本文選題：反壟斷 + 爭(zhēng)議　； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：由于反壟斷而產(chǎn)生的爭(zhēng)議與市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)利益密切相關(guān),更與國(guó)家管理市場(chǎng)、維護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序的公共政策息息相關(guān),因此,反壟斷爭(zhēng)議不能交由仲裁解決曾是一項(xiàng)固定規(guī)則,曾幾何時(shí),諸多國(guó)家都否定反壟斷爭(zhēng)議的可仲裁性而將其劃歸為法院專屬管轄的范疇。可是隨著近年來(lái)各國(guó)仲裁的發(fā)展,各國(guó)法院也摒棄了此種做法,可仲裁事項(xiàng)呈現(xiàn)出了擴(kuò)大化趨勢(shì)。我國(guó)學(xué)者普遍認(rèn)為在我國(guó)政府執(zhí)行體制仍存有諸多弊端的情勢(shì)下,為履行《紐約公約》規(guī)定的義務(wù)并充分利用仲裁程序所具有的優(yōu)勢(shì),我國(guó)有必要將反壟斷爭(zhēng)議納入可仲裁事項(xiàng)范疇。除了主管機(jī)構(gòu)與實(shí)施壟斷行為的經(jīng)營(yíng)者之間因執(zhí)法行為所致的縱向型爭(zhēng)議外,禁止壟斷協(xié)議、禁止濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位以及禁止過(guò)度企業(yè)集中在很大程度上均是發(fā)生在平等市場(chǎng)主體間的橫向型爭(zhēng)議,應(yīng)當(dāng)具有可提交仲裁解決的本質(zhì)屬性。也有的學(xué)者從實(shí)踐角度分析了我國(guó)《仲裁法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定,認(rèn)為根據(jù)以往各國(guó)的實(shí)踐,反壟斷爭(zhēng)議可以提交仲裁。 本文試圖以國(guó)際商事仲裁領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的反壟斷爭(zhēng)議的可仲裁性作為研究對(duì)象,從法律理論和商事實(shí)踐的角度探討了隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的迅猛發(fā)展和我國(guó)仲裁制度的不斷完善,反壟斷爭(zhēng)議的可仲裁性的變化及其實(shí)踐中已經(jīng)遇到和將要遇到的法律問(wèn)題,進(jìn)而分析當(dāng)今世界以美國(guó)為主要代表的西方發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家在這一方面的立法與實(shí)踐發(fā)展,并反觀中國(guó)現(xiàn)狀,最后提出中國(guó)應(yīng)作出的反應(yīng)和對(duì)策。
[Abstract]:The disputes arising from antitrust are closely related to the interests of market competition, and are closely related to the public policies of the state to manage the market and maintain the competition order. Therefore, it was once a fixed rule that the antitrust disputes could not be resolved by arbitration. Once upon a time, many countries denied the arbitrability of antitrust disputes and classified them as the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. However, with the development of arbitration in recent years, the courts of various countries have abandoned this practice, and the subject matter of arbitration has shown a trend of expansion. Chinese scholars generally believe that in order to fulfill the obligations under the New York Convention and make full use of the advantages of arbitration procedures, there are still many drawbacks in the enforcement system of our government. It is necessary for China to bring antitrust disputes into the category of arbitrable matters. Except for the vertical disputes between the competent authority and the operator who carries out the monopoly act as a result of the enforcement of the law, the monopoly agreement shall be prohibited, The prohibition of abuse of dominant market position and the prohibition of excessive concentration of enterprises are horizontal disputes occurring among the subjects of equal market to a great extent and should have the essential attribute that can be submitted to arbitration for settlement. Some scholars have analyzed the relevant provisions of our country's Arbitration Law from the point of view of practice, and think that according to the practice of other countries, antitrust disputes can be submitted to arbitration. This paper attempts to take the arbitrability of antitrust disputes in the field of international commercial arbitration as the object of study. From the angle of legal theory and commercial practice, this paper probes into the rapid development of economic globalization and the continuous improvement of arbitration system in China. The arbitrability of antitrust disputes and the legal problems that have been met and will be encountered in practice, and then analyzes the development of legislation and practice in this area in the western developed countries, which are mainly represented by the United States in today's world. In the end, the author puts forward some countermeasures and responses to the situation of China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996.1;D922.294;D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張艾清;國(guó)際商事仲裁的可仲裁性問(wèn)題研究[J];貴州民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年06期

2 王健;;反壟斷法私人執(zhí)行制度初探[J];法商研究;2007年02期

3 唐蘊(yùn)鋒;爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)可仲裁性淺析[J];南京經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年04期

4 胡玉鴻;法律爭(zhēng)議論[J];法治論叢;2002年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 周昀;反壟斷法論[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

，

本文編號(hào)：1919520