On the Scope of Antitrust Law in South Korea, the EU and the US

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-91
Author(s):  
J.W. Han ◽  
C. Buts ◽  
T. Joris
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

5. The legal framework

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi
Keyword(s):  
Mergers And Acquisitions ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Monopoly Power ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Restraint Of Trade ◽  
The Eu

‘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.

scholarly journals A Comparative Analysis of the Activities of “5+1” Formats’ Launched in Central Asia with Participation of the US, Republic of Korea, Japan, and the EU

2017 ◽  
pp. 29-41
Author(s):  
E. Alekseenkova
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Political Development ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Central Asia as a region has become a subject of scientific research not so long ago. Complicated historic background that includes the long period of being a part of another states influenced rather seriously the feeling of subjectivity of the countries of the region. As a result, after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 a difficult period commenced when the countries of the region started to construct their own political and economic relations with foreign counterparts including their neighbors, regional and global powers. During this more then 25-years long period of independence countries of Central Asia have accumulated rich experience of interaction with the US, China, Russia, the EU, Japan, South Korea and other states interested in the region in terms of their own national interests.Besides bilateral relations with Central Asian states some of these countries are trying now to develop multilateral formats of interaction with the region. Divergent national interests, peculiarities of socioeconomic and political development of Central Asian states inevitably influence their relations with other countries and the efficiency of multilateral formats. “5+1” dialogues with Central Asian states are being developed by the US, the EU, Japan and South Korea. These formats differ in their goals, mechanisms, areas of cooperation and give participants possibilities to realize different national interests.The paper presents an analysis of these formats aiming to reveal the principal interested actors, preliminary results and possibilities for further development. The analysis could be helpful for strategic planning of Russia’s approaches to relation with Central Asian states.

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.

From Liability Trap to the World’s Safest Harbour: Lessons from China, India, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia

2020 ◽  
pp. 250-276
Author(s):  
Kyung-Sin Park
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Safe Harbour ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intermediary Liability ◽  
Draft Regulation ◽  
Safe Harbours ◽  
The Eu

This chapter compares the intermediary liability rules of six major Asian countries and highlights how there seems to be confusion on their nature, although the commentators of all countries describe their respective rules as ‘safe harbours’ resembling section 512 of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The chapter describes how China and South Korea inadvertently created a liability-imposing rule instead of a liability-exempting rule. Further, the chapter reviews India and Japan’s statutes that set out liability-exempting regimes closely resembling the EU e-Commerce Directive. India’s 2011 Intermediary Guidelines generate a strong cloud of obligations on intermediaries that threatens to convert the whole system into a liability-imposing one. However, that threat had an impact on the jurisprudence with the 2013 Shreya Singhal decision making the Indian system one of the world’s safest harbours. This chapter further discusses the importance of distinguishing between a liability-imposing rule and a liability-exempting one in the light of other Asian examples. Indonesia’s safe harbour draft regulation announced in December 2016 seems to move towards the dangerous model of both China and South Korea. Malaysia’s copyright notice and takedown appears to follow the US model closely but has a structure that allows the same misunderstanding made by South Korean regulators.

Sanctions of the USA and the Policy of Bank of Russia:double Blow to the National Economy

2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Capital Flight ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Monetary Authorities ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Simultaneous Adoption ◽  
The Eu

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.

Russian Policy of Agriculture Support and the Necessity of Its Modification after WTO Accession

2012 ◽  
pp. 132-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Uzun
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
Agricultural Production ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Wto Accession ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Agriculture Support

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document