Comparative Research On Executive System Of Antitrust And The Inspiration For China

In the early 1890's, US set down Sherman act ,the earliest antitrust law. Followingthat, Japan, France, British and Germany set down their own antitrust law one by one andso far it is up to 84 countries. Along with the evolution of antitrust law, the executiveorganization developed either. The particular executive system of different countries have their own advantages anddisadvantages, which provide reference for china to set up the antitrust executive system.Meanwhile, they have prominent commonness, i.e. high specialty, abroad authority andexceed station. All of the saying give profundity inspiration for china to set up her ownexecutive system. Along with the outspread of china's economy reform, market competition play abasic role in china's economy. Economy scale grow rapidly under market economy, whichresult in monopoly directly; on the other hand, authority mechanism of the inhere systemshaped under the nation monopoly. Consequently, monopoly in china is complex and oddwith the interlace of economy monopoly and administration monopoly, which cumberchina's free competition order. After the brew more than ten years, the frame of antitrust draft has been lucid in IVessence. However, the regulation on the executive system is too simple. On the basis ofdoing a comparative legal research on the representative countries, the author discuss thepresently actuality of china's antitrust and design a framework for china's executivesystem. The paper is composed with four parts with 35,000 words. The main contentincluding the following four parts: The first part: doing a legal research on the representative countries, discuss thesettings of the antitrust organization, executive authority and practicing system andanalyze both the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems. The second part: the author emphasize on the particularities of the different systems,doing a comparative research on the single authority system and double authority system,on the committee mode and simple administration mode. The author also indicate that allof the systems have commonness, i.e. specialty, independence and princedom. The third part: the author discuss china's existing system, indicating that china do nothave a complete antitrust law opposing the urgency against antitrust. The existingregulation regulate antitrust incompletely without standard executive department and theallocation of the function is unreasonable. Against the point suggesting commerceadministration to act as the antitrust administration, the author hold the view that it isimpropriate considering the dependence, specialty and litigation convenience. The forth part: the penman design the executive system as the following: on the basisof the situation of china and the experience of foreign countries, china set up aorganization directly under State Department with the district branch, which should becomposed with expertise in different areas. The committee hold the jurisdiction authority,legislative authority and administration authority with the subsidies of competition office,economy office and regulation office and consultation office. The party can institutelitigation if he is dissatisfied with the result of the committee.