Rethinking Decentralized Antitrust Regimes: A Window on the Future of Protectionism and Overregulation

Q2 Social Sciences
Weimin Shen
{"title":"Rethinking Decentralized Antitrust Regimes: A Window on the Future of Protectionism and Overregulation","authors":"Weimin Shen","doi":"10.5195/jlc.2023.258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over 100 jurisdictions have a domestic competition law, making competition law one of the most widespread forms of economic regulation around the world. The existing decentralized antitrust regimes have increased transaction costs and uncertainties, enforcement conflicts, antitrust protectionism, and global overenforcement of antitrust laws. Yet international coordination has received little attention. Why? Two interest-based explanations suggest that the European Union and the United States have adopted different approaches to regulating competition, making the two leading regulators race to spread their regulatory models. Moreover, the balance of benefits under existing international legal rules continues to favor major corporations in both developed and developing countries. As a result, the developed world, particularly the United States, has viewed attempts at multilateral coordination as against its interests. \nThis Article challenges this conventional wisdom. It argues that the increasing heterogeneity among decentralized antitrust regimes poses a larger long-term threat to the US than is commonly believed. A closer examination of the proliferation of antitrust laws demonstrates why antitrust protectionism and overregulation are not temporary and not destined to level off. In addition, as more developing countries have the capacity to prosecute multinationals and as the strictest jurisdiction has the power to set the de facto world standard, today’s positive balance of benefits will disappear tomorrow. This Article argues that the United States should reverse its hands-off approach to international antitrust coordination and instead enact proposals that place greater convergence among national antitrust regimes. It highlights why the present moment is an opportune time to initiate, but notes that the window for initiation is likely to close as developing countries acquire increased economic strength and enforcement capacity.  ","PeriodicalId":35703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jlc.2023.258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over 100 jurisdictions have a domestic competition law, making competition law one of the most widespread forms of economic regulation around the world. The existing decentralized antitrust regimes have increased transaction costs and uncertainties, enforcement conflicts, antitrust protectionism, and global overenforcement of antitrust laws. Yet international coordination has received little attention. Why? Two interest-based explanations suggest that the European Union and the United States have adopted different approaches to regulating competition, making the two leading regulators race to spread their regulatory models. Moreover, the balance of benefits under existing international legal rules continues to favor major corporations in both developed and developing countries. As a result, the developed world, particularly the United States, has viewed attempts at multilateral coordination as against its interests. This Article challenges this conventional wisdom. It argues that the increasing heterogeneity among decentralized antitrust regimes poses a larger long-term threat to the US than is commonly believed. A closer examination of the proliferation of antitrust laws demonstrates why antitrust protectionism and overregulation are not temporary and not destined to level off. In addition, as more developing countries have the capacity to prosecute multinationals and as the strictest jurisdiction has the power to set the de facto world standard, today’s positive balance of benefits will disappear tomorrow. This Article argues that the United States should reverse its hands-off approach to international antitrust coordination and instead enact proposals that place greater convergence among national antitrust regimes. It highlights why the present moment is an opportune time to initiate, but notes that the window for initiation is likely to close as developing countries acquire increased economic strength and enforcement capacity.  
重新思考分散的反垄断制度:保护主义和过度监管的未来之窗
100多个司法管辖区制定了国内竞争法,使竞争法成为世界上最广泛的经济监管形式之一。现有的分散式反垄断制度增加了交易成本和不确定性、执法冲突、反垄断保护主义和全球反垄断法的过度执行。然而,国际协调却很少受到重视。为什么?两种基于利益的解释表明,欧盟和美国在监管竞争方面采取了不同的方法,这使得这两个主要监管机构竞相推广各自的监管模式。此外,现有国际法律规则下的利益平衡继续有利于发达国家和发展中国家的大公司。其结果是,发达国家,尤其是美国,认为多边协调的尝试违背了自己的利益。本文挑战了这种传统智慧。报告认为,分散的反垄断制度之间日益加剧的异质性对美国构成的长期威胁,比人们普遍认为的要大。对反托拉斯法泛滥的更仔细研究表明,为什么反托拉斯保护主义和过度监管不是暂时的,也注定不会趋于平稳。此外,随着越来越多的发展中国家有能力起诉跨国公司,随着最严格的司法管辖区有权制定事实上的世界标准,今天的积极利益平衡将在明天消失。本文认为,美国应该改变其对国际反垄断协调不干涉的做法,而是制定建议,使各国反垄断制度更加趋同。报告强调了为什么目前是启动的合适时机,但也指出,随着发展中国家经济实力和执行能力的增强,启动的窗口可能会关闭。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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