6. Who enforces the law?

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Competitive Environment ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
The Public ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Law

‘Who enforces the law?’ identifies who enforces competition and antitrust laws. In most countries, competition and antitrust laws can be utilized by the public enforcer (the competition agency) that is tasked with maintaining a competitive environment, or by private entities that use the competition provisions to protect their commercial interests, or to claim damages for loss caused by violation of competition law. In the US, at the federal level, two agencies share responsibility for competition enforcement. These are the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition (FTC) and The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Meanwhile, EU law grants the European Commission primary responsibility for enforcing EU competition laws.

11. The international dimension

2021 ◽  
pp. 118-125
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Domestic Markets ◽  
International Dimension ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Competitive Activity ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
The Given

‘The international dimension’ examines the international dimension of competition laws. In order to protect their domestic markets, competition agencies often need to apply their national laws beyond the boundaries of their state. Extraterritoriality in competition law commonly relies on one of two legal concepts. The first extends a competition regime’s jurisdiction to activities which have an effect on that regime’s markets. The second requires ‘implementation’ of anti-competitive activity within the given territory as a condition for extraterritorial application of domestic laws. In the US, the effects doctrine enabled the enforcement of antitrust laws on foreign companies. In the EU, both the effects and implementation doctrines may be used.

Rationales for the Implementation of Competition Law in EU, the US and Asia: Content Analysis and Data Visualization Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Yi Man Li ◽  
Herru Ching Yu Li ◽  
Cho Kei Mak ◽  
Po Kei Chan
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Data Visualization ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractIn recent years, many of the Asian countries follow suit to implement competition law. Are there any differences with regards to the intention to implement competition law? Are they driven by similar lines of reasoning? Many of the previous research shed light on one or two Asia countries reasons for implementing competition law. Others focus on the US antitrust law or EU competition law only. This paper compares and contrasts the similarities and differences with regards to the major motives in implementing competition laws/antitrust laws. We first used content analysis to categorize the reasons for implementation of competition law. After that, data visualization method is used to study the the reasons mentioned by official websites and academic journals which lead to the implementation of competition laws in different countries.

Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? Assuring a Legally Prepared Workforce

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (S4) ◽  
pp. 81-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Anne Viverette ◽  
Jennifer Leaning ◽  
Susan K. Steeg ◽  
Kristine M. Gebbie ◽  
Maureen Litchveld
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Association ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Rigorous Evaluation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Chiefs Of Police ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Evaluation Techniques

The Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement (CALEA) employs rigorous evaluation techniques. Objective accreditation, such as made possible by CALEA, is important from the public’s perspective and in the national community of law enforcement.To counteract a general distrust of law enforcement agencies, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) developed a grant to develop standards by which the quality and performance of law enforcement could be measured. LEAA developed 107 standards and, though well received by the law enforcement community, no single group or agency took the initiative to begin a program to evaluate and implement the standards. In 1979, the Department of Justice established an additional grant that effectively organized the four major law enforcement groups: the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriff’s Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the Police Executive Research Forum.

Charting a Course for Body-Worn Cameras in the Twenty-First Century

2020 ◽  
pp. 103-138
Author(s):  
Michael D. White ◽  
Aili Malm
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Critical Incident ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
First Century ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Diffusion Characteristics ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practice Implementation

There are two objectives in this chapter. The first is a forward-looking review of the next set of challenges for BWC adopters. These challenges span the factors that can influence diffusion (characteristics of the innovation, innovators, and environment) and center on both human and technological elements of a BWC program. The authors assess the next set of human-based challenges with BWCs, such as addressing activation compliance (and dealing with low-end activators), addressing controversies surrounding the public release of video and officers’ authority to review video after a critical incident (i.e., a shooting), managing citizens’ and other nonusers’ expectations of the technology (handling the onset of a “CSI effect” with BWCs, where if there is no video, then it did not happen), and being responsive to changing laws on evidence, privacy, and access to BWC footage. The authors also consider emerging technological innovations such as automatic activation, the integration of BWCs and facial recognition, and the role and use of “big data” with BWCs. The second objective centers on planning and implementation. More specifically, the authors delve into how law enforcement agencies can navigate the well-known and newly emerging challenges surrounding BWCs in order optimize the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes. In particular, they focus on a “best-practice” implementation guide developed by the US Department of Justice, called the “Law Enforcement Implementation Checklist.” The chapter concludes with a few important takeaway messages regarding the future of BWCs in policing.

scholarly journals Pravo mjerodavno za povrede prava tržišnog natjecanja

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivana Kunda
Keyword(s):  
Legal Theory ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Eu

<span>Issues arising in the context of determining the law governing competition law breaches are numerous and complex. The situation is no different following the harmonisation of the national rules as a result of the recently adopted Directive on damages for infringements of the competition law provisions. This paper is aimed at scrutinising various such issues, in particular it deals with interpretation of the concepts found in Article 6(3) of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations and the related aspects of interaction between EU and national competition laws. From the scope of application ratione materiae of the mentioned conflict-of-law provision and defining the “market” as an essential component of the connecting factor lex mercati, to the functioning of the general provisions aimed at protecting public interests, the author presents the opposing views expressed in legal theory and points out the principles which should be taken into account in the course of the analysis. Additional emphasis is put on the thorny questions which originate from erroneous translation of the EU legislation into the Croatian language.&nbsp;</span>

scholarly journals Tinjauan Terhadap Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia Dari Perspektif Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30
Author(s):  
Desi Apriani
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Public Welfare ◽  
Business World ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fair Competition ◽  
Consumer Interests ◽  
The Law

The business world is something that cannot be separated from business competition. There are business actors who compete in a fair competition  and there are also business actors who compete in a unfair competition. This is where the importance of the presence of business competition law in a country. In Indonesia, business competition law is contained in Law Number 5 of 1999 which prohibits monopolistic practices and unfair business competition. In relation to consumer protection, Law Number 5 Year 1999 has the aim of protecting the public interest and seeking public welfare. The prohibitions in the law indirectly have a protected effect on consumer interests. Need consistency in enforcement of business competition law so that the goal of protecting consumers can be achieved optimally.

Abuse of Dominance in Digital Platforms: An Analysis of Indian Competition Jurisprudence

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Tilottama Raychaudhuri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Competition Commission ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
The Law ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance ◽  
Competition Enforcement

An ongoing debate in competition jurisprudence today is with respect to the enforcement of competition law in digital markets. Digital markets are newer markets in context of which traditional tools of competition law have to be understood and applied. Though the challenges of competition enforcement in digital markets are manifold, this paper focusses on the assessment of dominance and abuse in platform markets, particularly in light of the 2019 Supreme Court judgement in the Uber matter. The Supreme Court’s opinion that loss-making pricing can be an indicator of dominance is inconsistent with the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) views, which had cautioned against this circular interpretation of dominance and put the issue to rest. The author submits that conflicting interpretations such as these erode the certainty of the law. Competition laws can be flexible but not uncertain or unpredictable. The author identifies areas of concern in digital platforms that are yet unresolved and need to be addressed urgently by guidelines/amendments before the law on this issue becomes incoherent.

The Goals and Uses of Competition Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
David J. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Economic Freedom ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Law

All competition laws have goals, and these goals direct decisions about what the law is and how it should be enforced. Some goals are set out in statutes; others are set by competition law institutions and courts (these are usually consistent with the formal statutory goals, but not always) formal government goals. In order to understand a specific competition law regime, it is necessary to identify the goals that shape them. Some goals are economic. These include efficiency, consumer welfare, and economic development. Other goals include fairness, privacy, and economic freedom. This chapter identifies each of these goals, probes the reasons for them, traces relationships among them, and follows some of their consequences. A key question here is: What factors determine how much influence stated goals will have on the decisions of institutions? Some institutions and individuals pursue goals that are not stated, but rather serve their own interests (e.g., corruption). The chapter refers to these goals, their origins, and their influence.

9. Monopolies and the abuse of market power

2021 ◽  
pp. 88-105
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Monopoly Power ◽  
Predatory Pricing ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Bargaining Position ◽  
The Us ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Power Studies

‘Monopolies and the abuse of market power’ studies monopolies and the abuse of market power. The first step in applying competition law to misuse of market power is the identification of such power. How powerful should you be to be deemed to have market power that could trigger antitrust intervention? Many jurisdictions will use the benchmark of ‘dominant position’, some will use ‘monopoly power’ or ‘monopolization’, while others may focus on the presence of ‘superior bargaining position’. There is a difference in approach between the US and EU competition laws which can be seen through several categories of abuse and monopolization, including predatory pricing, excessive pricing, and refusal to supply or license.

scholarly journals A Plea for Legal Peace

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-117
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Public ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The North ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis chapter advocates legal peace between Germany and Italy as the most sensible and appropriate way to deal with the aftermath of Sentenza 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court and its declaration of the unconstitutionality of the 2012 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities. This plea does not only arise from frustration with the current impasse but also from the suspicion that the public good of legal peace has never seriously been canvassed by the Italian and German governments. Section II takes stock of the legal developments relating to the dispute between Germany and Italy since Sentenza 238/2014 was delivered. It especially focuses on the attitudes of the governments concerned, both in the context of the ongoing proceedings before Italian courts and elsewhere. It finds such attitudes opaque and unduly dismissive of the necessity to devise legal peace in the interest of the victims and of the integrity of international law. Section III highlights how the behaviour of the governments so far was at odds with the successful outcome of other intergovernmental negotiations concerning reparations for crimes committed during World War II (WWII), a process which has not been entirely finalized, as evidenced by the 2014 Agreement between the US and France on compensation for the French railroad deportees who were excluded from prior French reparation programmes. The Agreement between the US and France and all previous similar arrangements were concluded under mounting pressure of litigation before domestic courts against those states (and/or their companies) that were responsible for unredressed WWII crimes, thus a situation resembling the current state of the dispute between Germany and Italy. It is telling that litigation ended when the courts took cognizance of the stipulation of intergovernmental agreements establishing fair mechanisms for compensating the plaintiffs and victims of the relevant crimes. Such practice, therefore, is essentially in line with the proposition that state immunity (for human rights violations) is essentially conditional on effective alternative remedies for the victims. This and other controversial aspects related to the law of state immunity—such as the nature of state immunity, the North American remedies against immunity for state sponsors of terrorism, and the persistent dynamism of pertinent practice—are revisited in section IV. The purpose is to suggest that certainty about the law of international immunities, as allegedly flowing from the 2012 ICJ Judgment, is more apparent than real and that this consideration should a fortiori urge the realization of legal peace in the German–Italian affair.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document