美国《谢尔曼法》研究

发布时间：2019-06-20 03:11

【摘要】： 美国是最早形成和执行竞争政策的国家,竞争法制完善、影响力巨大。1890年颁布的《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》,奠定了美国反托拉斯法的基础,也是世界第一部现代意义的反垄断法,为后世各国的反垄断立法树立了典范。美国法院各个不同历史时期的《谢尔曼法》判例展现了政治、经济、社会变迁对法律制定与执行的影响以及法律对社会变迁的灵活应对,是反托拉斯法的重要组成部分。美国司法部作为《谢尔曼法》的主要执行者其政策和指南虽不具有法律效力,但有助于形成可操作性的法律标准。20世纪50年代以来,经济理论和分析工具的广泛运用使美国反托拉斯执行获得了强大的技术支持,趋于成熟和理性。2007年8月《中华人民共和国反垄断法》的颁布具有里程碑意义,标志着中国竞争法制的初步完善。中国目前当务之急是制定实施细则、行为指南、司法解释增强《反垄断法》的可操作性,为反垄断执行提供具体指引。反垄断法的有效执行需要执法者、民众对条文背后的立法目的、经济理性、制度功能的了解与认同。研究借鉴美国反托拉斯法的理论与执行经验,对完善中国竞争法制具有重要意义。全文共分六章。第一章美国《谢尔曼法》的诞生。本章通过对《谢尔曼法》诞生的政治经济背景、法律环境、普通法传统的考察,探寻反垄断法产生的根源、性质、特点等各国反垄断法研究的基础性问题,目的是加深对反垄断法理的认识。从根本上说,反托拉斯法在19世纪晚期的出现是对托拉斯及其力量在美国经济中增长的回应。工业化导致的经济结构巨变和经济集中是《谢尔曼法》诞生的社会经济基础。公法和私法在应对垄断问题上的局限性是《谢尔曼法》诞生的法律背景。《谢尔曼法》的诞生是对国家干预私人经济活动必要性的肯定。利益集团压力是《谢尔曼法》诞生的推动因素。法律条文含义和执行目标的模糊性、欠缺可操作性是《谢尔曼法》的特点。对垄断的认识分歧导致了《谢尔曼法》条款含义的模糊性。由于英美法系具有通过判例发展法律的传统,模糊性语言反而增加了其包容性。《谢尔曼法》与限制贸易的普通法在目的、法律后果、理论基础等方面都有不同,因而并非普通法的成文化。第二章《谢尔曼法》的主要内容与早期执行特点。本章对《谢尔曼法》的主要内容、特点以及形成本身违法原则和合理原则的早期案例进行了回顾,研究成文法和判例法在美国反托拉斯法形成中的作用,以及美国如何通过它们的互动机制缓和法律确定性与灵活性的对立。《谢尔曼法》的实体性规定是Sectionl和Section2。Sectionl禁止卡特尔行为,Section2禁止垄断化行为。语词极为概括,基本范畴、适用范围、具体违法性标准等重要问题并未明确规定。早期的《谢尔曼法》执行遭遇到不少阻力。契约自由至上的影响、成文法含义的模糊、法律责任轻微是重要原因。伴随着逐渐成长的判例法,《谢尔曼法》对阻却垄断起到了重要作用。判例法中发展起来的本身违法原则和合理原则也成为各国反垄断法共同的分析基础。第三章《谢尔曼法》的经济理性。本章探究法律经济分析在反垄断执行中的作用与局限、垄断与竞争的经济解释、经济分析与法律分析的关系,并通过判例分析对影响美国《谢尔曼法》执行的产业组织理论进行了梳理,目的是彰显反垄断经济分析的重要性,澄清对法律经济分析的偏见与误解。成本-收益基础上的经济分析异于法律传统上倚重的价值分析和逻辑推演,为法律运行-效果的分析提供了强有力的工具,增强了反垄断分析的说服力。但是经济学的解释力不是无限的,经济分析不能替代法律分析。第四章《谢尔曼法》Section2执行研究。Section2是《谢尔曼法》最主要实体性规范之一。本章从历史演进、美国两大执行机构当前执行的要点、美国和欧盟拒绝交易滥用规制的对比三个视角对section2的垄断化分析框架进行了较为深入的研究,探寻建立客观、明确、可操作性的反垄断法律标准的一般规律。美国的垄断化判断标准是一个不断发展、修正的过程,早期曾饱受反对经济集中强调小企业价值的民粹主义的影响,垄断状态近乎本身违法,而20世纪70年代以后对垄断的理解回归经济学趋于理性,认为垄断是实质持久的市场势力,本身不违法,垄断化谴责的是在相关市场拥有垄断力并且以不正当的方法有意取得维持这种垄断力的行为。司法部较之法院对经济分析的接受和对可操作法律标准的探索更为积极,通过颁布执行指南影响守法和执行。美国法院把鼓励竞争、经济效率放在首位,对拒绝交易一般持不干预立场,认为即便是垄断者一般也享有拒绝交易权,对于杠杆作用、关键设施原则的适用极为谨慎,对拒绝交易违法采取有利于垄断者的证明标准。欧盟竞争法在保护竞争和消费者福利最大化外还担负实现欧洲一体化的目标,因此对垄断者的拒绝交易权限制较多,拒绝交易滥用的门槛较低。这是造成美国和欧盟执行机构对于“欧盟微软案”意见分歧的原因。第五章《谢尔曼法》制定与执行中的意识形态博弈。本章对进化论和目的论两种对立的意识形态的分歧进行了归纳,探究它们在美国反托拉斯法演进的各个历史阶段对法院的《谢尔曼法》解释的深刻影响。英美法中司法者被赋予发展法律的重任和较大的自由裁量权,判决往往带有法官个人意识形态的鲜明烙印,但同时法官又要尊重本身的职业传统受先例约束,两种反向的力量相互制衡共同维护法律确定性与灵活性的统一。第六章本文主要结论。本章对前五章的研究结论进行了归纳总结,打破条块分割进行了横向沟通。不再局限于美国《谢尔曼法》,而是对反垄断法上具有普遍性的问题进行了思考。竞争理论的作用是为竞争政策提供可选择模式,竞争法是竞争政策组成部分。竞争政策在竞争法缺失、不明确时可为市场主体提供较为确定的指引。反垄断执行应当确立经济目标优先,但是不能排除非经济目标的考量。对国家和市场一般关系的认识是影响反垄断执行政策的决定性因素。市场经济运行的调节需要有形之手与无形之手相结合,经济自由和国家干预的限度需要经常调整,重要的是建立随经济社会发展动态调整的反应机制。法律经济分析对于各国反垄断执行具有普遍性工具价值。判例法和成文法相互配合能够实现渐进式的法律发展。
[Abstract]:The United States is the first to form and implement the competition policy, the competition law is perfect, the influence is great. In 1890, the "Sherman anti-trust law", which laid the foundation of the anti-trust law of the United States, is also the first modern-meaning anti-monopoly law of the world, For later generations, the anti-monopoly legislation has set a model. The Case of the various historical periods of the United States Court shows the influence of the political, economic and social changes on the formulation and execution of the law and the flexible response of the law to the social change, which is an important part of the anti-trust law. The United States Department of Justice, as the main performer of the the birth The limitation of public law and private law in dealing with monopoly is The legal background of the birth is the birth of the Sherman Act, which is to intervene in the private economy of the country. The affirmation of the necessity of action. The pressure of interest groups is the The driving factor of the birth, the meaning of the legal provisions and the fuzziness of the execution target, the lack of operability is <. The characteristics of the Ermanian Law. The understanding of the monopoly has led to the The fuzziness of the meaning of the law. Because the common law system has the tradition of developing the law through the case, the fuzziness language instead It's more inclusive. and the common law that limits trade are different in terms of purpose, legal consequences, and theoretical basis, and thus are not The culture of common law. This chapter reviews the main contents and features of the The execution of a lot of resistance. The effect of the freedom of the contract, the blurring of the meaning of the written law, The legal liability is a minor reason. With the gradual development of the case law, the is The monopoly of resistance has played an important role, and the principle of the law and the reasonable principle of the development in case law also become a country. The common analysis basis of anti-monopoly law. The third chapter is the economic reason of the Sherman Law. This chapter explores the role and limitation of the legal economic analysis in the anti-monopoly execution, the economic interpretation of the monopoly and the competition, the relationship between the economic analysis and the legal analysis, and the influence of the American The theory of the industrial organization to be carried out is to show the importance of the anti-monopoly economic analysis. Clarifying the bias and misunderstanding of the legal economic analysis. The economic analysis on the basis of the cost-income is different from the value analysis and the logical deduction on the legal tradition, and provides a powerful analysis for the legal operation-effect analysis. The tool, which enhances the persuasion of the anti-monopoly analysis, is not an explanation of economics. The economic analysis can't replace the legal analysis. chapter Section2. Sectio N2 is one of the most important physical specifications of the The reason for disagreement. Chapter five is the ideological game in the development and implementation of the Sherman Act. The differences between the two opposing ideologies of the theory of evolution and teleology are summed up in this chapter to explore the evolution of the anti-trust law in the United States. The different historical stages have a profound influence on the Court's interpretation. In the common law, the judicial person is given the important task of developing the law and the great discretion, and the judgment is often marked with the distinct character of the judge's personal ideology. but at the same time, the judge should respect its own professional tradition and be bound by the precedent, both of which are reversed the strength of each other checks and balances the common dimension The unification of the certainty and the flexibility of the protection of the law. The conclusions of the chapter are summarized, and the horizontal communication is broken by breaking the block division. Sherman's law is not only a question of the universality in the anti-monopoly law, but the making of the theory of competition The use of competition law is an integral part of the competition policy, and the competition law is an integral part of the competition policy. The policy is to provide the market body with more definite guidelines when the competition law is missing or unclear. The anti-monopoly law The implementation of priorities for economic objectives should be established, but the consideration of non-economic objectives could not be ruled out. The understanding of the general relationship between the home and the market is the decisive factor that influences the anti-monopoly execution policy. The adjustment of the market economy needs the combination of the tangible hand and the invisible hand, the economic freedom and the limit of the state intervention It is important to set up a response to the dynamic adjustment of economic and social development Mechanism. Legal economic analysis has universal work for the anti-monopoly execution of all countries
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29

【引证文献】