想、性质特点、调整角度等诸方面存在着较大的差异。着眼于竞争法总体框架的比较研究,对当前我国在WTO规则背景下的竞争制度立法具有现实意义。     

竞争法体系下商标立法模式探讨

从宏观视阈看,商标法属于竞争法的体系范畴,与反不正当竞争法一样都体现了政府对微观经济的干预。法律保护民事主体的合法民事权益,商标权益在内容上涵盖商标专用权与商标利益,从维护我国注册制的权威以及有利于制度的可操作性而言,对于权利和利益在法律保护的路径上应有所区别。将商标权益区分为商标专用权与商标利益分别由《商标法》和《反不正当竞争法》保护,使《商标法》作为民法的特别法,与其他民事法律,包括《民法通则》、《侵权责任法》等形成较强的逻辑自洽性,同时,也使商标法作为反不正当竞争法的特别法,与反不正当竞争法在制止利用商标而进行的不正当竞争方面彼此分工,有效协调。     

欧共体竞争法与成员国竞争法关系初探

由于均对各自适用范围做扩张性解释,因而欧共体竞争法与成员国竞争法在适用范围上不可避免地产生了重叠, 二者构成了一利双重控制体系。但这种双重控制体系又是有条件的双重控制体系,即当二者之间有冲突时,应以共同体竞争法的效力为优先。随着统一大市场的形成以及从属原则被确立为欧盟法的基本原则,这种双重控制体系面临瓦解的可能,在未来有必要对两套法律体系的适用范围进行重新划定,从而使其各行其是,互不干涉,而且预计成员国竞争法的地位会得到相应提升,并发挥其应有的作用。     

How Chinese enterprises live in freedom, competition under the rule of law

China has thoroughly amended its corporate law and hastens to formulate an anti-monopoly law. To rebound then deny the planned economy once adopted, China firmly practices marketization reform. However, common-recognized rules haven’t taken shape without sufficient gaming and, lots of quick introduced legislations are only superficial provisions. As the trend of corporate legal system in developed countries, freedom and responsibility are the two contraries but not contradictory directions during the recent reform of China’s corporate law. One is deregulation, e.g., introducing one-person company and the transition from approval system to registration system for the establishment of a company; while the other is adding various provisions of responsibility and liability to the Company Law for controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors, supervisors and top managers. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China not only prescribes unfair competition but also counters monopoly. In general, it mainly focuses on anti-monopoly provisions, to popularize the concept and value of free market, making systematic regulations on any kinds of monopoly. This article reviews its background, process, meaning as well as the problems encountered. As there remains somewhat a mystery that China rapidly develops, it may also reflect a fringe of the reason. Prepared for presentation at the Global Fellows Forum, the Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of Law, 25 October 2006. The author is a global research fellow of the Hauser Global Law School Program, NYU School of Law. He is grateful to Jerome Cohen, Eleanor Fox and William Allen for most helpful comments, to J. H. H. Weiler for aborative presiding, and to Hua Xiao, Justin Fong, Alex Wang and Han Han for English language assistance.     

Erasing the misunderstanding on China��s Anti-Monopoly Law: A comparative study

As to the development of global competition law, China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), being considered as a milestone for legalizing the institution of Chinese socialist market economy, has attracted a lot of attention from international communities. To improve the AML, it depends on self-constructing anti-monopoly law and absorbs foreign experiences by way of heated comments on the AML from international society and similar situations of China’s AML to the US Antitrust Law and the EU Competition Law.     

EU–China Competition Dialogue: A New Step in the Internationalisation of EU Competition Law?

EU has been the protagonist in promoting the internationalization of competition laws based on EU competition law norms. The development of China's Antimonopoly Law shows that EU has succeeded so far in establishing itself as the main reference point for China's competition regulation. The success can be mainly attributed to the EU‐China Competition Dialogue (Dialogue), a new initiative set up by EU and China in 2004. The paper reviews the internationalization of EU competition law and its characteristics. It then examines the Dialogue and how EU exported its competition law norms to one of the latest AML secondary legislations on Antimonopoly Pricing. It argues that the Dialogue's informal nature, EU's routinized technical assistance to Chinese competition authorities and its China‐oriented strategy in communication have been highly important in ensuring that the EU Competition Law becomes the main reference point for the AML. However, the paper argues that it is for the same reasons that EU faces weakness in controlling the reception of EU competition law norms by China. Based on this, the paper further illustrates that EU's understanding of competition law internationalization as reflected under the Dialogue has not undergone fundamental changes.     

《中华人民共和国反垄断法》析评

The Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China has provided to prohibit monopoly agreements and abuse of dominant market position, control concentration of business operators and fight against administrative monopoly. The transformation of China’s economic system is incomplete, and the Anti-Monopoly Law has many flaws. At the initial stage of enforcing the Anti-Monopoly Law, severe challenges will occur in legislative purposes, enforcement authorities, fighting against administrative monopoly and handling of the relationship between anti-monopoly enforcement and industry supervision. Thus, the promulgation of the Anti-Monopoly Law is only the first step in the legislation on anti-monopoly. Wang Xiaoye held a bachelor’s degree of philosophy from Inner Mongolian Normal University (1981), LL.M. from Renmin University of China (1984) and Doctor Juris magna cum laude from the University Hamburg (1993). Since 1984, she works at the Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). From 1988 to 1993, she studied in Germany based on Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Private Law. As visiting scholar she spent a year at Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Intellectual Property and Competition Law, and a year at Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Social Law in Munich. In 2004, she was invited to the US by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. In 2005, she was invited to the European Union Visitors Program, and awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to spend a year at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Prof. Wang works in the areas of economic law, international economic law, and focuses on competition law. Her publications include: Monopoly and Competition in the Chinese Economy — A conception for merger control in China in view of the American and German practices (J C B Mohr, 1993); Monopoly Problem in the Merger of Enterprises (Law Press, 1996); On Competition Law (China’s Legal Publishing House, 1999); Competition Law of European Community (China’s Legal Publishing House, 2001); Economic Law (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005); Competition Law (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2007). She also has over 200 papers published in Chinese, German and English languages. Prof. Wang has served as vice president of National Association for Economic Law of China, the head of the Consultant Committee for WTO Trade and Competition Policy of the Ministry of Commerce, and member of the Expert Advisory Board for Anti-Monopoly Legislation of the State Council and the National People’s Congress. In her honor, she once lectured on competition law for the Standing Committee of the Ninth and Tenth People’s Congress. In international academic activities, she is a founding member of Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA) and of the Asian Competition Forum, and member of International Advisory Board of the CUTS C-CIER. She lectured on Chinese law at ABA, IBA, IPBA, ACF, Harvard University, Columbia University, Washington University (St. Louis), New York University, KFTC, Chatham House, LIDC, IDRC and other institutions.     

体育赛事节目著作权保护探究

2020年《著作权法》第三次修改后,我国知识产权法学界并未停止对体育赛事直播画面作品属性问题的争论.体育赛事直播画面的作品属性认定问题会影响到体育赛事节目的保护模式和路径选择.虽然体育赛事本身不是著作权法意义上的作品,但这并不影响体育赛事直播画面的作品属性构成.2021年6月1日以后,对于符合作品构成要件的体育赛事节目可以认定为视听作品.对于不符合作品构成要件的体育赛事节目可以考虑用《著作权法》(2020)最新修订的广播组织权予以保护.至于反不正当竞争法对体育赛事节目的保护,是我国《著作权法》第三次修改之前的权宜之计,反不正当竞争扩展保护的限度应该是明确的,不能无限度将反不正当竞争法的扩展保护适用于所有的知识产权领域.     

体育赛事节目著作权保护探究

2020年《著作权法》第三次修改后,我国知识产权法学界并未停止对体育赛事直播画面作品属性问题的争论.体育赛事直播画面的作品属性认定问题会影响到体育赛事节目的保护模式和路径选择.虽然体育赛事本身不是著作权法意义上的作品,但这并不影响体育赛事直播画面的作品属性构成.2021年6月1日以后,对于符合作品构成要件的体育赛事节目可以认定为视听作品.对于不符合作品构成要件的体育赛事节目可以考虑用《著作权法》(2020)最新修订的广播组织权予以保护.至于反不正当竞争法对体育赛事节目的保护,是我国《著作权法》第三次修改之前的权宜之计,反不正当竞争扩展保护的限度应该是明确的,不能无限度将反不正当竞争法的扩展保护适用于所有的知识产权领域.     

体育赛事节目著作权保护探究

2020年《著作权法》第三次修改后,我国知识产权法学界并未停止对体育赛事直播画面作品属性问题的争论.体育赛事直播画面的作品属性认定问题会影响到体育赛事节目的保护模式和路径选择.虽然体育赛事本身不是著作权法意义上的作品,但这并不影响体育赛事直播画面的作品属性构成.2021年6月1日以后,对于符合作品构成要件的体育赛事节目可以认定为视听作品.对于不符合作品构成要件的体育赛事节目可以考虑用《著作权法》(2020)最新修订的广播组织权予以保护.至于反不正当竞争法对体育赛事节目的保护,是我国《著作权法》第三次修改之前的权宜之计,反不正当竞争扩展保护的限度应该是明确的,不能无限度将反不正当竞争法的扩展保护适用于所有的知识产权领域.     

Competition Law Fragmentation in a Globalizing World

Beaton‐Wells, Caron, and Ariel Ezrachi (eds.). 2011 . Criminalising Cartels: Critical Studies of an International Regulatory Movement . Oxford: Hart Publishing. Pp. xvi + 455. Gerber, David J. 2010 . Global Competition: Law, Markets, and Globalization . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xx + 394. Lianos, Ioannis, and D. Daniel Sokol (eds.). 2012 . The Global Limits of Competition Law . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pp. xiv + 282. This is a review essay of Caron Beaton‐Wells and Ariel Ezrachi (eds.), Criminalising Cartels: Critical Studies of an International Regulatory Movement ( 2011 ); David J. Gerber, Global Competition: Law, Markets, and Globalization (2010); and Ioannis Lianos and D. Daniel Sokol (eds.), The Global Limits of Competition Law ( 2012 ). It explores the fragmented nature of national competition laws in the context of globalization and several harmonizing trends: the defining role of economics, the strong influence of US antitrust economics and law internationally, and the relative insularity of competition law from other subdisciplines of law. The recent emergence of competition regimes, especially in the BRICS countries, challenges these harmonizing trends, reducing US hegemony. Economics will remain central but cultural and institutional factors that reflect societal values will become more significant. This leads to a contradiction of convergence as to the benefits of competition law internationally and continuing fragmentation along national lines.