欧盟和英国反垄断“咬”了吗?:严厉看待“软”执行和协商处罚解决

Q2 Social Sciences
O. Brook
{"title":"欧盟和英国反垄断“咬”了吗?:严厉看待“软”执行和协商处罚解决","authors":"O. Brook","doi":"10.1177/0003603X231180245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"EU and U.K. antitrust are contingent upon rigorous enforcement and the imposition of sanctions. Hard enforcement is key; antitrust loses its effect when it does not “bite.” Soft instruments (non-adversarial, informal) and negotiated penalty settlements may be used, but authorities are expected to exercise self-restraint. This article reveals that despite the prevalence of hard-enforcement rhetoric, the vast majority of actions taken by the European Commission (1958–2021) and German, Dutch, and U.K. antitrust authorities (2004–2021) were not fully adversarial. The hard-enforcement actions, moreover, were confined to limited practices and sectors. Despite the prominence of non-fully adversarial instruments in Europe, and in striking contrast to the United States, only limited attention was devoted to their existence and implications. Urging to take a hard look at soft enforcement and negotiated penalty settlements, the article systematically records the enforcement instruments and their particularities, questions their effectiveness, and calls to align enforcement theory to practice.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"477 - 518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements\",\"authors\":\"O. Brook\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X231180245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"EU and U.K. antitrust are contingent upon rigorous enforcement and the imposition of sanctions. Hard enforcement is key; antitrust loses its effect when it does not “bite.” Soft instruments (non-adversarial, informal) and negotiated penalty settlements may be used, but authorities are expected to exercise self-restraint. This article reveals that despite the prevalence of hard-enforcement rhetoric, the vast majority of actions taken by the European Commission (1958–2021) and German, Dutch, and U.K. antitrust authorities (2004–2021) were not fully adversarial. The hard-enforcement actions, moreover, were confined to limited practices and sectors. Despite the prominence of non-fully adversarial instruments in Europe, and in striking contrast to the United States, only limited attention was devoted to their existence and implications. Urging to take a hard look at soft enforcement and negotiated penalty settlements, the article systematically records the enforcement instruments and their particularities, questions their effectiveness, and calls to align enforcement theory to practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"477 - 518\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231180245\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231180245","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

摘要

欧盟和英国的反垄断取决于严格的执法和制裁的实施。严格执行是关键;如果不“咬人”,反垄断就失去了效果。可以使用软手段(非对抗性的、非正式的)和通过谈判解决罚款问题,但期望当局保持自我克制。本文揭示了尽管强硬执法的言论盛行,但欧盟委员会(1958-2021)和德国、荷兰和英国反垄断当局(2004-2021)采取的绝大多数行动并非完全对抗。此外,强硬的执法行动仅限于有限的做法和部门。尽管非完全对抗性手段在欧洲占有突出地位,与美国形成鲜明对比,但人们对它们的存在和影响的关注有限。文章系统地记录了执法手段及其特殊性,对其有效性提出了质疑,并呼吁将执法理论与实践相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements
EU and U.K. antitrust are contingent upon rigorous enforcement and the imposition of sanctions. Hard enforcement is key; antitrust loses its effect when it does not “bite.” Soft instruments (non-adversarial, informal) and negotiated penalty settlements may be used, but authorities are expected to exercise self-restraint. This article reveals that despite the prevalence of hard-enforcement rhetoric, the vast majority of actions taken by the European Commission (1958–2021) and German, Dutch, and U.K. antitrust authorities (2004–2021) were not fully adversarial. The hard-enforcement actions, moreover, were confined to limited practices and sectors. Despite the prominence of non-fully adversarial instruments in Europe, and in striking contrast to the United States, only limited attention was devoted to their existence and implications. Urging to take a hard look at soft enforcement and negotiated penalty settlements, the article systematically records the enforcement instruments and their particularities, questions their effectiveness, and calls to align enforcement theory to practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
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