Competition law enforcement in Hong Kong SAR and in Ireland: similar and atypical

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
M. Lucey
{"title":"Competition law enforcement in Hong Kong SAR and in Ireland: similar and atypical","authors":"M. Lucey","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-10-2018-0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to understand the emergence, operation and evolution of judge-centred models for the enforcement of competition law in Ireland and in Hong Kong SAR. The public enforcement model in Hong Kong chimes with the Irish regime where competence to adjudicate on competition law violations and to impose sanctions is intentionally reserved exclusively to judges. This design choice renders the Irish and Hong Kong regimes both similar to each other and atypical on the global stage, where in many jurisdictions an administrative competition agency investigates suspected infringements, makes determinations of infringements and may penalise infringers.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper starts by detailing the current competition law architecture in each jurisdiction. Then, it examines closely the discourse (expressed in consultations, experts’ reports and Parliamentary documents) in the lengthy period preceding their introduction. This approach aims, firstly, to understand why judicial models were chosen over more familiar administrative ones and, secondly, to unearth any similar concerns which had a bearing on the choice of atypical design. Next, it analyses some implications of the judicial model in operation for, firstly, parties; secondly, the administrative competition agencies; and, thirdly, the evolution of competition law.\n\n\nFindings\nIt finds the existence of similar concerns surrounding due process/separation of power arose in each jurisdiction. Other similar strands include a sluggish political appetite which delayed reform. Each jurisdiction actively sought to inform itself about international experience but did not feel obliged to copy the enforcement dimension even where substantive prohibitions were persuasive.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nIt shines a light on the independent response by two small Common Law jurisdictions, which does not converge with popular administrative international models of competition law enforcement.\n\n\nPractical implications\nIt is hoped that the decades-long experience in Ireland may interest those involved in Hong Kong competition law, which is at a comparatively fledgling stage of development.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis is an original research and appears to be the first paper exploring the atypical approaches taken in Hong Kong SAR and Ireland to designing locally suited regimes for the enforcement of competition law.\n","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-10-2018-0042","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-10-2018-0042","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to understand the emergence, operation and evolution of judge-centred models for the enforcement of competition law in Ireland and in Hong Kong SAR. The public enforcement model in Hong Kong chimes with the Irish regime where competence to adjudicate on competition law violations and to impose sanctions is intentionally reserved exclusively to judges. This design choice renders the Irish and Hong Kong regimes both similar to each other and atypical on the global stage, where in many jurisdictions an administrative competition agency investigates suspected infringements, makes determinations of infringements and may penalise infringers. Design/methodology/approach This paper starts by detailing the current competition law architecture in each jurisdiction. Then, it examines closely the discourse (expressed in consultations, experts’ reports and Parliamentary documents) in the lengthy period preceding their introduction. This approach aims, firstly, to understand why judicial models were chosen over more familiar administrative ones and, secondly, to unearth any similar concerns which had a bearing on the choice of atypical design. Next, it analyses some implications of the judicial model in operation for, firstly, parties; secondly, the administrative competition agencies; and, thirdly, the evolution of competition law. Findings It finds the existence of similar concerns surrounding due process/separation of power arose in each jurisdiction. Other similar strands include a sluggish political appetite which delayed reform. Each jurisdiction actively sought to inform itself about international experience but did not feel obliged to copy the enforcement dimension even where substantive prohibitions were persuasive. Research limitations/implications It shines a light on the independent response by two small Common Law jurisdictions, which does not converge with popular administrative international models of competition law enforcement. Practical implications It is hoped that the decades-long experience in Ireland may interest those involved in Hong Kong competition law, which is at a comparatively fledgling stage of development. Originality/value This is an original research and appears to be the first paper exploring the atypical approaches taken in Hong Kong SAR and Ireland to designing locally suited regimes for the enforcement of competition law.
香港特别行政区与爱尔兰的竞争法执法:相似与非典型
本文旨在了解爱尔兰和香港特别行政区以法官为中心的竞争法执行模式的出现、运作和演变。香港的公共执法模式与爱尔兰的制度相吻合,爱尔兰的制度有意将对违反竞争法的行为进行裁决和实施制裁的权限专门保留给法官。这种设计选择使得爱尔兰和香港的制度彼此相似,在全球舞台上也不典型,在许多司法管辖区,行政竞争机构调查涉嫌侵权行为,做出侵权决定,并可能对侵权者进行处罚。设计/方法/方法本文首先详细介绍了每个司法管辖区当前的竞争法架构。然后,它仔细审查(在协商、专家报告和议会文件中表示的)在介绍之前的漫长时期内的论述。这种方法的目的是,首先,理解为什么选择司法模式而不是更熟悉的行政模式,其次,揭示任何与选择非典型设计有关的类似问题。其次,分析了司法模式在运行中的启示:首先,对当事人;二是行政竞争机构;第三,竞争法的演变。调查结果发现,在每个司法管辖区都存在对正当程序/权力分立的类似关切。其他类似的原因还包括政治意愿的低迷,这推迟了改革。每个司法管辖区都积极寻求了解国际经验,但即使在实质性禁止具有说服力的情况下,也不觉得有义务照搬执行方面的内容。研究局限/启示:这一研究揭示了两个小型普通法管辖区的独立回应,它们与流行的国际竞争执法行政模式不一致。实际意义我们希望,香港竞争法的发展尚处于起步阶段,而爱尔兰长达数十年的经验能引起有关人士的兴趣。原创性/价值这是一项原创研究,似乎是第一篇探讨香港特别行政区和爱尔兰采用的非典型方法来设计适合当地的竞争法执行制度的论文。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信