The Research On The Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Of The Antimonopoly Law

Monopoly is the opposite side of competition. It means a company or a group occupies most share of a certain market and gets exclusive control over the market and decides the price of commodities. The harm of monopoly mainly lies in two aspects: first, it damages the fair order of competition and blocks the entrance of certain market. Second, it may invade the consumers' rights. Because of these monopoly is harmful to the economics. In order to limit the misusing of exclusive control of the market and maintain the fair order of competition, USA created Sherman Act in 1890. It is considered as a milestone of antitrust law legislation. After that, a lot of countries create their own antitrust laws.With the development of globalization of world economic, more competition limiting activities of MNC and monopoly activities of international cartel emerge. Since no international trade treaty supply rules and methods in dealing with these activities, most countries regulate and dominate international monopoly activities with their domestic law. By doing so, the system of extraterritorial enforcement of antitrust law established. This system originates from USA in United State v. Aluminum co of America. In that case, US court alleges its extraterritorial enforcement according to the effects doctrine of antitrust law. This shocked the world. On one hand most countries resist the enforcement of US antitrust law by the reasons of against supremacy, on the other hand they observe this newly born system from a brand new angle and create their own extraterritorial enforcement system of antitrust law. After that, several doctrines of extraterritorial enforcement such as the doctrine of international comity were created one by one.Because the essence of extraterritorial enforcement system of antitrust law is extraterritorial jurisdiction, conflicts of legislation jurisdiction and justice jurisdiction are inevitable. More attention is given to justice jurisdiction conflict. Some countries resist others' justice jurisdiction in politics, justice and legislation ways. Because these resistances insist on their own countries'economic advantage, they did not prevent conflicts but make it worse in certain degrees. Though countries have conflicts they have unified benefits under the background of globalization of international economics, so it is not only important but also feasible to handle the conflicts in extraterritorial enforcement of antitrust law. Many successful examples of bilateral cooperation, multilateral cooperation and territorial cooperation can offer experience and most countries realized that national antitrust law theory should be completed by international legislation. More and more attention were put on the legislation of unified international antirust law and it is both important and feasible to build unified international antitrust law system in WTO frame.Nowadays, an all-directional opening-up pattern has, by and large, taken shape in China, economics relationship with different countries have been established. It is a pity that we don't have our own antitrust law. There is no dispute in essence of legislation of antitrust law and exterritorial enforcement system, but on the aspects of how to select the doctrine of extraterritorial enforcement, in solving the problems of whether we establish a special department and what attitude should we have in joining international cooperation, we need to use the experiences of developed countries. By doing so, we can join international economic tide and guarantee a fair and free domestic competition order.