{"title":"European Competition Policy in International Markets","authors":"M. Ivaldi, O. Bertrand","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.951594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Changes in the institutional, technological and economic environment raise new challenges to the European competition policy. In this context, it is timely for European authorities to appraise the external dimension of the European competition policy as well as its articulation with current internal reforms. Globalisation can increase the costs of monitoring and seriously reduce the ability of European authorities to tackle cross-border anti-competitive conducts. In addition, conflicts are exacerbated by industrial policy motivations. As it is unlikely that the sole application of the territoriality and extraterritoriality principles to competition rules could yield an optimal international competition system, globalisation calls for higher levels and types of cooperation. Given that bilateral cooperation and especially the implementation of comity principles could be of no value when laws or interests are sources of international conflicts, three main paths could be therefore encouraged: The continuous harmonization of rules through the joint action of OECD and ICN; the higher cooperation in the confidential information exchange; the establishment of global anti-trust institutions. Although WTO is legitimate in judging questions related market access and entry barriers, it is less equipped to assess international hard core cartels or M&A reviews. As a substitute for WTO, a multilevel system, like the EU system, could be promoted. For political and pragmatic reasons, it could be composed in a first step of a hard core of countries like the EU, Japan and the U.S. It could be associated with the creation of an international Court of Justice for competition. In addition to these external reforms, some internal reforms could be required. Competition authorities have to develop further competition advocacy to give a higher priority to competition issues in other EU policies and national regulation. A parallel and complementary reform could consist in making the European competition agency independent from State Members' interference.","PeriodicalId":122765,"journal":{"name":"LSN: WTO Law (Topic)","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: WTO Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.951594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19
Abstract
Changes in the institutional, technological and economic environment raise new challenges to the European competition policy. In this context, it is timely for European authorities to appraise the external dimension of the European competition policy as well as its articulation with current internal reforms. Globalisation can increase the costs of monitoring and seriously reduce the ability of European authorities to tackle cross-border anti-competitive conducts. In addition, conflicts are exacerbated by industrial policy motivations. As it is unlikely that the sole application of the territoriality and extraterritoriality principles to competition rules could yield an optimal international competition system, globalisation calls for higher levels and types of cooperation. Given that bilateral cooperation and especially the implementation of comity principles could be of no value when laws or interests are sources of international conflicts, three main paths could be therefore encouraged: The continuous harmonization of rules through the joint action of OECD and ICN; the higher cooperation in the confidential information exchange; the establishment of global anti-trust institutions. Although WTO is legitimate in judging questions related market access and entry barriers, it is less equipped to assess international hard core cartels or M&A reviews. As a substitute for WTO, a multilevel system, like the EU system, could be promoted. For political and pragmatic reasons, it could be composed in a first step of a hard core of countries like the EU, Japan and the U.S. It could be associated with the creation of an international Court of Justice for competition. In addition to these external reforms, some internal reforms could be required. Competition authorities have to develop further competition advocacy to give a higher priority to competition issues in other EU policies and national regulation. A parallel and complementary reform could consist in making the European competition agency independent from State Members' interference.
制度、技术和经济环境的变化对欧洲竞争政策提出了新的挑战。在这种背景下,欧洲当局及时评估欧洲竞争政策的外部维度,以及它与当前内部改革的衔接。全球化可能增加监管成本,并严重削弱欧洲当局处理跨境反竞争行为的能力。此外,产业政策动机加剧了冲突。由于对竞争规则单独适用属地原则和治外法权原则不可能产生最佳的国际竞争制度,全球化要求更高层次和类型的合作。鉴于当法律或利益是国际冲突的根源时,双边合作,特别是礼让原则的执行可能毫无价值,因此可以鼓励三条主要途径:通过经合发组织和国际刑警组织的联合行动不断协调规则;保密信息交换中的高级合作;建立全球性的反垄断机构。虽然WTO在判断与市场准入和进入壁垒有关的问题方面是合法的,但它在评估国际核心卡特尔或并购审查方面的能力较弱。作为世贸组织的替代品,可以推动建立一个多层次的体系,如欧盟体系。出于政治和务实的原因,它可以作为欧盟、日本和美国等核心国家组成的第一步,还可以与建立一个国际竞争法院(international Court of Justice)联系在一起。除了这些外部改革之外,可能还需要进行一些内部改革。竞争管理机构必须进一步发展竞争宣传,在其他欧盟政策和国家法规中给予竞争问题更高的优先级。一项平行和补充的改革可以是使欧洲竞争机构独立于成员国的干预。