Moving the Trade and Competition Debate Forward

Bercero, Ignacio Garcia

doi:10.1093/jiel/4.3.481

Cited by 24 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the concern of the US administration, the WTO for several reasons still seems the most important international forum for discussing competition law and policy. First, the WTO, with its dispute settlement mechanism, is the most effective 14 EC initiative at WTO is explained by Garcia Bercero and Amarasinha (2001). 15 Singapore WTO Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN (96)/DEC.…”

Section: Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization of Competition Laws after Doha Substantive and Procedural Harmonization

Takigawa¹

2002

TRAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition policy enjoys a more prominent role today than it has ever had before. This reflects the acceptance of market systems in developing countries and in formerly socialist countries. As a result, the fundamental law for competition policy, namely antitrust law (or competition law), has spread to many countries. At the same time, globalization of the economy has increased the internationalization of business activities and has brought about an increase in multi-jurisdiction antitrust violations. This has led leaders of the business community to call for harmonization of domestic antitrust and competition laws.The World Trade Organization (WTO) has also discussed harmonization of competition laws as an aspect of market access. Now that the WTO has largely achieved elimination of governmental barriers to trade, it is looking to eliminate trade barriers created by anti-competitive corporate conduct. In 1996 it established a "Working Group on Trade and Competition". In November 2001, at the Ministerial Conference held in Doha, the WTO agreed that negotiations regarding "Interaction between trade and competition policy" will take place after the next (in late 2003) session of the Ministerial Conference. 1 This article examines how and to what extent domestic competition laws should be harmonized. It distinguishes between harmonization of substantive law and harmonization of the laws' procedural aspects, since the two aspects differently affect national sovereignty and are not similarly attainable. Section I examines why businesses seek harmonization of substantive law, and considers the attainability and desirability of substantive harmonization. Section II looks into market access considerations in competition law harmonization, and criticizes proposals to establish international competition rules based on market access. Section III analyses procedural aspects of competition law harmonization, and proposes to expand "positive comity" concepts through establishing a rule for primary jurisdiction for merger control. Section IV concludes the article with summaries of its major proposals.

show abstract

Section: Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization of Competition Laws after Doha Substantive and Procedural Harmonization

Takigawa¹

2002

TRAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the WG has not been equipped with competence to negotiate international competition rules until now. Instead, information sharing and assisting the implementation of national competition rules in developing countries have remained its main tasks (Bercero & Amarasinha 2001). Following a modified proposal by the EU, Japan and others, the WTO Ministerial Declaration adopted at Doha, Qatar (November 2001, Doha Declaration), outlined that 'we agree that negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that Session on modalities of negotiations' (Doha Declaration §23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The International Competition Network: Prospects and Limits on the Road towards International Competition Governance

Budzinski

2004

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The establishment of the International Competition Network (ICN) opens up a new avenue towards an international competition policy regime. This article describes the underlying transmission mechanisms and governance modes of the ICN and connects them to the insights of modern economic theory. Based on the results, the prospects and limits of the ICN concerning conflict resolution, procedural efficiency, political economy fit and the conflicting areas of harmonization and decentralism of rules and policies are derived. It is shown that the ICN offers considerable merits, such as increasing procedural efficiency and facilitating consensus building. However, some problems of international competition governance, such as the focus on national interests and the scope for substantial conflict, are unlikely to be resolved within the ICN. Additionally, the attitude of the ICN towards future harmonization or preserving of institutional diversity remains unclear.

show abstract

Lösungen auf multi- bzw. plurilateraler oder regionaler Ebene

Fröhlich

2022

Wettbewerbsregelungen in Unionsabkommen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moving the Trade and Competition Debate Forward

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Harmonization of Competition Laws after Doha Substantive and Procedural Harmonization

Harmonization of Competition Laws after Doha Substantive and Procedural Harmonization

The International Competition Network: Prospects and Limits on the Road towards International Competition Governance

Lösungen auf multi- bzw. plurilateraler oder regionaler Ebene

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About