International Abuses, EU Solutions: Using EU Structures to Address the Challenges of International Antitrust

Morgan Blaschke-Broad
{"title":"International Abuses, EU Solutions: Using EU Structures to Address the Challenges of International Antitrust","authors":"Morgan Blaschke-Broad","doi":"10.54648/leie2022004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern markets are increasingly international, online and unrestricted by geographic borders and territoriality. Competition regulation remains decidedly domestic in nature, restrained by principles of jurisdiction and state sovereignty in a way that multinational business is not. With the rise of online markets and transnational trade, legislators and regulators are increasingly expected to grapple with abuses of dominance which span multiple jurisdictions. However, traditional approaches to state sovereignty and prescriptive jurisdiction present fundamental challenges to the effective implementation of competition policy in these modern markets. In particular, abuses of dominance by international or online firms have the potential to profoundly impact national economies. Yet unlike other competition ills, such as cartels, abuse of dominance is not the subject of widespread international regulatory cooperation or legislative uniformity. Against this background, substantive convergence emerges as a potential solution to jurisdictional clash but, as this article explores, it faces legal, sociopolitical, and practical obstacles that make its success not only unlikely, but not necessarily desirable. While recognising the unique political context of the EU legal system, in particular the role of market integration and its place at the core of policy decisions, this article explores what practical guidance may be found in the EU competition law framework. It explores EU horizontal, administrative measures which could be repurposed in order to bring further predictability and clarity to international jurisdictional issues. It concludes by proposing that EU approaches to case allocation, horizontal best practice standards and peer review may be meaningfully adapted by the international competition law community, in order to alleviate jurisdictional issues in competition regulation.\njurisdiction, antitrust, EU, regulation, international, competition, convergence, cooperation, multinational markets, EU, abuse of dominance","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modern markets are increasingly international, online and unrestricted by geographic borders and territoriality. Competition regulation remains decidedly domestic in nature, restrained by principles of jurisdiction and state sovereignty in a way that multinational business is not. With the rise of online markets and transnational trade, legislators and regulators are increasingly expected to grapple with abuses of dominance which span multiple jurisdictions. However, traditional approaches to state sovereignty and prescriptive jurisdiction present fundamental challenges to the effective implementation of competition policy in these modern markets. In particular, abuses of dominance by international or online firms have the potential to profoundly impact national economies. Yet unlike other competition ills, such as cartels, abuse of dominance is not the subject of widespread international regulatory cooperation or legislative uniformity. Against this background, substantive convergence emerges as a potential solution to jurisdictional clash but, as this article explores, it faces legal, sociopolitical, and practical obstacles that make its success not only unlikely, but not necessarily desirable. While recognising the unique political context of the EU legal system, in particular the role of market integration and its place at the core of policy decisions, this article explores what practical guidance may be found in the EU competition law framework. It explores EU horizontal, administrative measures which could be repurposed in order to bring further predictability and clarity to international jurisdictional issues. It concludes by proposing that EU approaches to case allocation, horizontal best practice standards and peer review may be meaningfully adapted by the international competition law community, in order to alleviate jurisdictional issues in competition regulation. jurisdiction, antitrust, EU, regulation, international, competition, convergence, cooperation, multinational markets, EU, abuse of dominance
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
国际滥用,欧盟解决方案:利用欧盟结构应对国际反垄断的挑战
现代市场越来越国际化,在线化,不受地理边界和地域的限制。从本质上讲,竞争监管仍然是决定性的国内监管,受到管辖权和国家主权原则的约束,而跨国企业则不受这种约束。随着在线市场和跨国贸易的兴起,立法者和监管者越来越需要努力解决跨越多个司法管辖区的滥用主导地位的问题。然而,传统的国家主权和规范性管辖权的方法对在这些现代市场中有效实施竞争政策提出了根本性的挑战。特别是,跨国公司或网络公司滥用主导地位有可能对国民经济产生深远影响。然而,与卡特尔等其他竞争弊病不同,滥用主导地位并不是广泛的国际监管合作或立法统一的主题。在这种背景下,实质性趋同作为司法冲突的潜在解决方案出现了,但正如本文所探讨的,它面临着法律、社会政治和实践方面的障碍,使其成功不仅不太可能,而且不一定是可取的。在认识到欧盟法律体系的独特政治背景,特别是市场一体化的作用及其在政策决策核心中的地位的同时,本文探讨了在欧盟竞争法框架中可能找到的实用指导。它探讨了欧盟的横向行政措施,这些措施可以重新利用,以便为国际管辖权问题带来进一步的可预测性和明确性。最后,本文建议欧盟在案件分配、横向最佳实践标准和同行审查方面的做法可以被国际竞争法团体有意地加以调整,以减轻竞争监管中的管辖权问题。管辖权,反垄断,欧盟,监管,国际,竞争,融合,合作,跨国市场,欧盟,滥用主导地位
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
The EU’s Anti-coercion Instrument: A Return of Unlawful Unilateral Trade Countermeasures in Disguise? Editorial: Investment Protection in an Integrated Europe – The Non-Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Awards as the Ultimate Test Case for Strasbourg’s Deference Doctrines Why Do (High-Income) Countries Wish to Green Their Trade Agreements? The Application of Regulation 452/2019 in Response to Chinese Foreign Direct Investment The ESM Reform and Its Missing Legitimacy in Non-Euro Area Member States
×
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