The Research Of Taiwan’s Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies

Taiwan’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies is a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative power of the law enforcement agencies, it was a market for Taiwan’s economic development has many obstacles to clear. With the successful introduction of China’s anti-monopoly law, an efficient implementation of the anti-monopoly law, the implementing agencies on the convenience of the more significant is the look. In the "anti-monopoly law" provisions that anti-monopoly by the relevant departments for violations of "anti-monopoly law," the enterprise, organization or individual to carry out punishment, the relevant departments of China’s existing law in the handling of personnel or units are not properly. There are also many articles and books to point out that the main reason are that it’s not a result of independence. This article is the analysis through the use of history, social analysis and comparison of analysis methods, to introduce Taiwan’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies the functions and operation of the status quo, and to analyze the reasons behind the potential to identify the existence of the Fair Trade Commission and the true value significance. China’s Taiwan region, particularly through the Fair Trade Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission, antitrust law enforcement agencies in South Korea compared with the club revealed the superiority of public transport, and then through the mainland areas of China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies showed areas of China’s mainland anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies the authority is not independent, all law enforcement agencies with a strong color of the executive; many institutions to manage a lot of things but no one to deal with, rather than mutual competition for prevarication is not, in spite of the various law enforcement agencies are the starting point for consumer interests, but in the end the results are unsatisfactory; legislation to improve the implementation when the flaws of the problem, the problem lies in enforcement, the majority opinion that lawmakers are ill-considered, and the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission in this with regard to the achievements is for everyone to see, not only law enforcement and efficient and also highly targeted.This article has three parts.The first part focuses on Taiwan’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies an overview of the agencies immediately of the existence of a market economy, as well as the value of Taiwan’s economic performance in the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies are how to protect the competition exert the law, the purpose of safeguarding the competitors. With the United States antitrust law enforcement agencies to clarify the comparison of Taiwan, Japan and the United States are the same strain, the Fair Trade Commission, the Fair Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division based positioning can be legislative and quasi-judicial body.The second part of the adoption of the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission of Japan and South Korea orthogonal comparison of public transport would be an indication of their independence and authority, but authority and the executive aspects of the intervention will be significantly different.Finally, combined with China’s national conditions and the current status of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, through the China mainland and Taiwan’s anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, comparison, analysis of law enforcement agencies in Taiwan’s advantages, because it "independence" of the advantages of the institution in various places, including personnel, institutions and trial operation, investigation and implementation of the three-in-one model, because as the executive should not be detail about those things, and grasp the principle of "hands" to be hard, but not the principle of autonomy can be done to the market, after all, the market self-regulation and repair capacity is still relatively strong, too much protection or less protection would hinder competition. Absorb and learn from Taiwan, the independence of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies and other advantages, to achieve the perfect mainland antitrust purpose of law enforcement agencies.