Anti-administrative Monopoly Law Enforcement System

Administrative monopoly has already become the chief systematic obstacle and the challenge of legal regulation of perfecting the system of market economy. Before the Antitrust Law, the legislative regulation for enforcing the law has following characteristics: dispersive and lack of systematicness, efficacy is low and lack of authority. Meanwhile, there are lacks of independence and authority for the departments enforcing the law. In addition, procedure systems are not perfect, and problems as"many departments enforce the law"are relatively serious. As a result, there might be a difficulty to get ideal results from regulating administrative monopoly through legal method. According to the Antitrust Law, administrative monopoly is explicitly prohibited; however, the legal regulations on administrative monopoly are still excessively concise, and regulations about departments enforcing the law, extent of authority and procedure systems have little substantially breakthrough.It has become a task commonly faced by most of countries to regulate the administrative actions of interfering market competition. The developed market-economic countries and areas, such as the United States, European Union and Germany, Japan and Korea, Australia and New Zealand, have almost all established systems enforcing the antitrust law. In these countries and areas, the regulations are detailed; the institutions are independent, authoritative and professional; procedure systems are relatively perfect too. Furthermore, the developing countries and transconformating countries, such as Russia, countries in Mid-east Europe, India, countries in Southeast Asia, have gradually established systems enforcing the antitrust law too. Experiences from these countries about regulating administrative monopoly and promoting market competition are beneficial for China.Even though differences are evident between administrative monopoly and economic monopoly, the goal of regulating the two kinds of issues is consistent. Based on the systematic frameworks of the Antitrust Law, it is practicable to build uniform system enforcing the Antitrust Law. There are"administrative model"and"judiciary model"about systems enforcing the Antitrust Law. The judiciary model is inconsistent with traditional experiences and the reality of China, accordingly, it is advisable to adopt administrative model in China. It is important and reasonable to set up an independent, authoritative and professional enforcing institution system, and take justice as the ultimate guarantee. ?In order to improve and perfect the enforcing law system to regulate administrative monopoly, the regulations should be modified. Regulations on improper competition and monopoly ought to be separated. And the regulations about the criterion on distinguishing administrative monopoly, foundation of institutions and procedure systems in Antitrust Law should be more detailed. Moreover, it is necessary to reestablish the forcing law institution system. Structure of many departments at the present time should be abolished; the Antitrust Council under the central government should be reformed as National Antitrust Council, which ought to be the unified department forcing the Antitrust Law with characteristics of independence, authority and profession. Agencies of the National Antitrust Council, as local forcing Antitrust Law institution, should be set up in every province area. In addition, procedure systems, such as surveying procedures, arbitrage procedures, supervising procedures and judicature procedures, should also be regulated in the Antitrust Law.