法學(xué)專(zhuān)業(yè)外文翻譯-----從中國(guó)反壟斷立法看行政壟斷的法律規(guī)制-法律法學(xué)(編輯修改稿)
2025-02-24 03:55 本頁(yè)面
【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 implementing administrative monopoly are different, and the law enforcement has be deposed to various functional authorities, which will easily induce repeat law enforcements or blank law enforcement. Furthermore, the superior authority is not the authority to specially dominate administrative monopoly, or the special judicial authority, and it just is mon law enforcement authority (Wang, 2021). Staffs in superior authority may not have strong antimonopoly consciousness, and both the cognition and treatment result all lack in authorities, and they also lack in the ability to teat the cases about administrative monopoly. The range of administrative monopoly regulation is too narrow The article 33 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law limits the object of administrative monopoly in the domain of goods trade. “Administrative power by government and anizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to carry out following conducts, to hinder the free flow of the modities between regions”. In fact, the character of the transfer of modern economic industry structure is that the proportion of the service industry is enhanced increasingly, and if the object of the antiadministrative monopoly is only limited in the domain of goods trade, the domain which is bigger and occupies more proportion will be abandoned out of the supervision of Chinese Antimonopoly Law. Though the article 34 forbids and excludes that exterior managers participate in local bid invitation and bidding activities, and the article 35 forbids and excludes that exterior managers invest or establish branches including the domain of service trade in local region, but there are many items in the service industry out of these two ranges, and the legal regulation about administrative monopoly behaviors in the domain of service industry is still blank in Chinese Antimonopoly Law. Regulation measures for abstract administrative monopoly are deficient Though Chinese Antimonopoly Law has prohibitive regulations about the behaviors of abstract administrative monopoly, but it regulates nothing about legal responsibility and relief ways. If the illegal behavior of abstract administration can not be redressed in time in practice, it will always induce larger harm (Huang, 2021). Many administrative monopoly behaviors in practice are implemented by the mode of abstract administrative monopoly behavior, and even certain concrete administrative monopoly behavior is always done according to administrative rules, but these rules must be examined and approved, recorded or agreed by superior people’s governments or charge authorities, and when they are dissented, the judgment right is always in original authorities which will be hard to deny the rules and byelaws what they constituted. In addition, most countries adopt the judicial review system to treat the abstract administrative behavior by the mode of inefficacy or nonexistence, but this system in Chinese Antimonopoly Law is deficient, so the illegal behaviors of administrative subject is hard to be redressed. 3. Perfection of administrative monopoly regulation in Chinese Antimonopoly Law Above aspects about the legal regulation for the administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly Law all need to be perfected and simple opinions are offered as follows. Using foreign mature experiences as references and increasing the operation feature of Chinese Antimonopoly Law Law enforcement should be executed according to laws, and that means the clear description of legal concepts is the premise to exactly enforce laws, and the specific description of legal rules is the base to enforce laws strictly, but the problems about administrative monopoly in Chinese Antimonopoly are very plex, and some legal concepts have not been defined, and detailed legal standards and concrete legal responsibility should be further confirmed. Therefore, the content of the chapter 5 in Chinese Antimonopoly Law can be regarded as the principled legal rules to regulate administrative monopoly, and the explanation of general principles is a plex and hard task, just as when US modified the Antimonopoly Law, it added the word of “efficiency judgment”, and the American Competition Bureau used 13000 words to explain it. It is necessary to explain the criterion of general rules, and only to constitute suited rules as soon as possibly, and explain the principled articles in detail, the operation character of Chinese Antimonopoly Law can be added, and the uniform law enforcement standards can be established to effectively regulate the administrative monopoly behaviors by law. Establishing various administrative monopoly legal responsibility systems The past laws in China only regulated administrative monopoly by administrative responsibility, but ignored the function of civil responsibility and criminal responsibility. To more effectively regulate administrative monopoly, the particularity of administrative monopoly should be considered fully, and constitute prehensive legal responsibilities including administrative responsibility, civil responsibility and criminal respo
公司管理相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1