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.

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.

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.

Use of Investor–state against China’s Enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 489-503
Author(s):  
Sungjin Kang
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Since China introduced the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008, China achieved an impressive competition law enforcement field record. However, lawyers and scholars still argue that Chinese competition authorities applied AML disproportionately against foreign companies. Despite the possibility of judicial reviews, many foreign companies still have reservation on the independent of judiciary of China, and they are still reluctant to appeal the decisions before the Chinese courts. In addition, there are some incidents where Chinese competition authorities used the AML to promote its own industrial policy. In this regard, foreign companies are not 100 per cent sure to trust the decisions of the Chinese competition authorities that they apply the AML fairly to safeguard the fair competition between Chinese companies and foreign companies. In this regard, foreign investors are trying to find a system to make sure that they are subject to ‘fair and equitable’ treatment or at least to ‘national treatment’ under the trade agreements between China and its major trading partners. The author is of the view that it is time for the foreign investors in China to consider the ISDS as an option to challenge procedural aspects of the Chinese competition law enforcements. By bringing an AML cases before the ISDS, foreign investors may induce Chinese competition authorities to comply with the due process and fair application of the competition laws, thus safeguarding transparency and predictability of the competition law enforcement of China.

12. The international dimension of competition law

2021 ◽  
pp. 511-535
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
International Institutions ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Harmful Effect ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
International Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
International Dimension ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Us

This chapter explores the international dimension of competition law from two perspectives. It begins by describing the growth of international institutions involved in the development of competition law and policy, with particular reference to the International Competition Network (the ‘ICN’), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (the ‘OECD’) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (‘UNCTAD’). It then looks at a more technical issue, which is the extent to which a sovereign state (or the European Union) can apply its competition law extraterritorially to conduct beyond its borders that has a harmful effect within it: this will briefly be considered from a theoretical perspective, after which the positions in the US, EU and UK will be examined in turn. The chapter concludes by briefly examining the extent to which a state may wish to block the application of a foreign competition law to its businesses.

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.

3. The goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws

2021 ◽  
pp. 28-37
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Competitive Process ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Eu

‘The goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws’ evaluates the goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws. Competition laws seek to protect the competitive process in the marketplace from companies that seek to distort it. By safeguarding free and fair markets, competition laws promote consumer welfare as well as efficiencies in the marketplace. While key competition law principles are similar across the world, competition laws are not internationally uniform, but are instead customized by each jurisdiction. A comparison can be made between US Federal Antitrust Law and the EU competition law. There are also other jurisdictions that apply competition laws, including China, Japan, and South Korea.

Competition Law and Antitrust

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Law Firms ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
European Competition Law

The more than 100 competition/antitrust laws around the world play major roles both at home and in other countries. They influence each other in ways that affect decisions everywhere. The book is a new kind of guide that makes this world accessible to anyone, anywhere. It provides a new set of tools to organize the vast amount of data about competition laws in ways that reveal what is happening and what is driving decisions. Using a global perspective, it defines competition law in a way that is applicable to all competition law systems and then examines competition law goals, methods, and institutions and the forces that drive them. It devotes an entire chapter each to US antitrust law and European competition law as well as sections for East Asian, Latin American, and developing country competition law patterns. It shows how competition law regimes relate to each other as parts of a global system with its own patterns and dynamics. Transnational public and private institutions, including law firms, management and economic consultancy firms, accounting firms, and others are part of this system. By combining clear analysis of the elements of individual regimes with the transborder forces that influence them, it gives lawyers, students, officials, and scholars the tools they need to understand and operate in this complex and often misunderstood world.

Dominant Firm Unilateral Conduct: Monopolization and Abuse of Dominance

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-74
Author(s):  
David J. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Relevant Market ◽  
Dominant Firm ◽  
Actual Treatment ◽  
Sufficient Power ◽  
The Us ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
Global Patterns ◽  
Firm Conduct ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance

A firm acting alone—that is, unilaterally—can also harm competition. If it has sufficient influence on a market, it can exclude rivals or limit their capacity to compete. Competition law regimes typically contain provisions prohibiting such conduct. Most use the concept of abuse of dominance to identify and combat it, but a few, including the US, use the term “monopolization” for this purpose. This component of competition law is often controversial and politically sensitive, and globalization increases this tension. This chapter identifies the issues in applying competition law to single firm conduct and reveals how regimes decide whether to pursue it. A single firm can harm competition only if it has sufficient power to influence a particular market, so the chapter looks at how regimes assess this power, how they define the relevant market, and which kinds of conduct constitute a competition law violation. Although most competition laws target this type of conduct, variations in actual treatment are great. The Guide outlines the global patterns and the factors that lead to them.

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document