4. International issues and the globalization of competition law

Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino

This chapter draws a distinction between public, institutional enforcement of competition law, which may raise issues of public international law, and private actions before national courts. The coexistence of competition law regimes around the world means that companies that trade internationally may find themselves subject to the law of a ‘foreign’ state. While in the US the effects doctrine is relied on to assert jurisdiction, in the EU there has been no explicit adoption of the effects doctrine. Instead, the EU relies upon an ‘implementation’ doctrine. Under principles of comity a state may recognize the interests of another state when applying its competition law. Multilateral initiatives have been taken to try to resolve difficulties, but there is at present no single global agreement on competition law.

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca ◽  
Javier Carrascosa González

Resumen: Este trabajo muestra cómo el TJUE y los tribunales nacionales de los Estados miem­bros de la UE aplican los Reglamento Bruselas I-bis y Roma II a las acciones de daños por infracción del Derecho antitrust europeo. Este trabajo subraya algunas de las dificultades que está encontrado la aplicación privada del Derecho de la competencia: la frecuente inoperancia de los foros de sumisión, la peculiar interpretación del forum delicti commissi, las sorpresas derivadas del forum connexitatis y las soluciones contrapuestas a las cuestiones de legitimación procesal activa y pasiva (como, por ejemplo, la responsabilidad de la sociedad matriz por el comportamiento de sus filiales).Palabras clave: acciones para la indemnización de daños anticompetitivos, acciones autónomas, acciones de seguimiento, acciones declarativas negativas, acciones Torpedo, competencia judicial inter­nacional, daños, defensa basada en la repercusión de sobrecostes, Derecho antitrust, Derecho aplicable, Derecho europeo de la competencia, efecto paraguas, passing-on, Unión Europea.Abstract: This essay shows how the CJEU and the national courts of the EU Member States apply the Brussels I-bis and Rome II Regulations to actions for damages for infringement of European anti­trust law. This paper highlights some of the difficulties encountered in the private application of Euro­pean competition law: the frequent inoperativeness of the submission forums, the peculiar interpretation of the forum delicti commissi, the surprises derived from the forum connexitatis and the opposing solu­tions to the issues of active and passive legal standing (as, for example, the responsibility of the parent company for the behavior of its subsidiaries).Keywords: Antitrust damages actions, Stand-alone actions, Follow-on actions, negative declara­tory actions, Torpedo actions, Jurisdiction, Damages (Torts), passing-on defence, Antitrust Law, Appli­cable Law, European Competition Law, umbrella effect, European Union.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenio Hoss

In an increasingly harmonized global patent landscape, few issues still distinguish the US patent system as much as its strict–and often criticized–duty of candor and its inequitable conduct doctrine. The EPO and most other countries around the world impose less burdensome disclosure duties upon patent applicants. What is there to learn from the experience in the US? Have these tools resulted in any benefit worth considering? Yet regardless of the disclosure duties imposed upon patent applicants, a deceptive conduct before the Patent Office could lead to unwarranted exclusive rights and have a negative impact on competition. Should antitrust law intervene? Is it a case of sham litigation? This work attempts to answer those questions through a comparative analysis, examining the law and case law in the US and in the EU from both a patent and a competition law perspective and seeking a workable theory of harm.


2012 ◽  
pp. 132-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Uzun

The article deals with the features of the Russian policy of agriculture support in comparison with the EU and the US policies. Comparative analysis is held considering the scales and levels of collective agriculture support, sources of supporting means, levels and mechanisms of support of agricultural production manufacturers, its consumers, agrarian infrastructure establishments, manufacturers and consumers of each of the principal types of agriculture production. The author makes an attempt to estimate the consequences of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization based on a hypothesis that this will result in unification of the manufacturers and consumers’ protection levels in Russia with the countries that have long been WTO members.


2002 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-81 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractDuring the 1990s and beyond, the European Union (EU) and Chile have been engaged in a controversy over highly migratory swordfish stocks in the South Pacific. Following disputes over Cod, Turbot, and Tuna, the Swordfish Case reveals outstanding problems in the international law of fisheries. The Swordfish Case attracts further attention, as it involves proceedings both at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and at the World Trade Organisation, with potentially inconsistent decisions. At the WTO, the EU's assertion of a right to access Chilean ports on the grounds of GATT 1994 freedom of transit provisions bears an impact on the use of ports in countries around the world. At the ITLOS Chamber, the long-standing conflict between distant water fishing nations and coastal states is once again to the fore. Although the parties to the dispute arrived at a provisional agreement, setting out to establish a scientific fisheries program and a conservation framework, the issues involved in the swordfish controversy highlight the tensions among the international maritime, economic, and environmental regimes. The article offers an overall account of the core elements of the swordfish dispute.


2004 ◽  
Vol 187 ◽  
pp. 8-35

The two key factors underlying our forecast this quarter are the continued depreciation of the US$, which is about 4½ per cent weaker in effective terms than in October and 18 per cent below its recent peak in early 2002, and the emergence of what appears to be a sustainable recovery in Japan. Our projections for world growth this year incorporate significant upward revisions for the world's two largest economies, the US and Japan, while the outlook for the EU and Canada remains largely unchanged, although they also gain modest support from stronger demand in the US and Asia.


2015 ◽  
pp. 289-306
Author(s):  
Tijana Surlan

Recognition is an instrument of the public international law founded in the classical international law. Still, it preserves its main characteristics formed in the period when states dominated as the only legal persons in international community. Nevertheless, the instrument of recognition is today as vibrant as ever. As long as it does not have a uniform legal definition and means of application, it leaves room to be applied to very specific cases. In this paper, the instrument of recognition is elaborated from two aspects - theoretical and practical. First (theoretical) part of the paper presents main characteristics of the notion of recognition, as presented in main international law theories - declaratory and constitutive theory. Other part of the paper is focused on the recognition in the case of Kosovo. Within this part, main constitutive elements of state are elaborated, with special attention to Kosovo as self-proclaimed state. Conclusion is that Kosovo does not fulfill main constitutive elements of state. It is not an independent and sovereign state. It is in the status of internationalized entity, with four international missions on the field with competencies in the major fields of state authority - police, judiciary system, prosecution system, army, human rights, etc. Main normative framework for the status of Kosovo is still the UN Resolution 1244. It is also the legal ground for international missions, confirming non-independent status of Kosovo. States that recognized Kosovo despite this deficiency promote the constitutive theory of recognition, while states not recognizing Kosovo promote declaratory theory. Brussels Agreement, signed by representatives of Serbia and Kosovo under the auspices of the EU, has also been elaborated through the notion of recognition - (1) whether it represents recognition; (2) from the perspective of consequences it provokes in relations between Belgrade and Pristina. Official position of Serbian Government is clear - Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state. On the other hand, subject matter of Brussels Agreement creates new means of improvement for Kosovo authorities in the north part of Kosovo. Thus, Serbian position regarding the recognition is twofold - it does not recognize Kosovo in foro externo, and it completes its competences in foro domestico. What has been underlined through the paper and confirmed in the conclusion is that there is not a recognition which has the power to create a state and there is not a non-recognition which has the power to annul a state.


Author(s):  
Daniel-Ştefan Paraschiv

AbstractThe maritime zones recognized under international laws – are formed from the highseas, with the riches at the bottom of the oceans and seas from this perimeter – which isregulated by international conventions, whose infringement may lead to the application ofsanctions in conformity with the dispositions stipulated, or, in the lack of such dispositions, totaking other measures, such as repression or retaliation, which are considered, in the publicinternational law, as being general sanctions included in the category of countermeasures.At high seas serious acts of a criminal character are also committed, such as: piracy,illicit traffic of narcotics and psychotropic substances, etc., thus all states must cooperate inview of repressing these acts and sanctioning the culprits.


Author(s):  
Al. A. Gromyko

The research is focused on several key problems in the system of international relations influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is shown that the events caused by it and broadly identified as a coronacrisis have a direct impact on the world economic contradictions (pandenomica) and political ones, including the sphere of security. These particular aspects are chosen as the main objects of the research. The author contends that the factor of the pandemic has sharpened the competition between regional and global players and has increased the role of a nation- state. In the conditions of transregional deglobalisation, regionalism and “protectionism 2.0” get stronger under the banners of “strategic vulnerability” and “economic sovereignty”. A further weakening of multilateral international institutions continues. The EU endeavours to secure competitive advantages on the basis of relocalisation, industrial and digital policies and the Green Deal. The article highlights the deterioration in the relations among Russia, the US, the EU and China, the unfolding decoupling between Washington and its European allies, which stimulates the idea of the EU strategic autonomy. An urgent need for the deconfliction in Russia – NATO interaction is stated.


Author(s):  
Sedef Eylemer ◽  
Elif Cemre Besgur

The European Union (EU), United States (US), and China are the main global drivers of the international trade system. However, trade wars between them create tensions in the world. As the world is facing increasing neo-protectionist trade applications of the Trump administration, this chapter analyses whether a greater convergence between China and the EU is possible for protecting multilateralism through two case studies, namely (1) market conditions and discrimination, (2) cybersecurity. In this context, the chapter argues that although the US pressure has led the EU to rapprochement with China, this situation creates a dilemma for the EU in terms of the fears about the problems of alignment with the normative identity of the EU. Whereas the EU aims at regulating the global trade on a normative basis originating from its acquis, China has a more strategic perspective based upon specific relationship context. It is difficult to take a side for the EU due to its different standpoint compared to China in defending the multilateral trading system.


Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi

‘The legal framework’ outlines the key competition provisions currently in the US and EU. Like in most other jurisdictions, EU and US laws include competition provisions that are used to address antitrust violations such as anti-competitive agreements or abuse of monopoly power. They also include laws dealing with proposed mergers and acquisitions. The US Antitrust Law prohibits contracts and agreements between two or more individuals or entities in restraint of trade or commerce. Meanwhile, EU competition law prohibits agreements between ‘undertakings’ that have, as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and affect trade between the EU member states.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document