论美国反垄断法本身违法与合理原则及其借鉴

发布时间：2018-05-07 16:32

本文选题：反垄断法 + 本身违法原则　；参考：《湘潭大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：本身违法原则与合理原则是美国在长期的反垄断司法实践中发展起来的两项重要原则。在我国学者们将这两项原则统称为反垄断法的违法确认原则。反垄断法作为规范市场竞争的一项重要的法律被西方人称作为“经济宪法”，然而反垄断法具有与生俱来的不确定性，主要表现在三个方面：语言文字本身的不确定性，垄断本身的不确定性以及反垄断价值目标的不确定性。反垄断法固有的不确定性决定了反垄断法解释活动对于反垄断法实施过程的重要性。在谢尔曼法实施的最初阶段，过于简单的法律条文和复杂的经济活动让谢尔曼法几乎不具有任何实践指导性和可操作性，在这样的背景下，法院启用了合理原则对案件进行分析，以避免对“贸易限制”做出机械的解释。然而，合理原则在适用过程中着重考察行为目的及后果的特点让司法审查的成本过高，，加之在长期的司法实践中，法院发现某类行为通过详细审查后必然是违法的，因此法院将这一类行为归为本身违法行为的类别。事实上在美国的反垄断案件中对于合理原则和本身违法原则的适用并非一个清晰的，泾渭分明的状态。它是在不断变化发展的。现在，只有一些与价格紧密相关的垄断协议被认为是必然的本身违法的。一项不能被归类为本身违法的活动会依照合理原则来审查，但是合理原则复杂的经济学分析方法和较高的审理成本让法院不得不对它进行创新，由此产生了简明的合理原则。美国最高法院在近期审理案件时做出的结论是：本身违法与合理原则之间没有明显的界限，在衡量行为的合理性时，更像是在使用一把“滑尺”。我国的《反垄断法》于2008年正式施行，反垄断立法及司法经验的缺乏使得我国反垄断法在实施过程中充满了阻碍。司法审查反垄断案件的经验及能力不足。此外，随着经济全球化的发展，国内外市场竞争更加激烈，我国提高市场经济效率的任务更加紧迫。因此，在现阶段需要建立以本身违法原则为主，合理原则为辅的反垄断法违法确认原则适用体系，完善本身违法原则适用的行为类别，探索我国的反垄断法简明合理原则的具体标准。
[Abstract]:The principle of illegality and the principle of reasonableness are two important principles developed in the long-term anti-monopoly judicial practice in the United States. In our country, scholars refer to these two principles as the illegal confirmation principle of anti-monopoly law. As an important law to regulate market competition, anti-monopoly law is regarded by the West as "economic constitution". However, anti-monopoly law has inherent uncertainty, which is mainly manifested in three aspects: the uncertainty of language itself. The uncertainty of monopoly itself and the uncertainty of antitrust value goal. The inherent uncertainty of the anti-monopoly law determines the importance of the interpretation of the anti-monopoly law to the implementation process of the anti-monopoly law. In the early stages of Sherman's implementation, too simple legal provisions and complex economic activities made the Sherman law almost no practical guidance and maneuverability, in this context, The court used the principle of reasonableness to analyse the case to avoid mechanical interpretation of trade restrictions. However, in the course of application, the principle of reasonableness focuses on the characteristics of the purpose and consequences of the conduct, which makes the cost of judicial review too high. In addition, in the long term judicial practice, the court finds that certain types of acts must be illegal after a detailed examination. The Court therefore classified this type of act as an offence of its own. In fact, the application of the principle of reasonableness and the principle of illegality in American antitrust cases is not a clear and distinct state. It is constantly changing and developing. Now, only a few monopoly agreements closely related to prices are deemed to be inherently illegal. An activity which cannot be classified as illegal by itself will be examined according to the principle of reasonableness, but the complex economic analysis method of reasonable principle and the high trial cost make the court have to innovate on it, thus producing the concise principle of reasonableness. In its recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that there was no clear line between its own illegality and the principle of reasonableness, and that it was more likely to use a "slide rule" to measure the reasonableness of the act. The Anti-monopoly Law of our country was put into effect in 2008. The lack of anti-monopoly legislation and judicial experience makes the implementation of anti-monopoly law full of obstacles. Lack of experience and ability in judicial review of antitrust cases. In addition, with the development of economic globalization, the market competition at home and abroad is more intense, and the task of improving the efficiency of market economy in China is more urgent. Therefore, at this stage, it is necessary to establish the applicable system of the principle of illegal confirmation of anti-monopoly law, which is mainly based on the principle of violation of the law itself and supplemented by the principle of reasonableness, so as to perfect the type of behavior applicable to the principle. To explore the concrete standards of the concise and reasonable principle of the anti-monopoly law in our country.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29

【参考文献】