【摘要】： 美國是最早形成和執(zhí)行競爭政策的國家,競爭法制完善、影響力巨大。1890年頒布的《謝爾曼反托拉斯法》,奠定了美國反托拉斯法的基礎(chǔ),也是世界第一部現(xiàn)代意義的反壟斷法,為后世各國的反壟斷立法樹立了典范。美國法院各個不同歷史時期的《謝爾曼法》判例展現(xiàn)了政治、經(jīng)濟、社會變遷對法律制定與執(zhí)行的影響以及法律對社會變遷的靈活應(yīng)對,是反托拉斯法的重要組成部分。美國司法部作為《謝爾曼法》的主要執(zhí)行者其政策和指南雖不具有法律效力,但有助于形成可操作性的法律標準。20世紀50年代以來,經(jīng)濟理論和分析工具的廣泛運用使美國反托拉斯執(zhí)行獲得了強大的技術(shù)支持,趨于成熟和理性。2007年8月《中華人民共和國反壟斷法》的頒布具有里程碑意義,標志著中國競爭法制的初步完善。中國目前當務(wù)之急是制定實施細則、行為指南、司法解釋增強《反壟斷法》的可操作性,為反壟斷執(zhí)行提供具體指引。反壟斷法的有效執(zhí)行需要執(zhí)法者、民眾對條文背后的立法目的、經(jīng)濟理性、制度功能的了解與認同。研究借鑒美國反托拉斯法的理論與執(zhí)行經(jīng)驗,對完善中國競爭法制具有重要意義。 全文共分六章。 第一章美國《謝爾曼法》的誕生。本章通過對《謝爾曼法》誕生的政治經(jīng)濟背景、法律環(huán)境、普通法傳統(tǒng)的考察,探尋反壟斷法產(chǎn)生的根源、性質(zhì)、特點等各國反壟斷法研究的基礎(chǔ)性問題,目的是加深對反壟斷法理的認識。從根本上說,反托拉斯法在19世紀晚期的出現(xiàn)是對托拉斯及其力量在美國經(jīng)濟中增長的回應(yīng)。工業(yè)化導致的經(jīng)濟結(jié)構(gòu)巨變和經(jīng)濟集中是《謝爾曼法》誕生的社會經(jīng)濟基礎(chǔ)。公法和私法在應(yīng)對壟斷問題上的局限性是《謝爾曼法》誕生的法律背景�！吨x爾曼法》的誕生是對國家干預私人經(jīng)濟活動必要性的肯定。利益集團壓力是《謝爾曼法》誕生的推動因素。法律條文含義和執(zhí)行目標的模糊性、欠缺可操作性是《謝爾曼法》的特點。對壟斷的認識分歧導致了《謝爾曼法》條款含義的模糊性。由于英美法系具有通過判例發(fā)展法律的傳統(tǒng),模糊性語言反而增加了其包容性�！吨x爾曼法》與限制貿(mào)易的普通法在目的、法律后果、理論基礎(chǔ)等方面都有不同,因而并非普通法的成文化。 第二章《謝爾曼法》的主要內(nèi)容與早期執(zhí)行特點。本章對《謝爾曼法》的主要內(nèi)容、特點以及形成本身違法原則和合理原則的早期案例進行了回顧,研究成文法和判例法在美國反托拉斯法形成中的作用,以及美國如何通過它們的互動機制緩和法律確定性與靈活性的對立。《謝爾曼法》的實體性規(guī)定是Sectionl和Section2。Sectionl禁止卡特爾行為,Section2禁止壟斷化行為。語詞極為概括,基本范疇、適用范圍、具體違法性標準等重要問題并未明確規(guī)定。早期的《謝爾曼法》執(zhí)行遭遇到不少阻力。契約自由至上的影響、成文法含義的模糊、法律責任輕微是重要原因。伴隨著逐漸成長的判例法,《謝爾曼法》對阻卻壟斷起到了重要作用。判例法中發(fā)展起來的本身違法原則和合理原則也成為各國反壟斷法共同的分析基礎(chǔ)。 第三章《謝爾曼法》的經(jīng)濟理性。本章探究法律經(jīng)濟分析在反壟斷執(zhí)行中的作用與局限、壟斷與競爭的經(jīng)濟解釋、經(jīng)濟分析與法律分析的關(guān)系,并通過判例分析對影響美國《謝爾曼法》執(zhí)行的產(chǎn)業(yè)組織理論進行了梳理,目的是彰顯反壟斷經(jīng)濟分析的重要性,澄清對法律經(jīng)濟分析的偏見與誤解。成本-收益基礎(chǔ)上的經(jīng)濟分析異于法律傳統(tǒng)上倚重的價值分析和邏輯推演,為法律運行-效果的分析提供了強有力的工具,增強了反壟斷分析的說服力。但是經(jīng)濟學的解釋力不是無限的,經(jīng)濟分析不能替代法律分析。 第四章《謝爾曼法》Section2執(zhí)行研究。Section2是《謝爾曼法》最主要實體性規(guī)范之一。本章從歷史演進、美國兩大執(zhí)行機構(gòu)當前執(zhí)行的要點、美國和歐盟拒絕交易濫用規(guī)制的對比三個視角對section2的壟斷化分析框架進行了較為深入的研究,探尋建立客觀、明確、可操作性的反壟斷法律標準的一般規(guī)律。美國的壟斷化判斷標準是一個不斷發(fā)展、修正的過程,早期曾飽受反對經(jīng)濟集中強調(diào)小企業(yè)價值的民粹主義的影響,壟斷狀態(tài)近乎本身違法,而20世紀70年代以后對壟斷的理解回歸經(jīng)濟學趨于理性,認為壟斷是實質(zhì)持久的市場勢力,本身不違法,壟斷化譴責的是在相關(guān)市場擁有壟斷力并且以不正當?shù)姆椒ㄓ幸馊〉镁S持這種壟斷力的行為。司法部較之法院對經(jīng)濟分析的接受和對可操作法律標準的探索更為積極,通過頒布執(zhí)行指南影響守法和執(zhí)行。美國法院把鼓勵競爭、經(jīng)濟效率放在首位,對拒絕交易一般持不干預立場,認為即便是壟斷者一般也享有拒絕交易權(quán),對于杠桿作用、關(guān)鍵設(shè)施原則的適用極為謹慎,對拒絕交易違法采取有利于壟斷者的證明標準。歐盟競爭法在保護競爭和消費者福利最大化外還擔負實現(xiàn)歐洲一體化的目標,因此對壟斷者的拒絕交易權(quán)限制較多,拒絕交易濫用的門檻較低。這是造成美國和歐盟執(zhí)行機構(gòu)對于“歐盟微軟案”意見分歧的原因。 第五章《謝爾曼法》制定與執(zhí)行中的意識形態(tài)博弈。本章對進化論和目的論兩種對立的意識形態(tài)的分歧進行了歸納,探究它們在美國反托拉斯法演進的各個歷史階段對法院的《謝爾曼法》解釋的深刻影響。英美法中司法者被賦予發(fā)展法律的重任和較大的自由裁量權(quán),判決往往帶有法官個人意識形態(tài)的鮮明烙印,但同時法官又要尊重本身的職業(yè)傳統(tǒng)受先例約束,兩種反向的力量相互制衡共同維護法律確定性與靈活性的統(tǒng)一。 第六章本文主要結(jié)論。本章對前五章的研究結(jié)論進行了歸納總結(jié),打破條塊分割進行了橫向溝通。不再局限于美國《謝爾曼法》,而是對反壟斷法上具有普遍性的問題進行了思考。競爭理論的作用是為競爭政策提供可選擇模式,競爭法是競爭政策組成部分。競爭政策在競爭法缺失、不明確時可為市場主體提供較為確定的指引。反壟斷執(zhí)行應(yīng)當確立經(jīng)濟目標優(yōu)先,但是不能排除非經(jīng)濟目標的考量。對國家和市場一般關(guān)系的認識是影響反壟斷執(zhí)行政策的決定性因素。市場經(jīng)濟運行的調(diào)節(jié)需要有形之手與無形之手相結(jié)合,經(jīng)濟自由和國家干預的限度需要經(jīng)常調(diào)整,重要的是建立隨經(jīng)濟社會發(fā)展動態(tài)調(diào)整的反應(yīng)機制。法律經(jīng)濟分析對于各國反壟斷執(zhí)行具有普遍性工具價值。判例法和成文法相互配合能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)漸進式的法律發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:The United States is the first to form and implement the competition policy, the competition law is perfect, the influence is great. In 1890, the "Sherman anti-trust law", which laid the foundation of the anti-trust law of the United States, is also the first modern-meaning anti-monopoly law of the world, For later generations, the anti-monopoly legislation has set a model. The Case of the various historical periods of the United States Court shows the influence of the political, economic and social changes on the formulation and execution of the law and the flexible response of the law to the social change, which is an important part of the anti-trust law. The United States Department of Justice, as the main performer of the the birth The limitation of public law and private law in dealing with monopoly is The legal background of the birth is the birth of the Sherman Act, which is to intervene in the private economy of the country. The affirmation of the necessity of action. The pressure of interest groups is the The driving factor of the birth, the meaning of the legal provisions and the fuzziness of the execution target, the lack of operability is <. The characteristics of the Ermanian Law. The understanding of the monopoly has led to the The fuzziness of the meaning of the law. Because the common law system has the tradition of developing the law through the case, the fuzziness language instead It's more inclusive. and the common law that limits trade are different in terms of purpose, legal consequences, and theoretical basis, and thus are not The culture of common law. This chapter reviews the main contents and features of the The execution of a lot of resistance. The effect of the freedom of the contract, the blurring of the meaning of the written law, The legal liability is a minor reason. With the gradual development of the case law, the is The monopoly of resistance has played an important role, and the principle of the law and the reasonable principle of the development in case law also become a country. The common analysis basis of anti-monopoly law. The third chapter is the economic reason of the Sherman Law. This chapter explores the role and limitation of the legal economic analysis in the anti-monopoly execution, the economic interpretation of the monopoly and the competition, the relationship between the economic analysis and the legal analysis, and the influence of the American The theory of the industrial organization to be carried out is to show the importance of the anti-monopoly economic analysis. Clarifying the bias and misunderstanding of the legal economic analysis. The economic analysis on the basis of the cost-income is different from the value analysis and the logical deduction on the legal tradition, and provides a powerful analysis for the legal operation-effect analysis. The tool, which enhances the persuasion of the anti-monopoly analysis, is not an explanation of economics. The economic analysis can't replace the legal analysis. chapter Section2. Sectio N2 is one of the most important physical specifications of the The reason for disagreement. Chapter five is the ideological game in the development and implementation of the Sherman Act. The differences between the two opposing ideologies of the theory of evolution and teleology are summed up in this chapter to explore the evolution of the anti-trust law in the United States. The different historical stages have a profound influence on the Court's interpretation. In the common law, the judicial person is given the important task of developing the law and the great discretion, and the judgment is often marked with the distinct character of the judge's personal ideology. but at the same time, the judge should respect its own professional tradition and be bound by the precedent, both of which are reversed the strength of each other checks and balances the common dimension The unification of the certainty and the flexibility of the protection of the law. The conclusions of the chapter are summarized, and the horizontal communication is broken by breaking the block division. Sherman's law is not only a question of the universality in the anti-monopoly law, but the making of the theory of competition The use of competition law is an integral part of the competition policy, and the competition law is an integral part of the competition policy. The policy is to provide the market body with more definite guidelines when the competition law is missing or unclear. The anti-monopoly law The implementation of priorities for economic objectives should be established, but the consideration of non-economic objectives could not be ruled out. The understanding of the general relationship between the home and the market is the decisive factor that influences the anti-monopoly execution policy. The adjustment of the market economy needs the combination of the tangible hand and the invisible hand, the economic freedom and the limit of the state intervention It is important to set up a response to the dynamic adjustment of economic and social development Mechanism. Legal economic analysis has universal work for the anti-monopoly execution of all countries
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D971.2;DD912.29

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 陳少華;;中美反壟斷法比較研究[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年05期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 潘丹丹;反壟斷法不確定性的意義追尋[D];吉林大學;2010年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前5條

1 陳公濤;從中美反壟斷法背景看政府在反壟斷中的作用[D];山東大學;2012年

2 董清源;從進步主義時期反托拉斯運動看美國總統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟干預權(quán)擴大[D];遼寧大學;2013年

3 趙夢遠;后《謝爾曼法》研究[D];山西大學;2013年

4 李艷玲;反壟斷法“休眠”現(xiàn)象研究[D];中南大學;2013年

5 曾翔;縱向限制價格的規(guī)制和建議[D];華東政法大學;2013年

，

本文編號：2502871

boshi