Comparative Antitrust Federalism: Review of Cengiz, Antitrust Federalism in the EU and the US

Herbert Hovenkamp
{"title":"Comparative Antitrust Federalism: Review of Cengiz, Antitrust Federalism in the EU and the US","authors":"Herbert Hovenkamp","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2070079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This brief essay reviews Firat Cengiz’s book “Federalism in the EU and the US” (2012), which compares the role of federalism in the competition law of the European Union and the United States. Both of these systems are “federal,” of course, because both have individual nation-states (Europe) or states (US) with their own individual competition provisions, but also an overarching competition law that applies to the entire group. This requires a certain amount of cooperation with respect to both territorial reach and substantive coverage. Cengiz distinguishes among “markets,” “hierarchies,” and “networks” as forms of federalism. Markets are the least centralized and have more episodic, or ad hoc, control. As a result they are more prone to policy “races” among sovereigns in the system. Cengiz concludes that the EU and US systems are similar in that both begin with a set of system-wide policies that are broad and strong, with internal unification as a primary objective. Where they tend to differ is in areas governing conflicts between the laws at the different levels. Here, the US system is more structured and hierarchical, while the EU system tends to rely more on cooperation.","PeriodicalId":431712,"journal":{"name":"University of Iowa College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Iowa College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2070079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This brief essay reviews Firat Cengiz’s book “Federalism in the EU and the US” (2012), which compares the role of federalism in the competition law of the European Union and the United States. Both of these systems are “federal,” of course, because both have individual nation-states (Europe) or states (US) with their own individual competition provisions, but also an overarching competition law that applies to the entire group. This requires a certain amount of cooperation with respect to both territorial reach and substantive coverage. Cengiz distinguishes among “markets,” “hierarchies,” and “networks” as forms of federalism. Markets are the least centralized and have more episodic, or ad hoc, control. As a result they are more prone to policy “races” among sovereigns in the system. Cengiz concludes that the EU and US systems are similar in that both begin with a set of system-wide policies that are broad and strong, with internal unification as a primary objective. Where they tend to differ is in areas governing conflicts between the laws at the different levels. Here, the US system is more structured and hierarchical, while the EU system tends to rely more on cooperation.
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
比较反垄断联邦制:对根吉兹、欧盟和美国反垄断联邦制的评析
这篇简短的文章回顾了Firat Cengiz的书《联邦制在欧盟和美国》(2012),比较了联邦制在欧盟和美国竞争法中的作用。当然,这两个体系都是“联邦制的”,因为它们都有各自的民族国家(欧洲)或州(美国),有各自的竞争规定,但也有适用于整个集团的总体竞争法。这需要在领土覆盖和实质性覆盖方面进行一定程度的合作。坚吉兹将“市场”、“等级制度”和“网络”作为联邦制的形式加以区分。市场是最不集中的,有更多的偶发或特别的控制。因此,它们更容易在体系内的主权国家之间进行政策“竞赛”。Cengiz总结道,欧盟和美国体系的相似之处在于,它们都以一套广泛而有力的全系统政策为开端,以内部统一为主要目标。它们的不同之处在于管理不同层次法律之间冲突的领域。在这方面,美国的体系更加结构化和等级化,而欧盟的体系往往更依赖于合作。
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
The Independent Board as Shield The Malleability of Patent Rights Disuniformity Institutional Advantage in Competition and Innovation Policy Innovation and Competition Policy, Ch. 9 (2d ed): The Innovation Commons
×
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