Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Avoidance Techniques: State Related Defences in International Antitrust Cases

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Marek Martyniszyn, University College Dublin- School of Law discusses Avoidance Techniques: State Related Defences in International Antitrust Cases.

ABSTRACT: Despite its economic significance, competition law still remains fragmented, lacking an international framework allowing for dispute settlement. This, together with the growing importance of non-free-market economies in world trade require us to re-consider and re-evaluate the possibilities of bringing an antitrust suit against a foreign state. If the level playing field on the global marketplace is to be achieved, the possibility of hiding behind the bulwark of state sovereignty should be minimised. States should not be free to act in an anti-competitive way, but at present the legal framework seems ill-equipped to handle such challenges. This paper deals with the defences available in litigation concerning transnational anti-competitive agreements involving or implicating foreign states. Four important legal doctrines are analysed: non-justiciability (political question doctrine), state immunity, act of state doctrine and foreign state compulsion. The paper addresses also the general problem of applicability of competition laws to a foreign state as such. This is a tale about repetitive unsuccessful efforts to sue OPEC and recent attempts in the US to deal with export cartels of Chinese state-owned enterprises.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2011/04/avoidance-techniques-state-related-defences-in-international-antitrust-cases.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0147e360588c970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Avoidance Techniques: State Related Defences in International Antitrust Cases:

Comments

Post a comment