Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement System

In the early 1890's, US set down Sherman act, the earliest antitrust law.Following that, France, British, Germany and Japan set down their own antitrust lawone by one and so far it is more than 80 countries. Along with the evolution ofantitrust law, the executive organization developed either. The particular executivesystems of different countries have their own advantages and disadvantages, whichprovide reference for China to set up the antitrust executive system. Meanwhile, theyhave prominent commonness, i. e. high specialty, abroad authority and exceed station.All of the sayings give profound inspiration for China to set up her own executivesystem.Along with the outspread of China's economy reform, market competition playsa basic role in China's economy. Economy scale grows rapidly under marketeconomy, which results in monopoly directly; on the other hand, the influence and tieof the traditional planned economy system have not be exterminated, the managementsystem for market economy has not be built up completely, and the law mechanismthat controls administration power is not sound either. Consequently, monopoly inChina is complex and odd with interlace of economy monopoly and administrationmonopoly, which cumber China's free competition order.In past more than ten years, the legislature of China always be hatching antitrustlaw, but because of many reasons, antitrust law can't be set. Until June in 2006, StateDepartment's 139th meeting discussed and passed antitrust law (drafted plan), andhand over it to parliament. However, the regulation on the executive system is toosimple. On the basis of doing a comparative legal research on the representativecountries, the author discusses the presently actuality of China's antitrust and design aframework for China's executive system. The paper is composed with three parts. Themain content including the following:The first part: doing a legal research on the representative countries, discusses the settings of the antitrust organization, executive authority and practicing systemand analyzes both the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems. Theauthor indicates that all of the systems have commonness, i. e. specialty, independenceand authority.The second part: first, the author discusses China's existing system, indicatingthat China do not have a complete antitrust law opposing the urgency against antitrust.The existing regulation regulates antitrust incompletely without standard executivedepartment, the allocation of the function is unreasonable and the people'sprofessional level is not very high. Secondly, the author introduces various points intheory field, and carries on the analysis and evaluation to them. Finally, the authorpoints out enforcement authority mode's limitation in antitrust law (drafted plan), andput forward own different opinion.The third part: the author designs the executive system as the following: on thebasis of the situation of China and the experience of foreign countries, China set upan organization directly under State Department with the district branch, whichshould be composed with expertise in different areas. The committee holds thejurisdiction authority, legislative authority and administration authority with thesubsidies of competition office, economy office and consultation office. The party caninstitute litigation if he is dissatisfied with the result of the committee. Between theexecutive organization and industry supervisor organization, a good communicationmechanism should be set up.