1、1硕士学位论文(20 届)论我国反垄断法对行政性垄断的规制姓 名学 科 、 专 业 经 济 法 学 ( 全 日 制 法 学 硕 士 )研 究 方 向 竞 争 法指 导 教 师论文提交日期2论我国反垄断法对行政性垄断的规制(硕士论文摘要)行政性垄断是中国市场经济发展的重大障碍。消除行政性垄断的过程,实际上就是市场经济国家不断完善政府管理经济职能、实现和维护经济民主的过程。规制行政性垄断之所以成为世界各国面临的共同问题,其原因在于政府失灵政府不当干预经济。通过反垄断法对行政性垄断进行规制可以有效地解决政府干预经济与市场竞争机制之间的平衡。本文从行政性垄断与经济性垄断进行比较出发,对行政性垄断的外在
2、特点、产生的根源以及它的本质属性做一个全面的分析。在此基础上进一步探讨反垄断法应该如何认定构成行政性垄断违法行为。最后对有效规制行政性垄断的制度设计提出自己的建议。全文分为四章:第一章为反垄断法下的行政性垄断概论。本章首先对行政性垄断进行界定,通过与相关概念的辨析明确其内涵与外延。即行政性垄断是指滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的行为,是非法的。其次在通过将行政性垄断与经济性垄断进行比较,认清行政性垄断的特点、产生根源以及它的本质属性。行政性垄断是一种公权力与私权利结合谋取不当利益的反竞争行为,已经不是纯粹意义上的行政行为,而是一种带有行政性的市场垄断行为。最后基于行政性垄断的特点、产生根源以及本质
3、属性,从我国的现实情况出发,选择分别规制模式对规制行政垄断具有现实意义。第二章为行政性垄断规制的国际经验:以美国、欧盟为例。本章的前一部分从分析欧共体法院中的行政性垄断案件出发,分析得出欧盟对待行政性垄断问题的基本做法是通过欧共体条约来约束成员国国家授予其国有企业特权或专有权来实施背离共同体竞争规则的行为。欧共体法院确认“企业”的标准同实体的经济活动挂钩,而不考虑实体的所有制、法律地位及其资金来源。进而区分了政府的行使国家主权行为和企业行为,从而将行政性垄断行为纳入竞争法的规则领域。本章的后一部分是以美国州行为理论为主线,法院通过对行政性垄断案件的审判来逐步发展完善该理论,进而处理好反托拉斯法
4、与州行为理论的关系。州行为理论可能使州和地方政府有能力实施一些反竞争的管制活动,3但如果州不是以管理者的身份,而是作为商业者身份参与经济活动则不能得到反托拉斯法的豁免。同时美国宪法的贸易条款也是对政府反竞争行为的限制。第三章为行政性垄断规制的关键:违法性认定。首先从经济法基础理论来认识政府干预经济的行为与行政性垄断行为的边界。政府对经济活动的干预是出于维护社会整体利益、克服市场失灵的需要,而在行政性垄断行为中的行政主体背离其本身的角色,而成为追求自身利益最大化的经济人,从而滥用行政权力将原本应服务于公众的公共资源,转化成为个人、群体、部门或地方利益。由于行政性垄断行为兼具“行政性”和“市场性”
5、 ,因而同时构成了一种竞合的违法行为。基于这种违法属性,通过行政性垄断行为构成要件的分析,来寻求认定行为违法的途径。第四章为对我国行政性垄断规制的建议。首先从行为主体出发,通过“揭开行政机关的面纱” ,行政机关打着经济管理之名,行垄断之实。由于行政性垄断主体的行政性,使得行政性垄断表面看上去时政府的行政行为,但公权力的行使带有明显的经济目的,为了实现一定利益团体的私有利益。因此,不应该看重其主体的行政性,而应该与市场经营者一同遵守市场的一般竞争规则。其次由于行政性垄断行为的实施常常凭借的是抽象行政性垄断行为,这种行为具有隐蔽性和普遍强制性的特点,对此应该健全反垄断执法机构的职权,使抽象行政性垄
6、断行为纳入行政诉讼收案范围,进而使其得到有效规制。最后落实到行政性垄断法律责任的承担上,通过法律责任的制度设计,完善受害方的救济途径,追究违法主体的法律责任,使受害人获得赔偿。因此,作为行为主义的反垄断法应着重从行为规制的角度,对行政性垄断行为进行规制,而不必过多的考虑行为主体的行政性,通过对行为性质的分析来判断是否构成行政性垄断行为,区分了行政机关行使公权力的行为和违法的行政性垄断行为,进而有效的规制行政性垄断行为,使行为主体得到应有的制裁。关键词 行政性垄断 分别规制模式 州行为理论 竞合违法行为1Study on the administrative monopoly in the an
7、ti-monopoly law(Abstract of Thesis)The administrative monopoly is an obstacle to Chinas economic development. The elimination of administrative monopoly as well as improve the governments economy management functions and the realization of economic democracy. The reason why administrative monopoly h
8、as become common problem to all countries in the world is government failuregovernment improperly intervenes in the economy. The anti-monopoly law regulate the administrative monopoly can effectively balance between the government intervention economy and market competition mechanism. The article st
9、arted with the administrative monopoly and the economical monopolys comparison. From the administrative monopolys characteristic to its cause as well as its essential attribute, we had a comprehensive analysis. We could explore profoundly how the anti-monopoly law recognizes the constitution of ille
10、gal administrative monopoly. At last the author gives the opinion of improving regulations system. The full text includes four chapters.The first chapter mainly introduces the administrative monopoly. From the definition of the administrative monopoly to the comparison between administrative monopol
11、y and related term, we can come to a conclusion that administrative monopoly is the abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition. We clearly recognize the administrative monopolys characteristic, the cause of administrative monopoly as well as its essential attribute. The admin
12、istrative monopoly is the administrative authority joint the private right to seek the improper benefit with a counter-competition behavior. It is not a pure administrative action. Administrative monopoly is a market monopoly and its monopoly power arises from the administrative power. The second ch
13、apter mainly introduces international experience of the regulation on administrative monopoly. This chapters preceding part mainly analyzes the 2administrative monopoly case from the Court of the EU. The analysis draws the conclusion that the treaty restricts the EU member to grant the privileges to
14、 their state-owned enterprises and forbids it to violate the competition rule. The standard of enterprise is related with the economic activity and does not consider its legal attribute or the sources of fund. EU divides the government action into the national sovereignty behavior and the enterprise
15、 behavior. The administrative monopoly should be limited by competition rule. The second half of this charter is about the State Action Doctrine. The American Court consummates the theory gradually and deals with the relation between the anti-trust law and the theory. Government as a commercial stat
16、us participate the economic activity should also comply with the competition rule and American constitution of the trade provision prohibits the administrative monopoly. The third chapter is mainly about how to recognize the administrative monopoly. The administrative monopoly is different from the
17、government intervention economy. Government intervene the economy in order to protect the interests of the whole society and overcomes the malfunction of the market. In the administrative monopoly, government pursues his own benefit and abuse the administrative power to eliminate or restrict competi
18、tion. The administrative monopoly simultaneously has administrative attribute and economical attribute. The constitution of administrative monopoly can help us to recognize the administrative monopoly.The fourth chapter is mainly about how to effectively regulate the administrative monopoly. It is c
19、rucial that we should get a clear understanding of the administrative monopoly doer. We should pay high attention to the abstract administrative monopoly. We also should set up the legal liability to the government who abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition.The administra
20、tive monopolys universality and harm require anti-monopoly law to regulate it .The administrative monopoly results from the abuse of administrative power. The anti-monopoly law should be clear and not give anyone avoiding chance. Key Words: Administrative Monopoly, Economical Monopoly, State Action
21、Doctrine3目 录导 言 .1一、选题意义 .1二、研究方法 .1三、逻辑思路 .2四、创新之处 .3第一章 反垄断法下的行政性垄断概论 .4第一节 行政性垄断界定 .4一、行政性垄断的内涵 .4二、与相关概念的辨析 .5第二节 行政性垄断与经济性垄断的异同 .7一、外在特点的差异 .7二、产生根源的差异 .8三、本质属性的相同 .10第三节 统一规制模式与分别规制模式之选择 .12一、统一规制模式与分别规制模式概述 .12二、分别规制模式不否认行政性垄断的本质属性 .13三、分别规制模式对规制行政性垄断的现实意义 .15第二章 行政性垄断规制的国际经验: 以美国、欧盟为例 .16第一节
22、 欧盟对行政性垄断的法律规制 .16一、欧共体法院中行政性垄断案件分析 .164二、欧盟对行政性垄断法律控制的特点 .18三、欧盟对行政性垄断法律控制的启示 .20第二节 美国对行政性垄断的法律控制 .22一、美国法院中行政性垄断案件分析 .22二、美国对行政性垄断法律控制的特点 .25三、美国对行政性垄断法律控制的启示 .27第三章 行政性垄断规制的关键:违法性认定 .29第一节 行政性垄断行为违法性的理论基础 .29一、政府失灵与行政性垄断的关系 .29二、政府干预经济行为的分类 .30三、政府干预经济行为与行政性垄断行为的边界 .31第二节 行政性垄断行为违法属性分析 .32一、行政性垄
23、断行为是一种行政违法行为 .33二、行政性垄断行为是一种竞合的违法行为 .33第三节 行政性垄断行为构成要件的具体确认 .34一、行政性垄断行为主体要件的认定 .34二、行政性垄断行为主观要件的认定 .35三、行政性垄断行为客体要件的认定 .36四、行政性垄断行为客观要件的认定 .37第四章 对我国行政性垄断规制的建议 .38第一节 反政性垄断行为主体的明确:“揭开行政机关的面纱” .38一、“揭开行政机关的面纱”的引入 .385二、“揭开行政机关的面纱”的原因 .39三、“揭开行政机关的面纱”的意义 .40第二节 行政性垄断行为规则的完善:抽象行政性 垄断行为的规制 .41一、健全反垄断执法机构的职权 .41二、将抽象行政性垄断行为纳入行政诉讼的受案范围 .42第三节 行政性垄断法律责任的健全:行政性垄断损害赔偿责任 .44一、国外行政性垄断行为法律责任的一般设置 .44二、我国现行法律关于行政性垄断法律责任的规定及缺陷 .46三、完善我国行政性垄断损害赔偿责任的设置 .47结 语 .49参考文献 .50在读期间发表的学术论文与研究成果 .55后 记 .56