| With the globalization of world market, tariff duties have been successfully lowered, and the government non-tariff barriers have been progressively removed, which symbolized the further liberalization of world trade and investment. As the traditional government-imposed trade barriers have been largely reduced, the lowered national barriers to global trade means the territorially limited economic policy tools government used to monitor international business activity become ineffective, the need to find ways to handle the new barriers is urgent. Among various activities affecting the world trade, one of it is the restrictive business practice, which now represent real threat to the effective realization of the objective of the World Trade Organization and the Marrakesh Agreement.The trade and competition policy are largely serve the same goals in terms of economic objectives, they are also complementary because trade policy eliminates government barriers to international trade, competition policy aims at eliminating private barriers. But there are some inconsistence between trade policy and competition policy. In the world market, trade policy cannot ensure marker access because market access depends not only on the government commitment, but also on the market strategies of the domestic firms. Competition policy normally belongs to the domestic law, which aims at ensure domestic markets competitive, so they don't care world market. As trade policy and competition policy have conflicts, there are real gap between trade policy and competition policy. In practice, these conflicts appears to be the anti-competitive practice, such as: export exemption, anti-dumping, private anti-competitive and international merge. These anti-competitive have great harm to international trade, bloc the market access.How to handle with these anti-competitive practices, there are some different solutions. One of it is the unilateral approach, which leaves with national authorities the sole responsibility for resolving competition disputes through extraterritorial application of national competition. This approach was first introduce by the United States in 1945, later it was absorbed by other countries. This approach will rise conflicts on jurisdiction, investigation and the enforcement if two or more countries use this approach in the same dispute. Although United States recognize comity in applying this approach, nondisclosure laws, clawback statues and official protests make this approach is not an idealistic way to solve dispute.The difference among domestic legislation and enforcement make problems stemmingfrom the unilateral approach. Corporation, is the only option. Bilateral corporation have achieved great success among some countries in some areas, the notable one is the bilateral agreement between EU and United States on positive comity. But as there are only limited parties in one agreement, and if no national legislation exits, there are no corporations, and corporation is not binding, all of these limit the role of this approach.EU legislation is an effective way in regional corporation, but this kink legislation conform to its political goals, which doesn't fit for WTO members.International organization, such as United Nations and OECD, play an important role in international competition policy corporation. But in international law, all of these documentaries they made is belong to soft law, have no binding on members.Havana Chanter developed an entire chapter to the subject of competition policy, but it is stillborn. GATT barely speaks to the issue of competition policy, it articles have some relations with competition polity. TRIPS, TRIMS, GATS and its attachment contains some articles on competition policy, but the regulation is too comprehensive to be used in the practice. As in the Kodak-Fuji case, the DSU clearly said that DUS do not solve competition issues. So at present, WTO play a limited role on competition dispute.There are some basic approaches to solve the competition law and the...
|
PDF Full Text Request