本文選題：企業(yè)合營行為　切入點(diǎn)：反壟斷法　出處：《浙江財(cái)經(jīng)學(xué)院》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的全球化發(fā)展,企業(yè)之間的聯(lián)系更加緊密。企業(yè)之間利用建立合營企業(yè)來分擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),互補(bǔ)資源,也就成為了它們提高自身競爭力的重要方式之一。與企業(yè)合營隨之而來的是企業(yè)合營中的反壟斷問題。由于這一問題的特殊性,已越來越受到各國的關(guān)注,并通過立法紛紛加以規(guī)范。 傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)僅僅將合營企業(yè)視為一個(gè)將投入轉(zhuǎn)化成產(chǎn)出的經(jīng)濟(jì)單位。新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的理論貢獻(xiàn)在于使我們能真實(shí)地將合營企業(yè)作為一種典型的中間形態(tài)而進(jìn)行研究。合營企業(yè)雙方的協(xié)議是一份面向未來的關(guān)系性契約,這種契約產(chǎn)生的后果便是合營雙方構(gòu)成了一個(gè)合作性的共同體。 民商法通過對(duì)合營企業(yè)法律形式的確定,重在維護(hù)企業(yè)在市場競爭中的權(quán)利和義務(wù)。反壟斷法則淡化了對(duì)合營企業(yè)具體應(yīng)該采取哪些法律形式的關(guān)注,而把關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)放在是否限制競爭的合營行為上來,因?yàn)檫@才是反壟斷法所關(guān)注的最終目標(biāo)。當(dāng)然,企業(yè)合營行為的范圍很大,不僅是指合營企業(yè)的設(shè)立行為,還包括合營企業(yè)的經(jīng)營活動(dòng),它是一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的歷史的過程,貫穿到合營企業(yè)的整個(gè)發(fā)展過程。 企業(yè)合營能加快企業(yè)進(jìn)入新市場的速度；分散風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和降低成本；形成規(guī)模效應(yīng)；提高資源有效利用,加快新技術(shù)的開發(fā)速度。 企業(yè)之間的合營行為在對(duì)競爭秩序產(chǎn)生有利影響的同時(shí),也會(huì)產(chǎn)生一些限制競爭的消極后果。如,合營企業(yè)本身可能提高市場集中度,有抑制競爭的可能；合營各方因其建立合營企業(yè)的便利,很容易在合營領(lǐng)域之外相互勾結(jié),從事限制競爭的行為。合營企業(yè)的成立有可能成為各控制企業(yè)之間“共謀”規(guī)避法律規(guī)制的借口。各控制企業(yè)為了牟取私利,在建立合營企業(yè)的借口掩蓋之下,進(jìn)行企業(yè)的聯(lián)合,從而進(jìn)行固定價(jià)格、限制產(chǎn)量、劃分市場等行為,其實(shí)真正意義上的合營企業(yè)是不存在的,所設(shè)的合營企業(yè)只是控制企業(yè)進(jìn)行聯(lián)合限制競爭的掩護(hù)。 正因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)合營行為存在上述的限制競爭行為或限制競爭傾向或可能,所以有必要對(duì)合營行為進(jìn)行反壟斷法規(guī)制。 歐盟在對(duì)企業(yè)合營行為規(guī)制過程中,遵循的是成文法傳統(tǒng),即通過立法明確對(duì)集中型合營和協(xié)調(diào)型合營進(jìn)行分別規(guī)制的原則。美國是判例法國家,注重企業(yè)交易的實(shí)質(zhì),強(qiáng)調(diào)剝?nèi)テ髽I(yè)偽裝合營的外衣,而不拘泥于是否以合營企業(yè)的名義作為規(guī)制的前提條件。上述這些做法應(yīng)當(dāng)為我們設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)制企業(yè)合營行為制度時(shí)學(xué)習(xí)。 在分析對(duì)我國企業(yè)合營行為進(jìn)行反壟斷規(guī)制時(shí),必須先確立規(guī)制時(shí)應(yīng)遵循的基本原則。一是遵循與產(chǎn)業(yè)政策相協(xié)調(diào)的原則。二是應(yīng)尊重企業(yè)合理選擇經(jīng)濟(jì)組織形式的原則。三是根據(jù)合營行為的類型分別規(guī)制的原則。 在確定規(guī)制企業(yè)合營行為的立法模式時(shí),我國應(yīng)該借鑒歐盟的立法模式,根據(jù)企業(yè)合營行為的類型,構(gòu)建規(guī)制的法律制度,這與我國成文法傳統(tǒng)所追求的法律確定性精神是相一致的。同時(shí),也應(yīng)借鑒美國的多種合營行為的分類方法,采取概括與列舉并存的立法方式,而不應(yīng)拘泥于歐盟的分別列舉的方式。這與反壟斷法的政策性特點(diǎn)是相協(xié)調(diào)的。 現(xiàn)階段,根據(jù)我國反壟斷法執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的分工以及合營行為的分類,我國合營行為的反壟斷法規(guī)制執(zhí)法分工如下：(1)集中型合營行為由商務(wù)部負(fù)責(zé)查處。(2)協(xié)調(diào)型合營行為(合作型合營)由國家工商總局負(fù)責(zé)查處。(3)協(xié)調(diào)型合營涉及價(jià)格行為時(shí)由國家發(fā)改委負(fù)責(zé)查處。 從2008年8月1日《反壟斷法》實(shí)施以來,國家商務(wù)部、國家工商總局、國家發(fā)改委先后制定了若干反壟斷法規(guī)定,并向社會(huì)廣泛征求意見。這些舉措,無疑大大提高反壟斷執(zhí)法的透明度,加強(qiáng)了反壟斷法的可操作性和實(shí)用性。這些規(guī)定同樣也為我們規(guī)制合營行為提供了法律基礎(chǔ)。不過,我們?nèi)杂斜匾鶕?jù)中國企業(yè)合營行為特點(diǎn),借鑒發(fā)達(dá)國家的經(jīng)驗(yàn),制定更加切實(shí)可行的企業(yè)合營反壟斷單行法規(guī)或指南。Ⅱ
[Abstract]:With the development of economic globalization, enterprises are getting closer and closer. By the establishment of the joint venture between enterprises to share the risk, complementary resources, has become one of the important ways to improve their competitiveness. With the joint venture followed by anti monopoly enterprises in joint ventures. Due to the special nature of this problem, has been more and more the attention of all countries, and through legislation to regulate.
The traditional economics only as a joint venture will be input into output economic units. The theory contribution of the new institutional economists is that we can truly be a joint venture as an intermediate form and typical research. The joint venture agreement of the parties is a face to the future of the relational contract, this contract the consequence is that the parties to form a cooperative community.
Civil and commercial law by deciding on the legal form of joint venture, focusing on the maintenance of the rights and obligations of the enterprise in the market competition. Anti monopoly law played on the joint venture should take what specific forms of law, and to focus attention on the joint venture bank has restricted the competition to come up, because this is the ultimate target of interest the anti monopoly law. Of course, the scope of enterprise behavior, not only refers to the behavior of the joint venture set up joint ventures, including the business activities, it is a dynamic process of history, throughout the entire development process of the joint venture.
The joint venture can speed up the entry of enterprises into the new market, disperse risks and reduce costs, form scale effect, improve effective utilization of resources and speed up the development of new technologies.
The behavior of joint venture between enterprises in the competition in order to produce beneficial effects at the same time, will also have some negative consequences of restricting competition. For example, the joint venture itself may increase market concentration, inhibiting competition may be; the parties of the joint venture established because of its convenience, easy in the field outside of the collusion in restricting competition the behavior of the joint venture was established. The control is likely to become the "conspiracy" between enterprises to circumvent the legal regulation of the excuse. The control of enterprises in order to gain, under the establishment of the joint venture enterprises to jointly carry out a pretext to cover, and thus a fixed price, limiting the yield, dividing market behavior, in fact, the true meaning of the joint venture there is not a joint venture, just control enterprises jointly limit the competition cover.
It is necessary to regulate the action of the joint venture by anti monopoly law because of the above-mentioned restrictive competition behavior or the possibility of restricting competition.
In the process of regulating the behavior of joint venture, follow the tradition of law, which is defined by legislation of centralized coordination and joint venture joint venture respectively regulation principle. The United States is the case law of the country, to focus on the essence of trade enterprise, joint venture enterprise that stripped the camouflage coat, but not rigidly adhere to or on behalf of the joint venture the precondition for regulation. These practices should be learning design system for our joint venture enterprise behavior regulation.
In the analysis of the antitrust regulation of our joint venture behavior, the basic principles should be abided by to establish regulation. One is to follow the principle of coordination and industrial policy. The two is the enterprise should respect the reasonable choice of economic organization principle. The three is based on the type of the behavior regulation principles respectively.
In the legislative model to determine the regulation of joint venture behavior, our country should learn from the EU legislative model, according to the type of joint venture behavior, build the legal system of regulation, this and our country into the spirit of the pursuit of legal certainty grammar is consistent with the traditional classification methods. At the same time, should also learn a variety of behavior of the United States joint venture take, summarizes and lists the coexistence of legislation, and should not rigidly adhere to the EU are enumerated. The characteristics of this policy and anti-monopoly law is coordinated.
At this stage, according to the classification and the behavior of joint venture of China's anti monopoly law enforcement agency division, China joint venture behavior regulation of anti monopoly law enforcement division are as follows: (1) from the behavior of joint venture by the Ministry of Commerce shall be responsible for investigation. (2) the coordination behavior of joint venture (cooperative joint venture) by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce shall be responsible for investigation. (3) coordinated joint venture involving price behavior by the national development and Reform Commission is responsible for the investigation.
Since the anti-monopoly law since August 1, 2008 implementation of < > the national Ministry of Commerce, the State Administration for Industry and commerce, the national development and Reform Commission has formulated the provisions of the anti-monopoly law, and to solicit the views of the community. These initiatives will undoubtedly greatly improve the transparency of the anti monopoly law enforcement, strengthen anti-monopoly law operability and practicability of these Provisions also. Also for regulating behavior of joint venture to provide a legal basis. However, we still need to China behavior according to the characteristics of joint venture enterprises, using the experience of developed countries, to develop a more feasible venture antitrust regulations or guidelines II.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江財(cái)經(jīng)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡健;;反壟斷法中“經(jīng)營者集中”的立法解讀[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2008年01期

2 于琳方;楊育民;;經(jīng)營者集中規(guī)制研究[J];財(cái)會(huì)月刊;2008年30期

3 王先林;論聯(lián)合限制競爭行為的法律規(guī)制——《中華人民共和國反壟斷法(草擬稿)》的相關(guān)部分評(píng)析[J];法商研究;2004年05期

4 王曉曄;;《中華人民共和國反壟斷法》中經(jīng)營者集中的評(píng)析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年01期

5 許光耀;;《反壟斷法》中壟斷協(xié)議諸條款之評(píng)析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年01期

6 華武,方世建,繆柏其;特許經(jīng)營的企業(yè)組織理論分析[J];管理現(xiàn)代化;2003年02期

7 吳偉達(dá);企業(yè)合資行為的反壟斷法考察[J];河北法學(xué);2005年02期

8 鄭鵬程;美國反壟斷法“本身違法”與“合理法則”適用范圍探討[J];河北法學(xué);2005年10期

9 張桐;;壟斷協(xié)議表現(xiàn)形式的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之構(gòu)建——對(duì)我國《反壟斷法》中壟斷協(xié)議相關(guān)條款的反思[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

10 時(shí)建中;;反壟斷法實(shí)施仍有四難[J];w，

本文編號(hào)：1612772