本文選題：WTO　切入點(diǎn)：印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：第二次世界大戰(zhàn)前后，發(fā)展中國(guó)家在工業(yè)化的過(guò)程中產(chǎn)生了壟斷現(xiàn)象并開始嘗試通過(guò)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法實(shí)現(xiàn)反壟斷和促進(jìn)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的目的。印度正是少數(shù)較早嘗試競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法立法和實(shí)踐的發(fā)展中國(guó)家之一，早在1969年就制定了第一部競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法。20世紀(jì)80年代起，特別是在WTO成立之后，發(fā)展中國(guó)家普遍遭遇的國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題和經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化所帶來(lái)的機(jī)遇與挑戰(zhàn)推動(dòng)了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法在這些國(guó)家速成。而在大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家剛剛著手制定競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法時(shí)，此時(shí)的印度已開始對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策進(jìn)行新一輪的調(diào)整。 近年來(lái)，印度經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展迅速，與巴西、俄羅斯、中國(guó)、南非共同被認(rèn)為是未來(lái)最具經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展?jié)摿Φ摹敖鸫u五國(guó)”。印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法在促進(jìn)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，維持公平的市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序，甚至是保護(hù)消費(fèi)者的利益方面功不可沒(méi)。從法的制定到法的實(shí)施，從成文法到判例法，從理論到實(shí)踐，從國(guó)內(nèi)微觀角度到國(guó)際宏觀視角，從歷史到現(xiàn)狀再到發(fā)展，系統(tǒng)而全面的研究印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法一方面可以為廣大發(fā)展中國(guó)家競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的制定和實(shí)施提供更加適合于自己的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，另一方面也是學(xué)科發(fā)展以及我國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)外交流的迫切要求。 本論文由導(dǎo)言和正文部分構(gòu)成，正文部分共七章內(nèi)容。 第一章首先從WTO框架下發(fā)展中國(guó)家的貿(mào)易與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的現(xiàn)狀談起。發(fā)展中國(guó)家對(duì)于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的關(guān)注更多是源于對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展和自由貿(mào)易的強(qiáng)烈渴望。特別是在WTO框架下隨著貿(mào)易自由化的不斷深入，各發(fā)展中國(guó)家成員方都意識(shí)到貿(mào)易與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的關(guān)系越來(lái)越密切，一國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策對(duì)國(guó)際貿(mào)易的影響也越來(lái)越大。在對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法立法現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行實(shí)證研究后，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)20世紀(jì)90年代是個(gè)分水嶺，發(fā)展中國(guó)家在此之后爆發(fā)了大規(guī)模的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)立法活動(dòng)。從立法推動(dòng)力角度來(lái)看，來(lái)自國(guó)際組織和外國(guó)主要競(jìng)爭(zhēng)機(jī)構(gòu)的外力推動(dòng)多過(guò)于發(fā)展中國(guó)家自身的內(nèi)力作用。這些組織和機(jī)構(gòu)輸入給發(fā)展中國(guó)家的多是先進(jìn)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法理念和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法模式，但經(jīng)過(guò)十多年實(shí)踐檢驗(yàn)這些先進(jìn)的理念和法律制度并沒(méi)有在發(fā)展中國(guó)家發(fā)揮預(yù)期的作用，甚至根本無(wú)法得到實(shí)施。發(fā)展中國(guó)家必須重新考慮選擇合適本國(guó)國(guó)情的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法模式。除了上述立法模式的選擇問(wèn)題之外，大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家競(jìng)爭(zhēng)機(jī)構(gòu)在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法實(shí)施的過(guò)程中都會(huì)遇到各種困難，例如競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法受到既得利益者的抵制、有效監(jiān)管的缺失、與具體行業(yè)監(jiān)管者間的沖突、各種資源的匱乏等等。要從根本上解決上述問(wèn)題，不是一蹴而就的，需要一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期努力的過(guò)程。從有關(guān)國(guó)家的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)看，培育積極向上的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)文化以及加強(qiáng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)機(jī)構(gòu)自身的能力建設(shè)都是突破困境的最有效手段。此外，學(xué)習(xí)和借鑒同類型國(guó)家在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法制定和實(shí)施方面的經(jīng)驗(yàn)也是非常重要而必要的。在眾多發(fā)展中國(guó)家中，印度在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法領(lǐng)域有著豐富的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和突出的成效。印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法既未脫離發(fā)展中國(guó)家共同經(jīng)歷的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展階段，又具有一定的前瞻性，在發(fā)展中國(guó)家競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法領(lǐng)域內(nèi)占據(jù)了極為重要的地位，極具借鑒意義。 第二章歷史性的回顧了印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的發(fā)展和演變過(guò)程。首先介紹了1969年《壟斷與限制性貿(mào)易行為法》（The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade PracticesAct,1969，簡(jiǎn)稱MRTP法）的立法背景，主要從印度《憲法》的規(guī)定，印度獨(dú)立后的發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略及其影響等角度進(jìn)行分析。該法先后經(jīng)歷了9次修訂，其中最重要的是1984年修正案和1991年修正案。1984年修正案出于保護(hù)消費(fèi)者的目的增加了禁止不公平貿(mào)易行為的相關(guān)內(nèi)容；1991年修正案則是印度國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)體制改革的要求，調(diào)控重點(diǎn)由控制經(jīng)濟(jì)力量的集中、控制壟斷轉(zhuǎn)向抑制壟斷性貿(mào)易行為、限制性貿(mào)易行為和不公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為，以維護(hù)商業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、保護(hù)消費(fèi)者的權(quán)益，特別是取消了對(duì)企業(yè)合并的預(yù)先審查規(guī)定。隨后介紹了1969年法律的主要內(nèi)容和實(shí)施情況，并對(duì)此進(jìn)行評(píng)述。雖然1969年競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法被頻繁修訂，但始終還是無(wú)法滿足印度國(guó)內(nèi)和國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展形勢(shì)的要求。特別是在1995年WTO成立后，印度在WTO協(xié)議下所承擔(dān)的義務(wù)以及各種貿(mào)易自由化措施引發(fā)的大量跨國(guó)公司的涌入使印度從政府到企業(yè)都意識(shí)到必須頒布新的《競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》以適應(yīng)新的發(fā)展形勢(shì)和要求。2002年新《競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》頒布，但實(shí)體內(nèi)容尚未生效就經(jīng)歷了2007年的大修，主要修訂內(nèi)容是增設(shè)新的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)構(gòu)，即競(jìng)爭(zhēng)上訴法庭（Competition AppellateTribunal，簡(jiǎn)稱CompAT）。自此形成了從印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)委員會(huì)（Competition Commissionof India，簡(jiǎn)稱CCI）到CompAT再到最高法院的完整執(zhí)法體系。新《競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》采用階段式生效模式，直到2011年才完全生效，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)構(gòu)2009年才正式運(yùn)作，取代了原有的壟斷與限制性貿(mào)易行為委員會(huì)（Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Commission，簡(jiǎn)稱MRTPC），原MRTP法也直到2009年才被廢止。相比舊法，新競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法可以說(shuō)是新瓶裝新酒，在融入現(xiàn)代化因素的同時(shí)也更適合印度的國(guó)情。 第三章重點(diǎn)關(guān)注印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法關(guān)于限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議的實(shí)踐及其對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的啟示。限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議是市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中一種非常普遍的現(xiàn)象，由于并非所有的限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議都會(huì)對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和社會(huì)進(jìn)步產(chǎn)生危害，各國(guó)現(xiàn)代競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法一般對(duì)不同的限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議區(qū)分適用“本身違法規(guī)則”和“合理規(guī)則”。印度新舊競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法中對(duì)限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議都有規(guī)定，但舊法更傾向于對(duì)所有限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議適用本身違法規(guī)則，新法中則作出了比較明確的區(qū)分。本章在梳理新舊成文法和判例法的基礎(chǔ)上，，理順印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)關(guān)和最高法院對(duì)各類限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議的處理方法，并對(duì)現(xiàn)有規(guī)定中存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行歸納及評(píng)述。最終落腳于印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法有關(guān)限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)協(xié)議的立法和執(zhí)法實(shí)踐對(duì)廣大發(fā)展中國(guó)家的啟示。 第四章主要探討了印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法有關(guān)濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位的實(shí)踐及其對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的啟示。印度新舊競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法均不認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)支配地位本身違法，需要禁止的是濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位的行為。認(rèn)定濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位通常需要三個(gè)步驟，第一是確定相關(guān)市場(chǎng)，第二確定被調(diào)查主體是否居于市場(chǎng)支配地位，第三考察是否存在濫用其市場(chǎng)支配地位的行為。總體而言，新《競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》的規(guī)定納入了很多現(xiàn)代化競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法因素，例如，摒棄舊法中明確規(guī)定市場(chǎng)份額的做法，轉(zhuǎn)而采用行為主義和結(jié)構(gòu)主義相結(jié)合的模式；再如，刪除了舊法中“公共利益”這一模糊概念。但實(shí)際上，現(xiàn)有的規(guī)定可能會(huì)帶來(lái)新的問(wèn)題，甚至是更大的問(wèn)題，這也是發(fā)展中國(guó)家在立法和執(zhí)法中應(yīng)當(dāng)注意的問(wèn)題，例如，立法目標(biāo)多元化在實(shí)踐中可能導(dǎo)致各種沖突，將競(jìng)爭(zhēng)立法目標(biāo)直接并入具體條款會(huì)增加執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)的執(zhí)法難度及不確定性，忽略了對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)本身的關(guān)注可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)構(gòu)偏離其應(yīng)有的角色定位。 第五章對(duì)印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法有關(guān)聯(lián)合行為的規(guī)定進(jìn)行仔細(xì)梳理，并從中發(fā)掘值得發(fā)展中國(guó)家參考的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和教訓(xùn)。從1969年MRTP法到1991年MRTP法修正案，再到2002年《競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》，印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法對(duì)于企業(yè)“聯(lián)合”行為的態(tài)度經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)從嚴(yán)苛到寬松再到謹(jǐn)慎的變化過(guò)程。這樣的轉(zhuǎn)變過(guò)程表明控制“聯(lián)合”行為是印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法最具爭(zhēng)議性的特點(diǎn)。在理順印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法對(duì)于企業(yè)聯(lián)合行為的實(shí)體審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和程序性規(guī)定的過(guò)程中，其中的問(wèn)題也逐一暴露，值得關(guān)注。例如，采用了單一的企業(yè)“規(guī)模”因素作為審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這樣的規(guī)定脫離了企業(yè)聯(lián)合的實(shí)踐活動(dòng)，缺乏科學(xué)性和合理性。再如，未對(duì)“合營(yíng)企業(yè)”（即新設(shè)一個(gè)聯(lián)合控制的企業(yè)，或收購(gòu)一個(gè)既存企業(yè)進(jìn)行聯(lián)合控制等）應(yīng)適用的聯(lián)合申報(bào)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作出特別指示，可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)大量規(guī)避企業(yè)聯(lián)合申報(bào)規(guī)定的行為。印度有關(guān)控制企業(yè)聯(lián)合的立法歷史和立法態(tài)度對(duì)廣大發(fā)展中國(guó)家的啟示在于：一方面，發(fā)展中國(guó)家應(yīng)充分理解并重視競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法，給予其獨(dú)立而非附屬性地位，不可隨意取舍；另一方面，發(fā)展中國(guó)家應(yīng)在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)立法的過(guò)程中保持獨(dú)立性，時(shí)刻秉持抵制壓力和排除阻力的勇氣與決心。 第六章專題介紹了印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的實(shí)施情況及其對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的啟示。從1970年的MRTPC到2003年CCI，再到2007年CCI與CompAT并存，總體而言，印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)構(gòu)都是有所作為的，特別是2009年正式啟動(dòng)的CCI，在短短幾年時(shí)間內(nèi)就取得了突出成績(jī)，堪稱高效且具有實(shí)干精神的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)機(jī)構(gòu)。在與其他發(fā)展中國(guó)家競(jìng)爭(zhēng)機(jī)構(gòu)同樣面臨經(jīng)費(fèi)不足、資源有限的困境時(shí)，印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)內(nèi)注重自身能力建設(shè)，對(duì)外重視競(jìng)爭(zhēng)倡導(dǎo)，培育競(jìng)爭(zhēng)文化，同時(shí)對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)違法活動(dòng)也絕不手軟。而對(duì)眾多發(fā)展中國(guó)家而言，制定競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法、設(shè)立競(jìng)爭(zhēng)機(jī)構(gòu)并不困難，普遍存在的困境在于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法無(wú)法得到有效實(shí)施。從印度的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)看，一方面競(jìng)爭(zhēng)主管機(jī)構(gòu)的獨(dú)立性和權(quán)威性很重要，另一方面應(yīng)當(dāng)將競(jìng)爭(zhēng)倡導(dǎo)放在與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)執(zhí)法同等重要位置，甚至更加重要的位置。 第七章特別討論了印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的域外適用問(wèn)題。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的域外適用具有不同于傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際私法中域外適用問(wèn)題的特點(diǎn)，其從產(chǎn)生伊始便飽受爭(zhēng)議，但實(shí)踐中大多數(shù)國(guó)家的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)立法中卻都包含有域外適用效力的條款。印度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法是否具有域外效力的問(wèn)題卻經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)從模糊到否定再到有所發(fā)展的過(guò)程。各國(guó)普遍規(guī)定了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法的域外效力，這必然會(huì)在國(guó)際層面引發(fā)沖突，要有效解決這種沖突主要有兩種方法，即各國(guó)單邊的自我限制和多層次的國(guó)際合作。對(duì)于發(fā)展中國(guó)家而言，要充分意識(shí)到進(jìn)行國(guó)際合作的重要性，多多參與其中，特別是要加強(qiáng)與其他發(fā)展中國(guó)家的溝通與交流，意識(shí)到“抱團(tuán)”的重要性，以便能夠與其他國(guó)家或組織抗衡，在國(guó)際舞臺(tái)上爭(zhēng)取到話語(yǔ)權(quán)，實(shí)現(xiàn)利益的最大化。
[Abstract]:Before the Second World War , developing countries had produced a monopoly in the process of industrialization and began to try to achieve the aim of anti - monopoly and promoting competition through competition law . India is one of the few developing countries that have tried to competition law legislation and practice . In the 1980s , especially after the establishment of WTO , the opportunities and challenges of domestic economic problems and economic globalization in developing countries have promoted competition policy and competition law in these countries .

In recent years , India ' s economy has been developing rapidly . It is believed to be the most economic potential of the BRICS in the future . The Indian competition law has made great contributions to the promotion of competition , the maintenance of fair market competition order and even the protection of the interests of consumers . From the domestic micro - angle to the international macro - visual angle , from the micro - angle of the country to the international macro - view , from the domestic micro - angle to the international macro - view , from the domestic micro - angle to the international macro - view , from the domestic micro - angle to the international macro - view , the systematic and comprehensive study of India ' s competition law can provide more suitable for the development and implementation of the competition law of the developing countries , on the other hand , it is also the urgent requirement for the development of the subject and the foreign exchange of the competition law enforcement agencies in our country .

This thesis consists of the introduction and the main body part , and the body part contains seven chapters .

From the point of view of legislation , the competition policy and competition law of developing countries have been more and more closely related to the development of competition law .

In chapter 2 , the development and evolution of India ' s competition law are reviewed . Firstly , the legislative background of the laws of monopoly and restrictive trade act ( 1969 , MRTP ) in 1969 was introduced .
The amendments in 1991 are the requirements of the reform of the domestic economic system in India . The regulation focuses on the centralized control of economic forces , the control of monopoly and the suppression of monopoly trading , restrictive trade and unfair competition . The new competition law , which took effect only in 2009 , replaced the original monopoly and restrictive trade commission ( MRTPC ) , replacing the original monopoly and restrictive trade commission ( MRTPC ) . The new competition law could be said to be a new bottle of new wine .

The third chapter focuses on the practice of competition law in India and its implications for developing countries . The limitation of competition agreement is a very common phenomenon in the activity of market economy .

The fourth chapter mainly discusses the practice of India ' s competition law on abusing the dominant position of the market and its inspiration to the developing countries . The new and old competition law of India does not consider that the dominant position of the market itself is illegal , and it is necessary to prohibit the abuse of the dominant position of the market .
As a matter of fact , the existing provisions may bring new problems and even greater problems , which is also a matter that developing countries should pay attention to in legislation and law enforcement . For example , the diversification of legislative objectives may lead to various conflicts , and the direct incorporation of the objectives of competition legislation into specific provisions will increase the enforcement difficulty and uncertainty of law enforcement agencies , which may lead to the departure of competition authorities from their due role .

The fifth chapter has carefully reviewed the provisions of Indian competition law on the joint action , and explored the experiences and lessons worth developing countries ' reference . From the MRTP method of 1969 to the amendment of the MRTP Act of 1991 , and then to the competition law in 2002 , the problems in the joint venture between India and India have been exposed , and it is worth paying attention . For example , a single enterprise " scale " factor is adopted as the review criterion .
On the other hand , developing countries should maintain their independence in the process of competition legislation , with the courage and determination to resist pressure and resistance .

Chapter 6 presents the implementation of competition law in India and its implications for developing countries . From MRTPC in 1970 to CCI in 2003 and to CCI and CompAT in 2007 , the competition authorities in India have made outstanding achievements . In general , the competition law can not be effectively implemented in competition law . In the case of many developing countries , competition law can not be effectively implemented . From the experience of India , competition authorities have important independence and authority . On the other hand , competition advocacy should be put on the same important position as competition law enforcement , and even more important .

Chapter 7 discusses the extraterritorial application of competition law in India . The extraterritorial application of competition law is different from the extraterritorial application of traditional private international law .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D935.1;DD912.29


本文編號(hào)：1681701