聯(lián)邦最高法院的反托拉斯理念與實踐-1890至1920年
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-12 20:16
【摘要】： 19世紀(jì)末到20世紀(jì)初,托拉斯的出現(xiàn)引起美國國家權(quán)力、公民權(quán)利與企業(yè)權(quán)利之間矛盾的激化,問題擺在了聯(lián)邦最高法院面前,可最高法院的回應(yīng)卻不甚明朗。本文以案例梳理為基礎(chǔ),分析最高法院1890年至1920年間對經(jīng)濟壟斷行為的態(tài)度,發(fā)現(xiàn)其呈現(xiàn)出反復(fù)的態(tài)勢,同時試圖挖掘背后的司法理念并總結(jié)歸納反復(fù)的原因與意義。本文分為三章。 第一章簡單介紹了研究背景,這一部分從社會、經(jīng)濟、政治多角度闡述美國當(dāng)時社會概況。19世紀(jì)末的美國,托拉斯問題突顯,經(jīng)濟集中趨勢明顯。普通民眾的權(quán)利被侵害,要求國家管制托拉斯的呼聲日益強烈;國會通過《謝爾曼法》作出遏制托拉斯的姿態(tài);政府則積極行動加強打擊托拉斯的力度、擴大管制企業(yè)的權(quán)力,展現(xiàn)在聯(lián)邦最高法院面前的就是這樣一個場景。 第二章分析了聯(lián)邦最高法院的相關(guān)案例,從中可以看出最高法院時而支持反托拉斯行動時而又持否定態(tài)度,反復(fù)的趨勢明顯。例如1895年的奈特案,大法官富勒把聯(lián)邦管理商業(yè)的權(quán)力限制在狹小的范圍內(nèi),而在接下來的案件中,大法官哈蘭與霍姆斯都在明顯地限制奈特案確立的原則,從而擴大了聯(lián)邦政府對商業(yè)管理的領(lǐng)域。又如最高法院關(guān)于《謝爾曼法》第2條“從事壟斷”的解釋,歷經(jīng)了一個從寬到嚴(yán)的變化。由單一證明壟斷地位到證明壟斷地位、壟斷行為與壟斷意圖三個條件,加重了起訴方的證明責(zé)任從而加大了保護(hù)企業(yè)的力度。 第三章探討了最高法院的反托拉斯理念及其形成原因。理念有二,一是限制解釋《謝爾曼法》從而保護(hù)企業(yè)自由競爭之權(quán)利,二是擴張解釋《謝爾曼法》進(jìn)而支持政府管制企業(yè)之權(quán)力。在兩種理念的導(dǎo)向下,最高法院選擇在“自由”和“管制”兩條道路上前行,建立起一種包含了這兩個理念的進(jìn)程。原因有以下幾個方面:美國國內(nèi)形勢的變化促使了最高法院司法理念的變遷,最高法院受到社會達(dá)爾文主義和進(jìn)步主義思潮的雙重影響;美國法律傳統(tǒng)中崇尚自由和競爭的意識使最高法院左右為難;企業(yè)的自由度與政府干預(yù)度是美國反壟斷法的核心矛盾,矛盾不可避免也無法一勞永逸地完美解決。
[Abstract]:From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the appearance of trust caused the contradiction between American state power, civil rights and enterprise rights to intensify, and the problem was put before the Federal Supreme Court, but the response of the Supreme Court was not very clear. On the basis of case combing, this paper analyzes the Supreme Court's attitude to economic monopoly from 1890 to 1920, and finds that it presents a repeated trend. At the same time, it tries to excavate the judicial idea behind it and sums up the reasons and significance of repeated induction. This paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter briefly introduces the background of the research. This part expounds the social situation of the United States from the social, economic and political perspectives. In the late 19th century, the trust problem was highlighted, and the trend of economic concentration was obvious. The rights of ordinary people have been violated, and there are growing calls for the state to regulate the trust; Congress has adopted the Sherman Act to contain the trust; and the government has taken active action to strengthen the fight against trust and expand the power to regulate enterprises. This is the scene before the Supreme Court. The second chapter analyzes the relevant cases of the Federal Supreme Court, from which we can see that the Supreme Court sometimes supports the action of antitrust and holds a negative attitude, and the trend of repetition is obvious. In the Knight case of 1895, for example, Chancellor Fuller confined the power of federal administration of commerce to a narrow range, while in the subsequent cases, justices Harlan and Holmes clearly limited the principles established in the Knight case. This expanded the federal government's field of business management. The Supreme Court's interpretation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, "Monopoly," has undergone a lenient to severe change. There are three conditions from the mono-proof monopoly position to the certified monopoly position, the monopoly behavior and the monopoly intention, which aggravate the burden of proof of the prosecution party and increase the strength of protecting the enterprise. The third chapter discusses the anti-trust concept of the Supreme Court and its formation reasons. There are two ideas: one is to limit the interpretation of Sherman Act to protect the right of enterprises to compete freely; the other is to expand interpretation of Sherman Law to support the power of government to regulate enterprises. Under the guidance of two ideas, the Supreme Court chose to move forward on the two roads of "freedom" and "regulation", and set up a process that contains these two ideas. The reasons are as follows: the changes of the domestic situation in the United States prompted the change of the Supreme Court's judicial concept, which was influenced by both social Darwinism and progressive thought; The sense of freedom and competition in the tradition of American law makes the Supreme Court in a dilemma. The freedom of enterprise and the degree of government intervention are the core contradictions of American antimonopoly law, and the contradiction can't be solved perfectly once and for all.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D971.2
本文編號：2267461
[Abstract]:From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the appearance of trust caused the contradiction between American state power, civil rights and enterprise rights to intensify, and the problem was put before the Federal Supreme Court, but the response of the Supreme Court was not very clear. On the basis of case combing, this paper analyzes the Supreme Court's attitude to economic monopoly from 1890 to 1920, and finds that it presents a repeated trend. At the same time, it tries to excavate the judicial idea behind it and sums up the reasons and significance of repeated induction. This paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter briefly introduces the background of the research. This part expounds the social situation of the United States from the social, economic and political perspectives. In the late 19th century, the trust problem was highlighted, and the trend of economic concentration was obvious. The rights of ordinary people have been violated, and there are growing calls for the state to regulate the trust; Congress has adopted the Sherman Act to contain the trust; and the government has taken active action to strengthen the fight against trust and expand the power to regulate enterprises. This is the scene before the Supreme Court. The second chapter analyzes the relevant cases of the Federal Supreme Court, from which we can see that the Supreme Court sometimes supports the action of antitrust and holds a negative attitude, and the trend of repetition is obvious. In the Knight case of 1895, for example, Chancellor Fuller confined the power of federal administration of commerce to a narrow range, while in the subsequent cases, justices Harlan and Holmes clearly limited the principles established in the Knight case. This expanded the federal government's field of business management. The Supreme Court's interpretation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, "Monopoly," has undergone a lenient to severe change. There are three conditions from the mono-proof monopoly position to the certified monopoly position, the monopoly behavior and the monopoly intention, which aggravate the burden of proof of the prosecution party and increase the strength of protecting the enterprise. The third chapter discusses the anti-trust concept of the Supreme Court and its formation reasons. There are two ideas: one is to limit the interpretation of Sherman Act to protect the right of enterprises to compete freely; the other is to expand interpretation of Sherman Law to support the power of government to regulate enterprises. Under the guidance of two ideas, the Supreme Court chose to move forward on the two roads of "freedom" and "regulation", and set up a process that contains these two ideas. The reasons are as follows: the changes of the domestic situation in the United States prompted the change of the Supreme Court's judicial concept, which was influenced by both social Darwinism and progressive thought; The sense of freedom and competition in the tradition of American law makes the Supreme Court in a dilemma. The freedom of enterprise and the degree of government intervention are the core contradictions of American antimonopoly law, and the contradiction can't be solved perfectly once and for all.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D971.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條
1 蔣巖波;;美國反壟斷法律文化形成的社會背景分析[J];江西財經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2006年06期
2 胡曉進(jìn),任東來;保守理念與美國聯(lián)邦最高法院——以1889-1937年的聯(lián)邦最高法院為中心[J];美國研究;2003年02期
3 郭躍;美國反壟斷法價值取向的歷史演變[J];美國研究;2005年01期
4 吳玉嶺;企業(yè)的自由度與政府的干預(yù)度:美國反壟斷法的核心矛盾[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2005年03期
，本文編號：2267461
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2267461.html
