Competition Laws, Globalization and Legal Pluralism - China’s Experience By Qianlan Wu
Building upon a theoretical framework and empirical research, this book provides a thought-provoking analysis of the interests, strategies and challenges that China has faced in developing its Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in the context of economic globalization.
The book comprises three main parts: Part I reviews the directions of convergence of global competition law; Part II provides a contextual analysis of China’s market governance and its strategic interests; and Part III examines the latest enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law by focusing on the interactions between global actors and China, the relationships between Chinese competition and sectoral regulators, and the enforcement of global competition law norms in the Chinese context.
This book is one of the first to provide a critical understanding of China’s experience as a new competition regulator, set against the background of the plural sources of global competition laws.
Qianlan Wu is a Lecturer in Law and Senior Fellow of the China Policy Institute in the School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, University of Nottingham, UK. Dr Wu holds a PhD in Law from London School of Economics and Political Science and an LLM from the University of Edinburgh, UK.
November 2013 242pp Hardback 9781849464321 RSP: £55 / €71.50
20% Discount Price: £44 / €57.20 (+ Postage and Packing)
If you would like to place an order you can do so through the Hart Publishing website (link above). To receive the discount please type the reference ‘CCB’ in the voucher code field and click ‘apply’.
These are the stats available in DG Comp’s webpage for cartel fines imposed in the period 2009-2013.
Do you see anything remarkable?
After years of lawyers whining about sky rocketing fines, will we now see a reverse trend of lawyers whining about too few cartel decisions and too small fines?? We are funny whining beings…
In spite of temporary appearances, though, one should not expect these figures to remain as they are. The upcoming LIBOR decision will certainly inject some significant (record breaking?) “capital” into this years’s numbers. On top of that, there appear to be a number of cartel decisions
stuck somewhere in the pipeline (interestingly, only one cartel decision has so far been adopted in 2013).
P.S. For the one true masterpiece on cartel fines -Fine Arts in Brussels- click here (the fact that I co-wrote it doesn’t of course compromise my objectivity…).
In reading Commissioner Almunia’s latest speech, I thought to myself: did he changed jobs?
Or is he already campaigning for a position as Internal Market Commissioner ahead of the European elections?
I mean half of the speech is devoted to the banking union and other regulatory issues in the banking sector.
I also read Commissioner Almunia’s antepenultiam speech on the digital economy.
And here I thought to myself: some things never change.
In particular, the sticky, erroneous perception that patents are akin to monopoly.
The reasoning is not straightforward. It comes in two stages.
Stage 1. Introduce an exotic concept (here “gatekeeper“):
“We can distinguish different types of gatekeepers in the online world: search engines, patent holders, network operators, and operating systems”.
Stage 2. Equate the new concept with “dominance”:
“One of the priorities of competition control is to ensure that dominant firms and gatekeepers do not abuse their positions”
A reminder: this is nothing new. In 2004, Microsoft had already been labelled a gatekeeper.
There’s competition law everywhere,
Even in the stockpile of US diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks.
A document published by Wikilieaks reveals that in 2009, the US were concerned of the influence of the EU on the shaping of competition policies in Africa (through the Africomp programme).
“The United States may wish to consider becoming a donor member of AFRICOMP in terms of providing in-kind donations in the form of expert advice. Such advice could support the development of effective competition policies in Africa and ensure that European views on competition policy are not the only ones heard by AFRICOMP”
Thanks to my assistant Norman (and now fellow blogger) for the pointer.
For 16 years now Luis Ortiz Blanco has been directing a top-notch competition law course in Madrid, which is actually where Nico and I first met. I followed this program as a student quite a few years ago, have lectured on it since then, and last year I started co-directing it together with Luis (which comes handy as a justifications to travel to Spain a bit more).
The line-up of more than 50 high-profile guest speakers who come every year from all over Europe to
enjoy Madrid lecture in Madrid is a true Who’s Who of EU competition law experts. Moreover, the 115 hours of scheduled classes allow for a more detailed coverage than that offered by many other competition law courses on the market. About half of the course is lectured in English. Price wise the course is unbeatable: full registration is available for only 3,000 euros.
The final program for each module and seminar has yet to be confirmed, but the overall structure and dates have been set, so I’ve included the info below. Anyone interested can register both for the full program or just for specific module/s or seminar/s. Anyone interested in more information can contact me at email@example.com
The 2014 program will be structured as follows:
- An inaugural/introductory session by the not-so-good Professor Nicolas Petit will take place on January 10.
- A module on cartels (coordinated by myself) will be held on 13-15 January.
- A module on other restrictive agreements and practices (coordinated by Juan Andrés García Alonso; Peugeot) will take place on 20-22 January
- On 31 January there will be a seminar on recent developments in relation to Art. 101 (coordinated by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Eric Gippini Fournier, both from the Legal Service of the European Commission).
- A module on abuse of dominance (coordinated by Nicolas) will take place on 3-5 February.
- A module on merger control (coordinated by Jerónimo Maíllo; San Pablo CEU University) will be held on 10-12 February.
- A seminar on recent developments in abuse of dominance and merger control coordinated by Cecilio Madero (Deputy Director General, DG Comp), Nicholas Banasevic and Per Hellström (both Heads of Unit at DG COMP) and Milan Kristof (Référendaire at the ECJ) will be held on 21 February.
- A module on competition law and regulation in network industries (coordinated by myself) will be held on 3-5 March.
- A module on the application of competition and state aid rules to public entities (coordinated by José Luis Buendía and Jorge Piernas) will take place on 13-14 March.
- A seminar on the application of competition law by judges and arbitral tribunals (coordinated by Francisco Manuel Serrano, Garrigues) will take place on 21 March.
Consumer Watchdog, a US organization traditionally positioned againts Google, has just
made available leaked on its website the (supposedly confidential) new version of Google’s proposed commitments (see here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/googlesettlment102113.pdf ) together with the Commission’s questionnaire to interested third parties (see here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/euquestions102113.pdf).
This organization had threatened Google with making the proposal public in case Google didn’t do it (see here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/consumer-watchdog-challenges-google-make-eu-antitrust-settlement-offer-public-us-public). Julian Assange and Edward Snowden would may applaud the move, but I’m not so sure as to DG Comp (the fact that the names, telephone numbers and emails of its case handlers have also been made public as part of the questionnaire might contribute to flooding -even more- their inboxes…).
I’d bet that Consumer Watchdog has received some sort of advice under EU law and learnt that, interestingly, the Commission has no legal basis to act in a situation like this. Isn’t that a significant procedural gap?
You already know my thoughts about the substance of the previous proposal (if not, click here: http://chillingcompetition.com/2013/06/13/preliminary-thoughts-on-googles-proposed-commitments/ ), so not much else to say on that front.