我国反垄断执法机构设置研究

发布时间：2018-05-07 13:18

本文选题：反垄断法 + 执法机构　；参考：《山西财经大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：反垄断法被称为“经济宪法”，其在维护市场公平竞争、提高经济运行效率，促进社会主义市场经济健康发展方面发挥着无可替代的基础性作用。而反垄断法发挥作用又依赖于权威有效率的反垄断执法机构。但我国目前的反垄断执法机构面临着独立性、权威性和专业性不足的问题，，使得执法机构难以承担实现该法立法目的的重任。要解决此问题，理论研究必须先行。本文首先明确了反垄断执法机构的概念、性质和作用。反垄断执法机构是具体负责反垄断执法的行政机关，在反垄断法立法目的实现上起着主导作用。它作为专门负责反垄断执法的行政机构，其应具备法定性、独立性、权威性和专业性的特征，与司法和私人等反垄断力量相比，在专业技术、组织结构和权力配置等方面具有很大优势，且主动性较强。主要通过行使广泛的反垄断行政权力、准立法权、准司法权来发挥其限制垄断行为，保护市场竞争的作用。目前我国反垄断执法机构设置模式采用“二元多头式”，该模式中以国务院反垄断委员会、国务院反垄断执法机构两家机构为主导，由国家工商行政管理总局、商务部以及国家发展和改革委员会三家机构负责具体执法事项，三家机构还下设部门具体完成工作事项。此种设置模式看似严谨，但在执法实践中却不免出现许多的问题：国务院反垄断委员会职权范围模糊、性质界定不清，不能发挥其协调作用；反垄断执法机构级别较低，独立性和权威性不够导致其在执法过程中易受到其他机构和组织影响，无法公正执法；反垄断执法人员的专业水平和业务素质不高，难以把握执法方法；反垄断执法部门内部职权不清晰，执法过程中交叉执法、相互推诿和不作为等现象时有发生。这些问题的存在导致反垄断执法机构很难发挥应有作用。我国反垄断执法机构设置改革中，美国的反垄断执法机构之间的内部协调机制，德国以行业划分来内设的九个决议处，日韩反垄断执法机构的单一模式等域外经验都可以借鉴，专家执法、执法机构的高权威性和高独立性等成熟做法也会成为我国在改革反垄断执法机构设置中值得借鉴并加以利用的地方。立足国情，借鉴国外成熟经验，我国在反垄断执法机构设置应在以下几个方面改进：一是采用“一元式”设置模式，由国家反垄断执法局统一领导，并按地区划分设置分支机构，采用垂直管理，这样既保证了执法工作不受其他机构干涉，又有效避免因多头管理而产生的不良现象；二是国家反垄断执法局应该由中央直接垂直领导，提升机构行政级别，作为直属局隶属于国务院，保证其独立性和权威性；三是提高反垄断执法人员选用标准，提高执法人员的专业水平和业务素质。本文采用文献研究法、比较分析法和实证分析法等方法，在反垄断执法机构设置模式、提高机构独立性和专家执法方面都提出了创新且具体的建议。
[Abstract]:Antitrust law is called "economic constitution", which plays an irreplaceable basic role in maintaining fair competition in the market, improving economic efficiency and promoting the healthy development of the socialist market economy. The problem of independence, authority and lack of professionalism makes it difficult for the law enforcement agencies to undertake the important task of realizing the legislative purpose of the law.
This article first clarifies the concept, nature and function of the antitrust law enforcement agency. The antitrust law enforcement agency is a specific administrative organ responsible for the anti-monopoly law enforcement, and plays a leading role in the realization of the legislative purpose of the antitrust law. It should be a statutory, independent, authoritative and professional organization responsible for the enforcement of antitrust law. Characteristics, compared with the judicial and private antitrust forces, they have great advantages in professional technology, organizational structure and power allocation, and have strong initiative, mainly through the exercise of extensive antitrust administrative power, quasi legislative power, quasi judicial power to exert its restrictions on monopoly and protect market competition.
At present, the mode of setting up the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies in our country adopts "two yuan and multiple heads", which is dominated by the State Council antitrust Committee and the two institutions of the State Council antitrust law enforcement agencies. The State Administration for Industry and commerce, the Ministry of Commerce and the national development and Reform Commission are responsible for the specific enforcement of the law and the three institutions. The following departments have completed the work. This pattern seems to be strict, but there are many problems in the practice of law enforcement. The State Council's Anti-monopoly Commission has a vague function, its nature is not clear and its coordination function can not be played; the level of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency is low, and its independence and authority are not enough to lead to its law enforcement. Cheng Zhongyi is affected by other organizations and organizations and can not enforce the law impartially; the professional level and professional quality of the anti monopoly law enforcement personnel are not high, and it is difficult to grasp the law enforcement methods; the internal functions and powers of the anti-monopoly law enforcement departments are not clear, the law enforcement process cross law enforcement, mutual prevarication and inaction occur. The existence of these problems leads to the anti ridge. It is difficult to play the role of breaking the law enforcement agencies.
In the reform of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies in China, the internal coordination mechanism between the antitrust law enforcement agencies of the United States, the nine resolution offices in Germany, the single mode of the Japanese and South Korean anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies can be used for reference, the expert law enforcement, the high authority and high independence of the law enforcement machinery, and so on. It has become a place worthy of reference and utilization in China's reform of anti monopoly law enforcement agencies.
Based on the national conditions and drawing on the mature experience of foreign countries, the establishment of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies in China should be improved in the following aspects: first, the "one yuan" setting mode, the unified leadership of the state anti monopoly Law Enforcement Bureau, and the division of branches according to the regional division, and vertical management, thus ensure that law enforcement is not interfered with by other institutions, The two is that the State Administration of antimonopoly law enforcement should be led directly by the central government by the central government, to improve the administrative level of the institution, to be subordinate to the State Council, to ensure its independence and authority, and the three is to improve the standards for the selection and use of anti-monopoly law enforcement personnel and to improve the professional level and industry of the law enforcement personnel. Quality of affairs.
This article adopts the methods of literature research, comparative analysis and empirical analysis, and puts forward some innovative and specific suggestions on the setting pattern of antitrust law enforcement agencies, the improvement of institutional independence and the law enforcement of experts.

【学位授予单位】：山西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】