The Research On The Reconciliation System In Course Of The Implementation Of Anti--monopoly Law

With the development of economic globalization, a variety of forms of monopoly, coupled with the concept of modern society Public and Private Law gained popularity and sublimation, the antitrust enforcement reconciliation developed. The settlement agreement is with administrative, procedural, contractual, interchangeability and alternative informal enforcement procedures, it is based on the Administrative contract theory, theory of costs and benefits and the Prisoner’s Dilemma theory. Law enforcement reconciliation has been plagued by the "reconciliation Paradox",the society accept it overcome the uncertainty of the anti-monopoly law, improve the efficiency of law enforcement and other functions, at the same time, pointed out that the existence of the identity of the law enforcement agencies as the duality, two-way information asymmetries and other limited natures.The enforcement agencies through antitrust enforcement reconciliation to allow limited resources to maximize effectiveness, it is generally exclude applicable for the cases of social harm heavier, takes a lot of monitoring costs, and the conditions include the fact that the state is not clear. Reconciliation is used to standardize enterprise behaviors, but the main thing is to protect the public welfare and interests of third parties. The effect of the settlement agreement can be applied to the effectiveness of the civil agreement for classification. The current reconciliation process starts ex officio and upon request. Agreement to fulfill the standards are not uniform, by practice, the universal considering whether save resources, stop illegal activities, restore competition and other factors. Open procedures is necessary for reconciliation system.Depend on the different supervision of law enforcement agencies, the supervision of the settlement agreement specialized the supervision of law enforcement agencies, organizations monitoring and supervision of the judiciary.By comparison, the legislative requirements and practical experience in different countries are different. The settlement agreement in the United States and Japan have quasi-judicial alternative to the court decision, the European Union and Taiwan are reconciliation administrative organs to exercise executive power. After the signing of consent decrees need to court review, the consent order of the United States enter into force, Taiwan effect to the settlement must go through interested parties written consent, the Japanese settlement agreement approved by the Fair Trade Commission, the EU’s commitment without the approval of the court.The "ice-breaking trip" of China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement reconciliation should be expanded antitrust investigation of the2011Development and Reform Commission on Telecom and China Unicom, the case come to an end with Telecom and China Unicom’commitment rectification. Legislation, in addition to the "anti-monopoly law"45, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Development and Reform Commission issued a procedural requirements on the commitment of the operators, but the provisions are not comprehensive, need further improvement. This paper analyzes China’s settlement system in the scope of application, applicable conditions, oversight mechanisms and stake holders protection problems, according to these issues, the writer put forwards suggestions for improvement, such as a clear reconciliation applicable conditions,determine the scope of application of reconciliation, the improvement supervision system, the establishment of interested persons to protection mechanisms.