本文選題：反壟斷法 + 執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)��； 參考：《山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：反壟斷法被稱(chēng)為“經(jīng)濟(jì)憲法”，其在維護(hù)市場(chǎng)公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、提高經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)行效率，促進(jìn)社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)健康發(fā)展方面發(fā)揮著無(wú)可替代的基礎(chǔ)性作用。而反壟斷法發(fā)揮作用又依賴(lài)于權(quán)威有效率的反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)。但我國(guó)目前的反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)面臨著獨(dú)立性、權(quán)威性和專(zhuān)業(yè)性不足的問(wèn)題，，使得執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)難以承擔(dān)實(shí)現(xiàn)該法立法目的的重任。要解決此問(wèn)題，理論研究必須先行。 本文首先明確了反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的概念、性質(zhì)和作用。反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)是具體負(fù)責(zé)反壟斷執(zhí)法的行政機(jī)關(guān)，在反壟斷法立法目的實(shí)現(xiàn)上起著主導(dǎo)作用。它作為專(zhuān)門(mén)負(fù)責(zé)反壟斷執(zhí)法的行政機(jī)構(gòu)，其應(yīng)具備法定性、獨(dú)立性、權(quán)威性和專(zhuān)業(yè)性的特征，與司法和私人等反壟斷力量相比，在專(zhuān)業(yè)技術(shù)、組織結(jié)構(gòu)和權(quán)力配置等方面具有很大優(yōu)勢(shì)，且主動(dòng)性較強(qiáng)。主要通過(guò)行使廣泛的反壟斷行政權(quán)力、準(zhǔn)立法權(quán)、準(zhǔn)司法權(quán)來(lái)發(fā)揮其限制壟斷行為，保護(hù)市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的作用。 目前我國(guó)反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置模式采用“二元多頭式”，該模式中以國(guó)務(wù)院反壟斷委員會(huì)、國(guó)務(wù)院反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)兩家機(jī)構(gòu)為主導(dǎo)，由國(guó)家工商行政管理總局、商務(wù)部以及國(guó)家發(fā)展和改革委員會(huì)三家機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)具體執(zhí)法事項(xiàng)，三家機(jī)構(gòu)還下設(shè)部門(mén)具體完成工作事項(xiàng)。此種設(shè)置模式看似嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，但在執(zhí)法實(shí)踐中卻不免出現(xiàn)許多的問(wèn)題：國(guó)務(wù)院反壟斷委員會(huì)職權(quán)范圍模糊、性質(zhì)界定不清，不能發(fā)揮其協(xié)調(diào)作用；反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)級(jí)別較低，獨(dú)立性和權(quán)威性不夠?qū)е缕湓趫?zhí)法過(guò)程中易受到其他機(jī)構(gòu)和組織影響，無(wú)法公正執(zhí)法；反壟斷執(zhí)法人員的專(zhuān)業(yè)水平和業(yè)務(wù)素質(zhì)不高，難以把握?qǐng)?zhí)法方法；反壟斷執(zhí)法部門(mén)內(nèi)部職權(quán)不清晰，執(zhí)法過(guò)程中交叉執(zhí)法、相互推諉和不作為等現(xiàn)象時(shí)有發(fā)生。這些問(wèn)題的存在導(dǎo)致反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)很難發(fā)揮應(yīng)有作用。 我國(guó)反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置改革中，美國(guó)的反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)之間的內(nèi)部協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制，德國(guó)以行業(yè)劃分來(lái)內(nèi)設(shè)的九個(gè)決議處，日韓反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的單一模式等域外經(jīng)驗(yàn)都可以借鑒，專(zhuān)家執(zhí)法、執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的高權(quán)威性和高獨(dú)立性等成熟做法也會(huì)成為我國(guó)在改革反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置中值得借鑒并加以利用的地方。 立足國(guó)情，借鑒國(guó)外成熟經(jīng)驗(yàn)，我國(guó)在反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置應(yīng)在以下幾個(gè)方面改進(jìn)：一是采用“一元式”設(shè)置模式，由國(guó)家反壟斷執(zhí)法局統(tǒng)一領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，并按地區(qū)劃分設(shè)置分支機(jī)構(gòu)，采用垂直管理，這樣既保證了執(zhí)法工作不受其他機(jī)構(gòu)干涉，又有效避免因多頭管理而產(chǎn)生的不良現(xiàn)象；二是國(guó)家反壟斷執(zhí)法局應(yīng)該由中央直接垂直領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，提升機(jī)構(gòu)行政級(jí)別，作為直屬局隸屬于國(guó)務(wù)院，保證其獨(dú)立性和權(quán)威性；三是提高反壟斷執(zhí)法人員選用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，提高執(zhí)法人員的專(zhuān)業(yè)水平和業(yè)務(wù)素質(zhì)。 本文采用文獻(xiàn)研究法、比較分析法和實(shí)證分析法等方法，在反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置模式、提高機(jī)構(gòu)獨(dú)立性和專(zhuān)家執(zhí)法方面都提出了創(chuàng)新且具體的建議。
[Abstract]:Antitrust law is called "economic constitution", which plays an irreplaceable basic role in maintaining fair competition in the market, improving economic efficiency and promoting the healthy development of the socialist market economy. The problem of independence, authority and lack of professionalism makes it difficult for the law enforcement agencies to undertake the important task of realizing the legislative purpose of the law.
This article first clarifies the concept, nature and function of the antitrust law enforcement agency. The antitrust law enforcement agency is a specific administrative organ responsible for the anti-monopoly law enforcement, and plays a leading role in the realization of the legislative purpose of the antitrust law. It should be a statutory, independent, authoritative and professional organization responsible for the enforcement of antitrust law. Characteristics, compared with the judicial and private antitrust forces, they have great advantages in professional technology, organizational structure and power allocation, and have strong initiative, mainly through the exercise of extensive antitrust administrative power, quasi legislative power, quasi judicial power to exert its restrictions on monopoly and protect market competition.
At present, the mode of setting up the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies in our country adopts "two yuan and multiple heads", which is dominated by the State Council antitrust Committee and the two institutions of the State Council antitrust law enforcement agencies. The State Administration for Industry and commerce, the Ministry of Commerce and the national development and Reform Commission are responsible for the specific enforcement of the law and the three institutions. The following departments have completed the work. This pattern seems to be strict, but there are many problems in the practice of law enforcement. The State Council's Anti-monopoly Commission has a vague function, its nature is not clear and its coordination function can not be played; the level of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency is low, and its independence and authority are not enough to lead to its law enforcement. Cheng Zhongyi is affected by other organizations and organizations and can not enforce the law impartially; the professional level and professional quality of the anti monopoly law enforcement personnel are not high, and it is difficult to grasp the law enforcement methods; the internal functions and powers of the anti-monopoly law enforcement departments are not clear, the law enforcement process cross law enforcement, mutual prevarication and inaction occur. The existence of these problems leads to the anti ridge. It is difficult to play the role of breaking the law enforcement agencies.
In the reform of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies in China, the internal coordination mechanism between the antitrust law enforcement agencies of the United States, the nine resolution offices in Germany, the single mode of the Japanese and South Korean anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies can be used for reference, the expert law enforcement, the high authority and high independence of the law enforcement machinery, and so on. It has become a place worthy of reference and utilization in China's reform of anti monopoly law enforcement agencies.
Based on the national conditions and drawing on the mature experience of foreign countries, the establishment of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies in China should be improved in the following aspects: first, the "one yuan" setting mode, the unified leadership of the state anti monopoly Law Enforcement Bureau, and the division of branches according to the regional division, and vertical management, thus ensure that law enforcement is not interfered with by other institutions, The two is that the State Administration of antimonopoly law enforcement should be led directly by the central government by the central government, to improve the administrative level of the institution, to be subordinate to the State Council, to ensure its independence and authority, and the three is to improve the standards for the selection and use of anti-monopoly law enforcement personnel and to improve the professional level and industry of the law enforcement personnel. Quality of affairs.
This article adopts the methods of literature research, comparative analysis and empirical analysis, and puts forward some innovative and specific suggestions on the setting pattern of antitrust law enforcement agencies, the improvement of institutional independence and the law enforcement of experts.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張炳生;論我國(guó)反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的設(shè)置——對(duì)現(xiàn)行設(shè)計(jì)方案的質(zhì)疑[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

2 貴立義;孫文英;;反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)問(wèn)題研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2009年03期

3 吳振國(guó);國(guó)外反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)的設(shè)置及其職能[J];中國(guó)工商管理研究;2003年06期

4 王先林;;我國(guó)反壟斷法實(shí)施的基本機(jī)制及其效果——兼論以壟斷行業(yè)作為我國(guó)反壟斷法實(shí)施的突破口[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2012年05期

5 孟雁北;;我國(guó)《反壟斷法》之于壟斷行業(yè)適用范圍問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué)家;2012年06期

6 丁茂中;;反壟斷執(zhí)法的移植與本土化研究[J];法商研究;2013年04期

7 金善明;;反壟斷法實(shí)施的邏輯前提:解釋及其反思[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年05期

8 陳兵;;反壟斷法實(shí)施與消費(fèi)者保護(hù)的協(xié)同發(fā)展[J];法學(xué);2013年09期

9 鄒亞莎;李亞;;反壟斷民事訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任分配[J];法律適用;2014年02期

10 李勝利;;美國(guó)反托拉斯執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的執(zhí)法沖突和協(xié)調(diào)及其啟示[J];法商研究;2014年02期

本文編號(hào)：1857075