Research On Anti-Monopoly Regulation Of Vertical Monopoly Agreement In China

Vertical monopoly agreement is a kind of coordinated way adopted by market entities at different links of supply chain to exclude or limit competition,which has the nature of non-equivalence,mutual restriction and concealment.According to the price factor,vertical monopoly agreement is mainly featured by vertical price restraint and non-price restraint.Vertical monopoly agreement can both promote competition and hinder competition.Nowadays,the anti-monopoly analysis method of vertical monopoly agreement is one of core realms of world’s anti-monopoly academic and practical debating point.It is also a stubborn problem that future policy development and anti-monopoly enforcement need to face.The defects of China current legislation hinder the improvement of anti-monopoly practice when regulating vertical monopoly agreement.Anti-monopoly legislation and anti-monopoly enforcement need to keep pace with the development of social economy.The anti-monopoly regulation of vertical monopoly agreement should be improved.China needs to make up anti-monopoly rules of vertical monopoly agreement as they go along.The traditional monopoly agreement dichotomy only focuses on the meaning of agreement but does not thoroughly recognize the nature of vertical agreement.What is more,the legislative defects directly lead to the ambiguity in judicial and law enforcement practice when dealing with cases of vertical monopoly agreement.From the perspective of foreign law,a great wealth of legislative inspiration and regulatory measures of America,Europe and Japan in regulating vertical monopoly agreement provide some experience used for reference.From the perspective of Chinese Anti-monopoly Law,first of all,the monopoly behavior dichotomy should be used to examine the will of signatories and the effect of vertical agreement.Secondly,perfect the existing Anti-monopoly Law and clarify types of vertical monopoly agreement and vertical restraint.Thirdly,China’s courts should change traditional analysis framework of proof in civil procedure and give special consideration to the plaintiff’s adducing capacity and the defendant’s adducing burden.