The Case for International Antitrust

Andrew T. Guzman
{"title":"The Case for International Antitrust","authors":"Andrew T. Guzman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.412300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Competition policy is made at the national level. A great deal of the business activity that it seeks to regulate takes place at the international level. It is universally accepted that some level of international cooperation is necessary to make regulation effective under these conditions. There is, however, a considerable diversity of views on the question of how much cooperation is appropriate. The presence of international activity distorts competition policy in at least two ways. First, it causes the preferred domestic policies of states to diverge from what they would be in the absence of such activity. States that are net exporters of goods sold in imperfectly competitive markets have an incentive to weaken their antitrust rules and states that are net importers of such goods have reason to tighten theirs. Second, the choice of law rules adopted to establish the jurisdictional reach of domestic law create an additional divergence between the substantive laws actually chosen and those that would be chosen by a closed economy. States that choose to limit their laws to activities that take place within their territory are better off if they also weaken their substantive laws. States that extend the reach of their laws generate overlapping jurisdiction and force firms to run a gauntlet of legal rules that includes the strictest elements of each state's laws, leading to a de facto regulatory standard that is stricter than that of any single state. This chapter explains why these problems cannot be resolved through the sort of low levels of cooperation that dominate current international antitrust efforts. Information sharing in particular cannot address the distortions to competition policy generated by cross-border business. Choice of law strategies can improve the regulatory framework, but can only partially address the problem and even this would require a dramatic change to existing policies. What is required, then, is a deeper form of cooperation on the subject of substantive laws or international standards. Though cooperation of this sort is difficult to achieve, there is no other way to address the policy distortions created when national authorities try to regulate international competition.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.412300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

Competition policy is made at the national level. A great deal of the business activity that it seeks to regulate takes place at the international level. It is universally accepted that some level of international cooperation is necessary to make regulation effective under these conditions. There is, however, a considerable diversity of views on the question of how much cooperation is appropriate. The presence of international activity distorts competition policy in at least two ways. First, it causes the preferred domestic policies of states to diverge from what they would be in the absence of such activity. States that are net exporters of goods sold in imperfectly competitive markets have an incentive to weaken their antitrust rules and states that are net importers of such goods have reason to tighten theirs. Second, the choice of law rules adopted to establish the jurisdictional reach of domestic law create an additional divergence between the substantive laws actually chosen and those that would be chosen by a closed economy. States that choose to limit their laws to activities that take place within their territory are better off if they also weaken their substantive laws. States that extend the reach of their laws generate overlapping jurisdiction and force firms to run a gauntlet of legal rules that includes the strictest elements of each state's laws, leading to a de facto regulatory standard that is stricter than that of any single state. This chapter explains why these problems cannot be resolved through the sort of low levels of cooperation that dominate current international antitrust efforts. Information sharing in particular cannot address the distortions to competition policy generated by cross-border business. Choice of law strategies can improve the regulatory framework, but can only partially address the problem and even this would require a dramatic change to existing policies. What is required, then, is a deeper form of cooperation on the subject of substantive laws or international standards. Though cooperation of this sort is difficult to achieve, there is no other way to address the policy distortions created when national authorities try to regulate international competition.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际反托拉斯案
竞争政策是在国家层面制定的。它试图监管的许多商业活动都是在国际一级进行的。人们普遍认为,在这些条件下,需要某种程度的国际合作才能使监管有效。然而,对于多少合作是适当的问题,有相当不同的看法。国际活动的存在至少在两个方面扭曲了竞争政策。首先,它会导致各国偏好的国内政策偏离在没有此类活动的情况下的政策。在不完全竞争市场上销售商品的净出口国有削弱其反垄断规定的动机,而此类商品的净进口国有理由收紧其反垄断规定。第二,为确立国内法的管辖范围而采用的法律选择规则在实际选择的实体法和封闭经济体将选择的实体法之间造成了额外的分歧。选择将其法律限制在其领土内发生的活动的国家如果也削弱其实体法,则会更好。各州扩大其法律范围会产生重叠的管辖范围,并迫使公司遵守一系列法律规则,其中包括各州法律中最严格的部分,导致事实上的监管标准比任何一个州都要严格。本章解释了为什么这些问题不能通过主导当前国际反垄断努力的那种低水平合作来解决。信息共享尤其无法解决跨境业务对竞争政策造成的扭曲。法律策略的选择可以改善监管框架,但只能部分解决问题,即使这样也需要对现有政策进行重大改变。因此,所需要的是在实体法或国际标准问题上进行更深层次的合作。虽然这种合作很难实现,但没有其他办法可以解决国家当局试图管制国际竞争时造成的政策扭曲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maritime Interdiction of North Korean Ships under UN Sanctions The South China Sea as a Challenge to International Law and to International Legal Scholarship Back in the Game: International Humanitarian Lawmaking by States International Law and Corporate Participation in Times of Armed Conflict Reversing the Two Wrong Turns in the Economic Analysis of International Law: A Club Goods Theory of Treaty Membership & European Integration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1