CPTPP竞争政策研究

Research on CPTPP Competition Policy

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

国际法学院

作者:

于良东

导师:

岳树梅;唐青阳

导师单位:

国际法学院,国际法学院

学位:

博士

语种:

中文

关键词:

CPTPP, 竞争政策, 执法与合作, 国有企业, 争端解决范式

摘要:

《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(CPTPP)是新一代高标准、严要求区域贸易协定的典型代表。随着英国的加入,CPTPP的影响力不再局限于亚太地区,更将辐射范围扩展到欧洲地区。经济发展规律表明,每当全球经济增速放缓或遭遇金融危机时,区域之间经济合作和国家之间经济合作便会在一定程度上得到加强,这一现象在东亚地区和亚太地区过去二十多年的合作中显得尤为明显。在百年未有之大变局加速演进、全球经济复苏缓慢,贸易增速动力不足,地缘政治冲突加剧的当下,CPTPP对于加强区域贸易合作,增强经济增长活力具有重要的现实意义。在当前新一代国际经贸规则的重塑过程中,《美墨加协定》(USMCA)以及《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》(RCEP)等都已经生效。虽然不同的区域贸易协定在竞争政策方面各具特色,但是整体上都在朝着营造公平、自由的竞争环境迈进。CPTPP作为首次将竞争政策与国有企业和指定垄断独立开来、各自成章的区域贸易协定,无论是在竞争政策议题中的内容,还是在国有企业和指定垄断方面,都开创了历史之最,必将成为引领未来区域贸易协定制定的典范。其在竞争政策执法与合作方面赋予缔约方域外执法权、高标准的执法透明度、严要求的国有企业竞争规则,以及一改传统因竞争政策而产生的争端仅适用磋商的单一范式,开启了由单一范式向复合范式转变的新篇章,都预示着未来区域贸易协定的发展趋势。我国目前虽然已经初步形成了具有中国特色的竞争政策体系,并在积极推进落实公平竞争审查制度,建立全国统一大市场,但还无法实现与CPTPP中高标准的竞争政策同频共振。我国在竞争政策中执法的透明度、合作的深度以及国有企业竞争规则等方面相比CPTPP中竞争政策的要求,还存在一定的差距。虽然我国在2021年9月就已向CPTPP的保存方新西兰提交了加入申请,但是目前进展情况不容乐观,其中高标准严要求的竞争政策不可避免的会给我国带来巨大压力。为了对冲加入CPTPP对我国竞争政策带来的压力,本文通过对CPTPP竞争政策的研究,系统分析CPTPP中竞争政策的先进性与局限性,并将中国的竞争政策与CPTPP进行适配性分析,找出差距,探讨对策,为中国加入CPTPP提出竞争政策方面的思考与建议。虽然CPTPP将竞争政策规则和国有企业竞争规则作为两个章节独立开来,但是从本质内容来看,国有企业竞争规则仍属于竞争政策中的一部分。因此,将国有企业竞争规则也作为本文的研究对象。为系统阐释CPTPP竞争政策,本文主要聚焦CPTPP文本的第16章和17章以及第28章的部分内容,除去引言和后记,本文共分为五个章节,具体如下:第一章是CPTPP竞争政策概述。本章首先回顾了CPTPP从TPP以来的发展历程,通过对竞争政策基础理论以及不同经济理论对竞争政策目标影响的分析,概述了竞争政策从追求单一目标的范式向复合范式的演进历程。在对竞争政策理论分析的基础上,析出CPTPP竞争政策目标追求的是实现经济效率、提高消费者福利的复合范式。其次,在对CPTPP竞争政策特征进行总结后发现CPTPP中竞争政策规则正在向民主化演进,国有企业竞争规则正在不断强化以及争端解决适用的多元化。最后,CPTPP对竞争政策的促进发展与工业化进程密不可分。尤其是随着数字经济的到来,企业经营方式不断创新,数字革命使得企业经营行为的物理边界愈加模糊,竞争执法合作的需要愈加凸显,但由于CPTPP缔约方之间经济发展水平和文化差异较大,成员国竞争法尚未实现趋同化,CPTPP在竞争政策内容方面采取了软协调的进路,更多的从宏观方面和程序上进行规定,以寻求在竞争政策规则方面的最大公约数,实现缔约方之间未来竞争法的趋同化。第二章阐释了CPTPP竞争政策的协调与合作。鉴于竞争政策只能协调,竞争执法只能合作的美国一贯主张,本章标题确立为CPTPP竞争政策的协调与合作。首先,对国际合作以及国际竞争执法的理论进行了证成。其次,从竞争政策协调的重点即国家竞争法、私人诉权和消费者保护以及域外执法权进行了分析。一改以往传统,CPTPP并不是将重点放在对国家竞争法的定义上,而是将焦点放在对缔约方国家竞争法的尊重上,要求缔约方通过非歧视和透明度来实施国家竞争法。接着分析并阐述了竞争执法程序中的程序公正、非歧视和透明度、技术合作原则。分析发现CPTPP在竞争政策规则中通过维护和加强源自于世贸组织的非歧视和透明度的基本原则,来实现缔约方之间竞争法的融合。第三章论证了CPTPP的国有企业竞争规则。本章首先通过对国有企业适用竞争法的理论证成,对国有企业的界定进行了理论溯源,分析了国有企业在国际法不同体系中的认定标准不一,同一企业在一套标准下被认定为国有企业而在另一套标准下则可能被认定为私营企业从而遭遇不同的对待,不仅让相关成员方迷茫,也困惑着裁判者。因而国有企业的界定在国际法上有待统一标准。其次,通过对CPTPP中国有企业定义的解构发现,CPTPP中对国有企业定义从表面上来看是有所扩张,实质上是对国有企业的认定范围有所限缩。第三,CPTPP把从事商业活动作为认定国有企业的标准之一,并对商业活动进行了解释,同时规定必须由政府直接拥有50%以上所有权或控制权或拥有任命大多数董事的权力,忽视了间接拥有问题的存在,并在USMCA中对该定义进行了修订,这为中国加入CPTPP谈判留下了空间。第四,通过对CPTPP中国有企业竞争规则中的透明度、非歧视与商业考虑以及非商业援助规则的分析,发现CPTPP中高标准的透明度和信息披露义务、非歧视和商业考虑涵盖内容的丰富以及非商业援助规则的重塑尚属首创,为未来区域贸易协定擘画了蓝图。最后,CPTPP中国有企业的高标准规则从外部产生的压力,从某种程度上来讲可以减少中国国有企业国内改革的阻力,从而倒逼中国的国有企业改革。第四章探究了CPTPP竞争政策中的争端解决机制。本章分析了CPTPP竞争政策争端解决适用的相关问题。首先,通过对CPTPP文本相关内容的研究,发现CPTPP采取的竞争政策争端解决范式对于目前以及未来区域贸易协定中关于该议题的争端解决都具有巨大影响,很有可能成为未来区域贸易协定中相关议题争端解决的模版,USMCA就是很好的例证。其次,CPTPP中对竞争政策争端解决采取了两种进路,一种是因竞争政策规则而产生的争端排除了本协议项下一般争端解决的适用,仅适用磋商的单一范式解决;另一种进路是因非歧视待遇、商业考量和非商业援助而产生的争端赋予一般争端解决机制管辖权。再次,CPTPP对因竞争政策而产生的争端一改区域贸易协定中的单一解决范式的传统,采取的复合范式开启了目前区域贸易协定中解决该问题的新篇章。复次,在争端解决程序上,设置了特别的信息收集程序,是CPTPP对争端解决程序中的又一大创新。最后,通过分析CPTPP中争端解决机制中专家小组的组建程序,发现虽然表面上该争端解决机制提高了争端解决的效率,但由于理论上的漏洞,仍然摆脱不了像WTO上诉机构那样的厄运,使那些“恶意”阻挠专家小组组建的被诉缔约方得以具有可乘之机。虽然该理论上的漏洞可以得到弥补,但是从政治的角度来分析是非常困难的。由于CPTPP竞争政策争端解决范式尚属首创,并无过多经验可资借鉴,具体的实施效果如何,仍待未来实践进行检验。第五章探索了中国对接CPTPP完善竞争政策的路径。本章主要是针对本文第二、三、四章分析而产生的问题进行了一一回应,在CPTPP竞争政策下与我国竞争政策方面执行的情况进行适配性分析,提出我国加入CPTPP的谈判路径。首先,针对竞争政策方面进行了对策分析,提出了完善我国竞争政策体系建设,提升竞争政策执法透明度,深化竞争政策执法合作的建议;其次,在对接CPTPP国有企业竞争规则的方面提出了相关对策。通过对CPTPP中国有企业定义的解构,发现CPTPP国有企业定义中的间接所有或控制的罅隙,并提出我国在对国有企业改革时可充分利用该罅隙设计更为丰富多样化的股权结构以规避CPTPP高标准的国有企业竞争规则,为我国国有企业改革争取更长时间的过渡期,对冲加入CPTPP后我国国有企业受到其中高标准国有企业竞争规则的影响;再次,在竞争政策争端解决方面,通过分析目前我国对外加入自由贸易协定关于竞争政策议题的现状,发现我国在竞争政策议题下采取的争端解决范式较为单一,不仅不符合未来自由贸易协定的发展趋势,更无法与新一代国际经贸规则“同频共振”;最后,建议通过以RCEP大多边为“助推器”,以中日韩小多边为“减压阀”,有序对竞争政策产生的争端解决从单一范式到复合范式过渡。

参考文献:

一、中文类参考文献 (一)著作类 1.沈铭辉:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定:基于FTA战略视角的研究》,北京:经济管理出版社,2015年版。 2.张伯伟:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定研究》,天津:南开大学出版社,2016年版。 3.张晗:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP)与中国》,北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2016年版。 4.中国社会科学院世界经济与政治研究所国际贸易研究室:《(跨太平洋伙伴关系协定)文本解读》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2016年版。 5.徐泉:《国家经济主权论》,北京:人民大学出版社,2006年版。 6.杨泽伟:《国际法析论》,北京:人民大学出版社,2003年版。 7.曾华群:《国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展》,北京:法律出版社,2009年版。 8.黄洁:《TPP视野下的中国自由贸易区战略研究》,上海:上海人民出版社,2016年版。 9.刘继峰:《竞争法学原理》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007年版。 10.肖竹:《竞争政策与政府规制—关系、协调及竞争法的制度构建》,北京:中国法制出版社,2009年版。 11.钟立国:《区域贸易协定争端解决机制:理论及其条约法实践》,上海:上海人民出版社,2014年版。 12.刘志云:《国际经济法律自由化原理研究》.厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005年版。 13.白树强:《全球竞争政策—WTO 框架下竞争政策议题研究》,北京,北京大学出版社,2011年版。 14.曹建明、贺小勇:《世界贸易组织》,北京:法律出版社,2011年版。 15.丁茂中:《竞争中立政策研究》,北京,法律出版社 ,2018年版。 16.冯辉、石伟:《贸易与投资新规则视野下的竞争中立问题研究》,上海:上海人民出版社,2018年版。 17.宫仁海:《论贸易救济法与竞争法的冲突与协调——以区域贸易制度安排为视角》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2016年版。 18.史际春:《国有企业法论》,北京:中国法制出版社,1997年版。 19.石伟:《“竞争中立”制度的理论和实践》,北京:法律出版社,2017年版。 20.孙晋:《竞争性国有企业改革路径法律研究——基于竞争中立原则的视角》,北京:人民出版社,2020年版。 21.杨国华:《WTO中国案例评析》,北京:知识产权出版社,2015年版。 22.杨卫东:《国企工具论》,武汉:武汉大学出版社,2012年版。 23.应品广:《竞争中立规则研究:国际比较与中国选择》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2020 年版。 24.杨国华:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》规则研究[.上海:上海人民出版社.2020年版。 25.翟立强:《<跨太平洋伙伴关系协定>的发展、现实挑战与中国应对策略研究》,北京:中国财政经济出版社,2018年版。 26.赵维田:《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林:吉林人民出版社,2000年版。 27.刘宁远、司平平、林燕萍:《国际反垄断法》,上海:上海人民出版社,2009年版。 28.孙晋:《中国竞争法与竞争政策发展研究报告(1980-2015)》,北京:法律出版社,2016年版。 29.孙晋、李胜利:《竞争法原论》,北京:法律出版社,2020年第2版。 30.吕明瑜:《竞争法教程》,北京:中国人民出版社,2021年第3版。 31.黄勇:《国际竞争法研究:竞争法实施中的国际冲突与国际合作》,北京:中国友谊出版公司,2002年版。 32.徐士英:《竞争政策研究-国际比较与中国选择》,北京:法律出版社,2013年版。 33.[美]戴维·格伯尔:《全球竞争:法律、市场和全球化》,陈若鸿译,北京:中国法制出版社,2012年版。 34.[德]弗里德里希·李斯特:《政治经济学的国民体系》,陈万煦译,上海:商务印书馆,1983年版。 35.[美]理查德·波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》,蒋兆康译,北京:法律出版社2012年版. 36.[德]曼弗里德·诺伊曼:《竞争政策-历史、理论及实践》,谷爱俊译,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年版。 37.马西莫·莫塔:《竞争政策-理论与实践》,沈国华译,上海:上海财经大学出版社,2006年版。 (二)论文类 38.黄勇:“基于市场化、法治化、国际化的国际竞争利力建设(一)”,《经济导刊》,2023年第2期。 39.黄勇:“基于市场化、法治化、国际化的国际竞争利力建设(一)”,《经济导刊》,2023年第3期。 40.刘向东:“对接CPTPP完善中国竞争规则基础制度的建议”,《全球化》,2022年第4期。 41.任宏达:“CPTPP非商业援助条款解析思辨及中国的应对”,《国际法研究》,2023年第2期。 42.翁国民、宋丽:“美墨加协定对国际经贸规则的影响及中国之因应—以NAFTA与CPTPP为比较视角”,《浙江社会科学》,2020年第8期。 43.刘向东、李浩东:“中国提出加入CPTPP的可行性与实施策略分析”,《全球化》,2019年第5期。 44.白洁、苏庆义:“CPTPP的规则、影响及中国对策:基于和TPP对比的分析”,《国际经济评论》,2019年第1期。 45.彭磊、姜悦:“中国加入CPTPP可行性及替代方案的实证研究”,《国际经贸探索》,2021年第8期。 46.袁波:“CPTPP的主要特点、影响及对策建议”,《国际经济合作》,2018年第12期。 47.钟立国:“从NAFTA 到TPP: 自由贸易协定竞争政策议题的晚近发展及其对中国的启示”,《武大国际法评论》,2017年第6期。 48.包晋:“TPP谈判中的竞争中立议题”,《武大国际法评论》,2014 年第1期。 49.[美]威廉·库珀:“从NAFTA 到TPP(上)—纪念北美自由贸易协定签订20周年”,王宇译,《金融发展研究》,2014年第9期. 50.董灵、黄勇:“论区域贸易协定中的竞争条款与我国可能的路径选择”,《国际贸易》,2011 年第4期。 51.骆旭旭:“区域贸易协定的竞争条款研究”,《华侨大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2011年第3期. 52.王卫中:“国有企业改革三个层面的框架设计”,《东岳论丛》2016年第3期。 53.漆彤、窦云蔚:“论〈跨太平洋伙伴关系协定〉国有企业透明度规则”,《武大国际法评论》,2016年第2期。 54.徐士英:“国家竞争政策体系基本确立的重要标志”,《中国价格监管与反垄断》,2016年第7期。 55.王晓晔、陶正华:“WTO的竞争政策及其对中国的影响—兼论制定反垄断法的意义”,中国社会科学,2003年第5期。 56.韩立余:“国际法视野下的中国国有企业改革”,《中国法学》,2019年第6期。 57.赵海乐:“是国际造法还是国家间契约—“竞争中立”国际规则形成之惑》,《安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》”,2015年第1期。 58.刘雪红:“国有企业的商业化塑造—由欧美新区域贸易协定竞争中立规则引发的思考”,《法商研究》,2019年第2期。 59.韩立余:“TPP国有企业规则及其影响”,《国家行政学院学报》,2016年第1期。 60.王婷:“竞争中立:国际贸易与投资规则的新焦点”,《国际经济合作》, 2012年第9期。 61.王先林:“国际贸易协定谈判中的竞争政策问题”,《竞争政策研究》,2015年第7期。 62.殷敏:“美式与欧式跨区域贸易协定竞争政策比较研究及中国对策”,《竞争政策研究》,2017年第5期。 63.成先平、刘伊明:“论CPTPP非商业援助规则的适用”,《邯郸学院学报》,2022年第2期。 64.闻韬:“区域贸易协定中的竞争章节研究”,《法学论坛》,2018年第7期。 65.殷敏:“新区域主义时代下第美国区域贸易协定—戴维甘茨<区域贸易协定:法律、政策>介平”,《政法论坛》,2017年第3期。 66.张瑞萍:“反垄断国际合作中的积极礼让原则分析”,《环球法律评论》,2006年第2期。 67.杨继军、艾玮炜:“区域贸易协定服务贸易条款深度对增加值贸易关联的影响”,《国际贸易问题》,2021年第2期。 68.孙晋:《公平竞争原则与政府规制变革》,《中国法学》,2021年第3期。 69.沈伟:“国际经济活动中的国有企业身份困境—国际规则的分析”,《华侨大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2021年第4期。 70.邓亚辉:“TPP国企条款对我国企业的影响及对策”,《当代经济》,2016年第16期。 71.顾敏康、孟琪:“TPP国企条款对我国国企的影响及对策”,《中国政法大学学报》,2014年第6期。 72.蒋奋、周威:“CPTPP对国有企业的补贴规制与中国因应”,《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,2021年第6期。 73.秦佳萌、李红:“CPTPP国有企业规则介绍与评析”,《国际工程与劳务》, 2021年第5期。 74.王先林:“国际贸易协定谈判中的竞争政策问题—以WTO和TPP谈判为例”.《竞争政策研究》, 2015年第1期。 75.陈汉、彭岳:“TPP关于国有企业的规则研究”,《北京化工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2018 年第1期。 76.陈晓华:“国有企业法律规制与政治规制:从竞争到融合”,《法学评论》,2019年第6期。 77.陈卫东:”中美围绕国有企业的补贴提供者身份之争: 以WTO相关案例为重点”,《当代法学》,2017年第3期。 78.丁茂中:“竞争中立政策走向国际化的美国负面元素”,《政法论坛》,2015年第4期。 79.东艳、张琳:“美国区域贸易投资协定框架下的竞争中立原则分析”,《当代亚太》,2014 年第6期。 80.樊富强:“澳大利亚关于国有企业竞争中立政策的实施与评析”,《对外经贸实务》,2016年第10期。 81.冯辉:“竞争中立:国企改革、贸易投资新规则与国家间制度竞争”,《环球法律评论》,2016年第2期。 82.干潇露:“竞争推进与竞争中立:政府反竞争行为规制研究”,《浙江树人大学学报》,2012年第2期。 83.韩立余:“构建国际经贸新规则的总思路”,《经贸法律评论》,2019年第4期。 84.黄志瑾:“国际造法过程中的竞争中立规则——兼论中国的对策”,《国际商务研究》,2013年第3期。 85.金善明:“困境与路径:竞争法国际化的规范分析”,《社会科学》,2012年第11期. 86.李国海:“论反垄断法对国有企业的豁免”,《法学评论》,2017年第4期。 87.李俊峰:“竞争中性的国际规制演进与中国因应策略—以美欧互诉“民用大飞机补贴案”为参照”,《上海财经大学学报》,2021年第1期。 88.李思奇、金铭:“美式国有企业规则分析及启示—以NAFTA、TPP、USMCA为例”,《国际贸易》2019年第8期。 89.刘笋、许皓:“竞争中立的规则及其引入”,《政法论丛》,2018年第5期。 90.刘瑛:“跨太平洋伙伴关系协定国有企业章节的中国应对”,《东方法学》,2016年第5期。 91.马其家、樊富强:“TPP 对中国国有企业监管制度的挑战及中国法律调整—以国际竞争中立立法借鉴为视角”,《国际贸易问题》,2016年第5期。 92.吴振国:“加强竞争政策国际协调 共同维护市场公平竞争”,《竞争政策研究》, 2017年第5期。 93.熊月圆:“竞争中立”视阈下的TPP国企规则评析”,《金融发展研究》,2016年第9期。 94.徐林:“从加入WTO到加入CPTPP:中国产业政策的未来”,《比较》, 2021年第116辑。 95.张久琴:“竞争政策与竞争中立规则的演变及中国对策”,《国际贸易》, 2019年第10期。 96.郑文通、王雪佳:“中国竞争政策与结构性改革”, 《比较》,2020年第5辑。 97.殷敏、葛琛:“RCEP竞争政策争端解决规则的困境及中国应对”,《竞争政策研究》,2022年第4期。 98.沈伟:“竞争中性原则下的国有企业:竞争中性偏离和竞争中性化之困”,《上海经济研究》,2019年第5期。 99.高程:“新帝国体系中的制度霸权与治理路径—兼析国际规则 “非中性” 视角下的美国对华战略”,《教学与研究》,2012年第5期。 100.苏庆义:“中国是否应该加入CPTPP”,《国际经济评论》,2019年第4期。 101.艾素君:“WTO框架下服务贸易补贴的立法构想”, 《上海大学学报(社会科学版)》,2021年第2期. 102.余敏友、席晶:“论WTO争端解决机制中的证据规则”,《法学评论》,2003年第6期。 103.韩立余:“WTO争端解决程序中的举证责任”,《现代法学》,2007年第3期。 104.朱榄叶:“WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题”,《当代法学》,2007年第1期。 105.秦国荣:“论WTO反补贴诉讼机制—兼论我国应对国际反补贴诉讼之对策”, 《法商研究》,2006年第2期。 106.石静霞:“国际服务贸易规则的重构与我国服务贸易的发展”,《中国法律评论》,2018年第5期。 107.沈伟、方荔:“国际经贸协定国企条款的立法趋势与中国的立场演化”, 《国际经济评论》,2022年第5期. 108.王秋雯:“国有企业规则在区域贸易谈判平台中的新发展与中国对策”,《国际贸易》,2018年第6期. 109.毛真真:“国有企业补贴国际规则对比研究—从传统补贴规则到非商业支持规则”,《河北法学》,2017年第5期。 110.李仲平:“模糊与澄清:上游补贴利益传递分析的法律依据探析—以GATT/WTO裁决为样本”,《国际经贸探索》,2015年第1期. 111.周一帆:“美欧日WTO补贴规则改革方案评析及中国应对”,《太平洋学报》,2022年第7期. 112.张月姣:“中国在WTO诉美国反补贴措施案中胜诉的意义及启示”,《国际法研究》,2022年第3期。 113.陈瑶:“补贴专向性审查的争议、发展与中国对策”,《武大国际法评论》 ,2021年第6期。 114.张目强:“补贴与反补贴措施协定〉 中的补贴专向性”,《政法论坛》 ,2012年第2期。 115.顾宾、 徐程锦:“国际经济法视域下的国有企业公私主体地位认定标准”,《国际法研究》,2022年第4期。 116.廖凡:“政府补贴的法律规制:国际规则与中国应对”,《政治与法律》,2017年第12期。 117.胡建国、刘柒:“美国对华反补贴中公共机构的泛化及法律规制”,《法学》,2019年第10期。 118.李本、徐欢颜:“境外投资补贴的规制动因、 审查框架与中国应对—以欧盟 〈外国补贴条例草案〉为切入点”,《国际贸易》,2021年第11期。 119.应品广:“从贸易政策到竞争政策:国有企业国际造法的路径选择”,《世界经济研究》2022年第3期。 120.姜影:“法国国有企业管理体制改革的历程及成效”, 《法学》,2014年第6期。 121.崔凡、 苗翠芬:“中国外资管理体制的变革与国际投资体制的未来”,《国际经济评论》,2019年第5期。 122.钟立国:“RCEP 竞争政策条款研究”, 《竞争政策研究》,2021年第1期。 123.毛志远:“美国TPP国企条款提案对投资国民待遇的减损”,《国际经贸探索》,2014年第1期。 124.屠新泉、徐林鹏、杨幸幸:“国有企业相关国际规则的新发展及中国对策”,《亚太经济》,2015年第2期。 125.沈铭辉:“竞争中立视角下的TPP国有企业条款分析“,《国际经济合作》,2015年第7期。 126.吴宇飞:“ 论反垄断双方合作中的信息交换机制”,《国际法研究》,2016第2期。 二、外文类参考文献 (一)论文类: 127.Matsushita, M. (2019). Competition Law and Policy in the CPTPP. Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 16(5). 128.Matsushita, M. (2023). Interplay of Competition Law and Free Trade Agreements in Regulating State-Owned Enterprises. German Law Journal, 24(1). 129.Wang, H. (2019). The future of deep free trade agreements: the convergence of TPP (and CPTPP) and CETA?. Journal of World Trade, 53(2). 130.Jiang, H., & Yu, M. (2021). Understanding RCEP and CPTPP: from the perspective China’s dual circulation economic strategy. China Economic Journal, 14(2). 131.Zhou, W. (2021). Rethinking the (CP) TPP as a model for regulation of Chinese state-owned enterprises. Journal of International Economic Law, 24(3). 132.BOBOWSKI, S., CVECIC, I., & DOBRZANSKI, P. (2021). The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)–Genesis and Challenges of The Trans-Pacific Mega-Regionalism in Trade. 133.Kang, S. (2019). The CPTPP’s Competition and SOE Chapters: Possible Impacts for Potential New Members. Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 16(5). 134.Sourgens, F. G., Bray, A. D., Ishikawa, T., Kim, J., Whitsitt, E., Chaisse, J., & Forrest, S. (2019). An Introduction to the TDM Special Issue on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 16(5). 135.Nawawi, W. K. (2018). Emerging Rules for State-Owned Enterprises: Chapter 17 of the CPTPP1. Malaysia’s Trade Governance at a Crossroads, 271. 136.Kawase, T., & Ambashi, M. (2018). Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: overview and assessment. Emerging Global Trade Governance. 137.Nam, J. (2022). State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): A Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement Experience in Developing New Disciplines in the New World Order. 138.Remy, J. Y., & Sandford, I. Rules for State-Owned Enterprises in Chapter 17 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Balancing Market-Oriented Discipline and Policy Flexibility for States. 139.Jackson, J. K. (2016). The trans-pacific partnership (TPP): Analysis of economic studies. 140.KURIYAMA, C. (2012). APEC and the TPP: are they mutually reinforcing?. The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Quest for a Twenty-first Century Trade Agreement. 141.Cernat, L. (2005). Eager to ink, but ready to act? RTA proliferation and international cooperation on competition policy. Competition provisions in regional trade agreements: how to assure development gains, 4. 142.Teh, R. (2009). Competition provisions in regional trade agreements. Regional rules in the global trading system. 143.Bilal, S., & Olarreaga, M. (1998). Regionalism, competition policy and abuse of dominant position. J. World Trade, 32, 153. 144.Beckford, D. S. (2012). Implementing effective competition policy through regional trade agreements: the case of CARICOM. In Competition Policy and Regional Integration in Developing Countries. Edward Elgar Publishing. 145.Wooton, I., & Zanardi, M. (2004). Antidumping versus antitrust: Trade and competition policy. Handbook of International Trade: Economic and Legal Analyses of Trade Policy and Institutions, 2, pp383-402. 146.Bi, Y. (2015). Rising Mega RTA: China-Japan-Korea FTA under the New Trade Dynamism. JE Asia & Int'l L., 8,pp 299. 147.Brusick, P., Alvarez, A. M., & Cernat, L. (2005). Competition provisions in regional trade agreements: How to assure development gains. UN. 148.Evenett, S. J. (2005). What can we really learn from the competition provisions of regional trade agreements?. 149.Anderson, R. D., & Müller, A. C. (2015, September). Competition Law/Policy and the Multilateral Trading System: A Possible Agenda for the Future. In E15 Expert Group on Competition Policy and the Trade System, ICTSD, World Economic Forum, Geneva. 150.Thoene, U., & Gaitán-Guerrero, L. A. (2019). Competition Law and Policy in the Regional Context: European Union Experiences for the Pacific Alliance. The Pacific Alliance in a World of Preferential Trade Agreements: Lessons in Comparative Regionalism, pp215-233. 151.Bown, C. P. (2017). Mega‐regional trade agreements and the future of the WTO. Global Policy, 8(1), pp107-112. 152.Bhattacharjea, A. (2006). The case for a multilateral agreement on competition policy: a developing country perspective. Journal of International Economic Law, 9(2), pp293-323. 153.Nawawi, W. K. (2021). 6. New Rules for State-Owned Enterprises in the CPTPP. In The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (pp. 138-161). ISEAS Publishing. 154.Matsushita, M., & Lim, C. L. (2020). Taming Leviathan as merchant: Lingering questions about the practical application of Trans-Pacific Partnership's State-owned enterprises rules. World Trade Review, 19(3),pp402-423. 155.Ding, R. (2020). Interface 2.0 in rules on state-owned enterprises: A comparative institutional approach. Journal of International Economic Law, 23(3), pp637-663. 156.Su, X. (2022). Liberalising the Chinese Market: State-Owned Enterprise Disciplines in CAI. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 23(4), pp545-571. 157.Zhao, G. Accession Challenges to the CPTPP: Analyzing the Impacts of the UK and China’s. 158.Kawase, T., & Ambashi, M. (2018). 9 Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Emerging Global Trade Governance: Mega Free Trade Agreements and Implications for ASEAN. 159.Ding, Z., & Zhao, W. China’s CPTPP bid reveals the political dimension of global trade ambitions. 160.Rioux, M. (2021). From the NAFTA to the USMCA: Competition, Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises. In NAFTA 2.0: From the first NAFTA to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (pp. 127-137). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 161.Oxford Analytica. (2021). China will bargain hard in CPTPP membership talks. Emerald Expert Briefings, (oxan-es). 162.Duan, Y., & Kang, Y. (2022). Research on Competitive Neutrality of SOEs with Special Functions in China. Sustainability, 14(13), 7810. 163.Gantz, D. A. (2020). The USMCA: Updating NAFTA by Drawing on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper, (20-06). 164.IGLESIAS M., J. P. (2021). Is It Possible to Use State-Owned Enterprises to Promote Industrial and Technological Development Under Article 17.4 of the CPTPP? Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 48(4), pp309–334.https://doi-org.elib.tcd.ie/10.54648/leie2021021 165.Duan, Y., & Kang, Y. (2022). Research on Competitive Neutrality of SOEs with Special Functions in China. Sustainability (2071-1050), 14(13), 7810–N.PAG. https://doi-org.elib.tcd.ie/ 10.3390/su14137810 166.Anderson, R. D., Kovacic, W. E., Müller, A. C., Salgueiro, A., & Sporysheva, N. (2020). Competition Policy and the Global Economy: Current Developments and Issues for Reflection. George Washington Law Review Arguendo, 88(6), pp1421–1476 167.Goggin, Thoma, The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Expanding International Regimes, Masters Abstracts International. 2015. 168.Agyekum, Afia Fosua. Potential Impact of TPP Trade Agreement on U.S. Bilateral Agricultural Trade: Trade Creation or Trade Diversion? Masters Abstracts International.2015. 169.Yong Shik Lee, The Eagle Meets the Dragon-Two Superpowers, Two Mega RTAs, and So Many in Between: Reflections on TPP and RCEP, Journal of World Trade, Vol.50, 2016. 170.Lee, C., & Fukunaga, Y. (2014). ASEAN regional cooperation on competition policy. Journal of Asian Economics, 35, pp77-91. 171.Nicholson, M. W. (2008). An antitrust law index for empirical analysis of international competition policy. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(4), 1009-1029. 172.Sokol, D. D. (2008). Order Without (Enforceable) Law: Why Countries Enter into Non-Enforceable Competition Policy Chapters in Free Trade Agreements. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 83,pp 231. 173.Sokol, D. D. (2009). Competition policy and comparative corporate governance of state-owned enterprises. BYU L. Rev., pp1713. 174.Singh, A. (2002). Competition and competition policy in emerging markets: international and developmental dimensions. Growth and Economic Development,pp 207. 175.Matsushita, M. (2004). Basic Principles of the WTO and the Role of Competition Policy. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 3, pp363. 176.Hoekman, B. M., & Mavroidis, P. C. (1994). Competition, competition policy and the GATT. World Economy, 17(2), pp121-150. 177.Shapiro, C. (2002), "Competition Policy and Innovation", OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2002/11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/037574528284. 178.Marsden, P. (2003). Competition Policy for the WTO. Competition Lawinsight, 6. 179.Kawase, T., & Ambashi, M. (2018). Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: overview and assessment. Emerging Global Trade Governance, pp207-225. 180.Matsushita, M. (2017). State-owned enterprises in the TPP agreement. Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law Rule-Making: TPP as a New Model for Trade Agreements? 47, pp187-203. 181.Ines Willemyns, Disciplines on State-Owned Enterprises in TPP: Have Expectations Been Met?,Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Working Paper No. 168, January 2016, pp 13. 182.Matsushita M (2023). Interplay of Competition Law and Free Trade Agreements in Regulating State-Owned Enterprises.German Law Journal 24, 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.8 183.Rioux, M. (2022). From the NAFTA to the USMCA: Competition, Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises. In: Gagné, G., Rioux, M. (eds) NAFTA 2.0. Canada and International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81694-0_9 (二)著作类: 184.Nam, J. (2021). The TPP’s Competition Policy Chapter: Towards Convergence. In J. Huerta-Goldman & D. Gantz (Eds.), The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership: Analysis and Commentary (pp. 489-509). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/9781316678770.022. 185.Motta, M. (2004). Competition policy: theory and practice. Cambridge university press. 186.Williams, M. (2005). Competition policy and law in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Cambridge University Press. 187.Peritz, R. J. (2000). Competition policy in America: history, rhetoric, law. Oxford University Press on Demand. 188.Doern, G. B., & Wilks, S. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative competition policy: National institutions in a global market. Oxford University Press. 189.Baker, J., Gavil, A., Kovacic, W., & Wright, J. (2016). Antitrust Law in Perspective: Cases, Concepts, and Problems in Competition Policy, 3d. 190.Graham, E. M., & Richardson, J. D. (1997). Global competition policy. Peterson Institute. 191.Cini, M., & McGowan, L. (1998). Competition policy in the European Union (p. 6). Basingstoke: Macmillan. 192.Trebilcock, M. J. (2003). The law and economics of Canadian competition policy. University of Toronto Press. 193.Hoekman, B. M., & Holmes, P. (1999). Competition policy, developing countries and the WTO (Vol. 66). World Bank Publications. 194.Gal, M. S. (2003). Competition policy for small market economies. Harvard University Press. 195.Budzinski, O. (2008). The governance of global competition: competence allocation in international competition policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. 196.Comanor, W. S., Goto, A., & Waverman, L. (Eds.). (2005). Competition Policy in the Global Economy: Modalities for Co-operation. Routledge. 197.Scherer, F. M. (1994). Competition policies for an integrated world economy. Brookings Institution Press. 198.Kovacic, W. E. (2008). Competition policy in the European Union and the United States: Convergence or divergence (p. 21). US FTC. 199.Phlips, L. (1995). Competition policy: a game-theoretic perspective. Cambridge University Press. 200.Singh, A., & Dhumale, R. (2001). Competition policy, development, and developing countries (pp. 122-145). Palgrave Macmillan UK. 201.Neumann, M., & Weigand, J. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook of competition. Edward Elgar Publishing. 202.Rodriguez, A. E., & Menon, A. (2010). The limits of competition policy: the shortcomings of antitrust in developing and reforming economies (Vol. 43). Kluwer Law International BV. 203.Hüschelrath, K. (2009). Competition policy analysis–An integrated approach (pp. 11-212). Physica-Verlag HD. 204.Khemani, R. S. (Ed.). (1999). A framework for the design and implementation of competition law and policy. World Bank Publications. 205.Wilks, S. (1999). In the public interest: Competition policy and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Manchester University Press. 206.Mehta, P. S. (Ed.). (2012). Evolution of competition laws and their enforcement: A political economy perspective. Routledge. 207.San, G., & Chao, Y. C. (2001). International and Comparative Competition Laws and Policies. International and Comparative Competition Laws and Policies, 1-570. 208.Frazer, T., & Waterson, M. (1994). Competition law and policy: cases, materials and commentary. 209.Fox, E. M., & Mateus, A. M. (2011). Economic Development: The Critical Role of Competition Law and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 210.Ong, B. (Ed.). (2018). The regionalisation of competition law and policy within the ASEAN economic community. Cambridge University Press. 211.Kameoka, E. (2014). Competition Law and Policy in Japan and the EU. Edward Elgar Publishing. 212.Toth, A. G. (2008). The Oxford Encyclopaedia of European Community Law. Vol. 3: Competition Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. 213.Gerard, D., & Komninos, A. (Eds.). (2020). Remedies in EU Competition Law: Substance, Process and Policy. Kluwer Law International BV. 214.Wu, Y., Wu, Y., & WANG. (2019). Reforming WTO rules on state-owned enterprises. Springer Singapore. 215.Chiu, B. & Lewis, M. (2006). Reforming China's state-owned enterprises and banks. Edward Elgar Publishing. 216.Yusuf, S., Nabeshima, K., & Perkins, D. H. (2006). Under new ownership: privatizing China's state-owned enterprises. World Bank Publications. 217.Vagliasindi, M. (2008). The effectiveness of boards of directors of state owned enterprises in developing countries (Vol. 4579). World Bank Publications. 218.Vernon, R., & Aharoni, Y. (Eds.). (2014). State-Owned Enterprise in the Western Economies (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. 219.Ramamurti, R., & Vernon, R. (Eds.). (1991). Privatization and control of state-owned enterprises. World Bank Publications. 220.Sheng, H., & Zhao, N. (2013). China's state-owned enterprises: Nature, performance and reform (Vol. 1). World Scientific. 221.Kowalski, P. (2019). State-owned Enterprises and the Trade Wars. Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI). 222.Lin, J. Y., Cai, F., & Li, Z. (2001). State-owned enterprise reform in China. Chinese University Press. 223.Vagliasindi, M. (2008). Governance arrangements for state owned enterprises (Vol. 4542). World Bank Publications. 224.Baum, M. A., Hackney, C., Medas, P., & Sy, M. (2019). Governance and State-Owned Enterprises: How Costly is Corruption?. International Monetary Fund. 225.Lam, K. N. T. (2016). Chinese state owned enterprises in west Africa: Triple-embedded globalization. Taylor & Francis. 226.Schneider, H. (2021). Strategy, independence, and governance of state-owned enterprises in Asia (pp. 3-20). Springer Singapore. 227.Holz, C. A. (2003). China's industrial state-owned enterprises: Between profitability and bankruptcy. World Scientific. 228.Huber, J., Jara, M., Kim, H., Ter-Minassian, T., & Wagner, R. (2019). Fixing State-Owned Enterprises: New policy solutions to old problems. Inter-American Development Bank. 229.Li, M. (2002). Three essays on China's state owned enterprises: Towards an alternative to privatization. University of Massachusetts Amherst. 230.Taghizadeh-hesary, F., Yoshino, N., Kim, C. J., & Kim, K. (2021). Reforming State-Owned Enterprises in Asia. Springer Singapore. 231.MacAvoy, P. W., Stanbury, W. T., Yarrow, G., & Zeckhauser, R. (Eds.). (2012). Privatization and state-owned enterprises: lessons from the United States, Great Britain and Canada (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media. 232.SAPIR, A., & HOEKMAN, B. M. (2021). State-owned enterprises and international competition: towards plurilateral agreement. CEPR Press. Jurzyk, M. E. M., & Ruane, M. C. (2021). Resource misallocation among listed firms in China: The evolving role of state-owned enterprises. International Monetary Fund.

学科:

国际法学

提交日期

2024-06-14

引用参考

于良东. CPTPP竞争政策研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2024.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • CPTPP竞争政策研究
  • dc.title
  • Research on CPTPP Competition Policy
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • B2021030109097
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 于良东
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学博士学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2024
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 国际经济法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 岳树梅,唐青阳
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院,国际法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • CPTPP,竞争政策,执法与合作,国有企业,争端解决范式
  • dc.subject
  • CPTPP;competition policy;Enforcement and Cooperation;state-owned enterprises;Dispute resolution paradigm; .
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(CPTPP)是新一代高标准、严要求区域贸易协定的典型代表。随着英国的加入,CPTPP的影响力不再局限于亚太地区,更将辐射范围扩展到欧洲地区。经济发展规律表明,每当全球经济增速放缓或遭遇金融危机时,区域之间经济合作和国家之间经济合作便会在一定程度上得到加强,这一现象在东亚地区和亚太地区过去二十多年的合作中显得尤为明显。在百年未有之大变局加速演进、全球经济复苏缓慢,贸易增速动力不足,地缘政治冲突加剧的当下,CPTPP对于加强区域贸易合作,增强经济增长活力具有重要的现实意义。在当前新一代国际经贸规则的重塑过程中,《美墨加协定》(USMCA)以及《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》(RCEP)等都已经生效。虽然不同的区域贸易协定在竞争政策方面各具特色,但是整体上都在朝着营造公平、自由的竞争环境迈进。CPTPP作为首次将竞争政策与国有企业和指定垄断独立开来、各自成章的区域贸易协定,无论是在竞争政策议题中的内容,还是在国有企业和指定垄断方面,都开创了历史之最,必将成为引领未来区域贸易协定制定的典范。其在竞争政策执法与合作方面赋予缔约方域外执法权、高标准的执法透明度、严要求的国有企业竞争规则,以及一改传统因竞争政策而产生的争端仅适用磋商的单一范式,开启了由单一范式向复合范式转变的新篇章,都预示着未来区域贸易协定的发展趋势。我国目前虽然已经初步形成了具有中国特色的竞争政策体系,并在积极推进落实公平竞争审查制度,建立全国统一大市场,但还无法实现与CPTPP中高标准的竞争政策同频共振。我国在竞争政策中执法的透明度、合作的深度以及国有企业竞争规则等方面相比CPTPP中竞争政策的要求,还存在一定的差距。虽然我国在2021年9月就已向CPTPP的保存方新西兰提交了加入申请,但是目前进展情况不容乐观,其中高标准严要求的竞争政策不可避免的会给我国带来巨大压力。为了对冲加入CPTPP对我国竞争政策带来的压力,本文通过对CPTPP竞争政策的研究,系统分析CPTPP中竞争政策的先进性与局限性,并将中国的竞争政策与CPTPP进行适配性分析,找出差距,探讨对策,为中国加入CPTPP提出竞争政策方面的思考与建议。虽然CPTPP将竞争政策规则和国有企业竞争规则作为两个章节独立开来,但是从本质内容来看,国有企业竞争规则仍属于竞争政策中的一部分。因此,将国有企业竞争规则也作为本文的研究对象。为系统阐释CPTPP竞争政策,本文主要聚焦CPTPP文本的第16章和17章以及第28章的部分内容,除去引言和后记,本文共分为五个章节,具体如下:第一章是CPTPP竞争政策概述。本章首先回顾了CPTPP从TPP以来的发展历程,通过对竞争政策基础理论以及不同经济理论对竞争政策目标影响的分析,概述了竞争政策从追求单一目标的范式向复合范式的演进历程。在对竞争政策理论分析的基础上,析出CPTPP竞争政策目标追求的是实现经济效率、提高消费者福利的复合范式。其次,在对CPTPP竞争政策特征进行总结后发现CPTPP中竞争政策规则正在向民主化演进,国有企业竞争规则正在不断强化以及争端解决适用的多元化。最后,CPTPP对竞争政策的促进发展与工业化进程密不可分。尤其是随着数字经济的到来,企业经营方式不断创新,数字革命使得企业经营行为的物理边界愈加模糊,竞争执法合作的需要愈加凸显,但由于CPTPP缔约方之间经济发展水平和文化差异较大,成员国竞争法尚未实现趋同化,CPTPP在竞争政策内容方面采取了软协调的进路,更多的从宏观方面和程序上进行规定,以寻求在竞争政策规则方面的最大公约数,实现缔约方之间未来竞争法的趋同化。第二章阐释了CPTPP竞争政策的协调与合作。鉴于竞争政策只能协调,竞争执法只能合作的美国一贯主张,本章标题确立为CPTPP竞争政策的协调与合作。首先,对国际合作以及国际竞争执法的理论进行了证成。其次,从竞争政策协调的重点即国家竞争法、私人诉权和消费者保护以及域外执法权进行了分析。一改以往传统,CPTPP并不是将重点放在对国家竞争法的定义上,而是将焦点放在对缔约方国家竞争法的尊重上,要求缔约方通过非歧视和透明度来实施国家竞争法。接着分析并阐述了竞争执法程序中的程序公正、非歧视和透明度、技术合作原则。分析发现CPTPP在竞争政策规则中通过维护和加强源自于世贸组织的非歧视和透明度的基本原则,来实现缔约方之间竞争法的融合。第三章论证了CPTPP的国有企业竞争规则。本章首先通过对国有企业适用竞争法的理论证成,对国有企业的界定进行了理论溯源,分析了国有企业在国际法不同体系中的认定标准不一,同一企业在一套标准下被认定为国有企业而在另一套标准下则可能被认定为私营企业从而遭遇不同的对待,不仅让相关成员方迷茫,也困惑着裁判者。因而国有企业的界定在国际法上有待统一标准。其次,通过对CPTPP中国有企业定义的解构发现,CPTPP中对国有企业定义从表面上来看是有所扩张,实质上是对国有企业的认定范围有所限缩。第三,CPTPP把从事商业活动作为认定国有企业的标准之一,并对商业活动进行了解释,同时规定必须由政府直接拥有50%以上所有权或控制权或拥有任命大多数董事的权力,忽视了间接拥有问题的存在,并在USMCA中对该定义进行了修订,这为中国加入CPTPP谈判留下了空间。第四,通过对CPTPP中国有企业竞争规则中的透明度、非歧视与商业考虑以及非商业援助规则的分析,发现CPTPP中高标准的透明度和信息披露义务、非歧视和商业考虑涵盖内容的丰富以及非商业援助规则的重塑尚属首创,为未来区域贸易协定擘画了蓝图。最后,CPTPP中国有企业的高标准规则从外部产生的压力,从某种程度上来讲可以减少中国国有企业国内改革的阻力,从而倒逼中国的国有企业改革。第四章探究了CPTPP竞争政策中的争端解决机制。本章分析了CPTPP竞争政策争端解决适用的相关问题。首先,通过对CPTPP文本相关内容的研究,发现CPTPP采取的竞争政策争端解决范式对于目前以及未来区域贸易协定中关于该议题的争端解决都具有巨大影响,很有可能成为未来区域贸易协定中相关议题争端解决的模版,USMCA就是很好的例证。其次,CPTPP中对竞争政策争端解决采取了两种进路,一种是因竞争政策规则而产生的争端排除了本协议项下一般争端解决的适用,仅适用磋商的单一范式解决;另一种进路是因非歧视待遇、商业考量和非商业援助而产生的争端赋予一般争端解决机制管辖权。再次,CPTPP对因竞争政策而产生的争端一改区域贸易协定中的单一解决范式的传统,采取的复合范式开启了目前区域贸易协定中解决该问题的新篇章。复次,在争端解决程序上,设置了特别的信息收集程序,是CPTPP对争端解决程序中的又一大创新。最后,通过分析CPTPP中争端解决机制中专家小组的组建程序,发现虽然表面上该争端解决机制提高了争端解决的效率,但由于理论上的漏洞,仍然摆脱不了像WTO上诉机构那样的厄运,使那些“恶意”阻挠专家小组组建的被诉缔约方得以具有可乘之机。虽然该理论上的漏洞可以得到弥补,但是从政治的角度来分析是非常困难的。由于CPTPP竞争政策争端解决范式尚属首创,并无过多经验可资借鉴,具体的实施效果如何,仍待未来实践进行检验。第五章探索了中国对接CPTPP完善竞争政策的路径。本章主要是针对本文第二、三、四章分析而产生的问题进行了一一回应,在CPTPP竞争政策下与我国竞争政策方面执行的情况进行适配性分析,提出我国加入CPTPP的谈判路径。首先,针对竞争政策方面进行了对策分析,提出了完善我国竞争政策体系建设,提升竞争政策执法透明度,深化竞争政策执法合作的建议;其次,在对接CPTPP国有企业竞争规则的方面提出了相关对策。通过对CPTPP中国有企业定义的解构,发现CPTPP国有企业定义中的间接所有或控制的罅隙,并提出我国在对国有企业改革时可充分利用该罅隙设计更为丰富多样化的股权结构以规避CPTPP高标准的国有企业竞争规则,为我国国有企业改革争取更长时间的过渡期,对冲加入CPTPP后我国国有企业受到其中高标准国有企业竞争规则的影响;再次,在竞争政策争端解决方面,通过分析目前我国对外加入自由贸易协定关于竞争政策议题的现状,发现我国在竞争政策议题下采取的争端解决范式较为单一,不仅不符合未来自由贸易协定的发展趋势,更无法与新一代国际经贸规则“同频共振”;最后,建议通过以RCEP大多边为“助推器”,以中日韩小多边为“减压阀”,有序对竞争政策产生的争端解决从单一范式到复合范式过渡。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a typical representative of a new generation of high-standard and demanding regional trade agreements. With the accession of the United Kingdom to CPTPP, the influence of the CPTPP is no longer confined to the Asia-Pacific region but extends to the European region as well. Economic development trends indicate that whenever global economic growth slows down or faces financial crises, economic cooperation between regions and countries tends to strengthen to some extent. This phenomenon has been particularly evident in the cooperation within the East Asian and Asia-Pacific regions over the past two decades. In the current context of accelerated profound changes unseen in a century, slow global economic recovery, insufficient trade growth momentum, and escalating geopolitical conflicts, the CPTPP holds significant practical significance for strengthening regional trade cooperation and enhancing economic growth vitality.Amidst the reshaping of the new generation of international economic and trade rules, agreements such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have already taken effect. Although different regional trade agreements have their own characteristics in competition policy, overall, they are all moving towards creating a fair and free competitive environment.The CPTPP, as the first regional trade agreement to separate competition policy from state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies into independent chapters, has set historical precedents both in the content of competition policy issues and in the areas of state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies. It is poised to become a model guiding the formulation of future regional trade agreements. Its provisions on competition policy enforcement and cooperation grant extraterritorial enforcement powers to the contracting parties, establish high standards of enforcement transparency, impose stringent rules on competition involving state-owned enterprises, and depart from the traditional paradigm where disputes arising from competition policies are resolved solely through negotiation. This shift from a singular paradigm to a composite paradigm heralds the development trend of future regional trade agreements.Although China has preliminarily developed a competition policy system with Chinese characteristics and actively promoted the implementation of a fair competition review system and the establishment of a unified national market, it has yet to resonate fully with the high standards of competition policy in the CPTPP. There are still certain gaps in areas such as the transparency of competition policy enforcement, the depth of cooperation, and the rules regarding state-owned enterprises compared to the requirements in the CPTPP competition policy. Despite China's submission of an application to join the CPTPP to its depositary, New Zealand, in September 2021, the current progress is not optimistic. The high standards and stringent requirements of competition policy are inevitably expected to bring significant pressure to China. In order to mitigate the pressure that joining the CPTPP will bring to China's competition policy, this paper conducts a systematic analysis of the advanced and limited aspects of competition policy within the CPTPP and conducts an adaptability analysis of China's competition policy with the CPTPP, identifies gaps, determines countermeasures, and proposes considerations and suggestions for China's participation in the CPTPP in terms of competition policy.Although the CPTPP separates competition policy and state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies into two distinct chapters, in essence, state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies still fall within the scope of competition policy. Therefore, the competition rules for state-owned enterprises are also the focus of this paper's research. In order to systematically expound on CPTPP competition policy, this paper primarily focuses on Chapters 16 and 17 of the CPTPP text as well as parts of Chapter 28. Excluding the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into five chapters as follows:Chapter One provides an overview of the CPTPP and competition policy. This chapter first reviews the development of the CPTPP since the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), outlines the evolution of competition policy from pursuing a single goal paradigm to a composite paradigm through an analysis of the basic theories of competition policy and the influence of different economic theories on competition policy objectives. Based on the analysis of competition policy theory, it is deduced that the objective of competition policy pursued by the CPTPP is to achieve economic efficiency and enhance consumer welfare in a composite paradigm. Secondly, after summarizing the characteristics of competition policy rules in the CPTPP, it is found that competition policy rules in the CPTPP are evolving towards democratization, strengthening of competition rules for state-owned enterprises, and diversification of dispute resolution. Finally, the promotion of competition policy by the CPTPP is closely intertwined with the industrialization process. Especially with the advent of the digital economy, business operations continue to innovate, and the digital revolution blurs the physical boundaries of business operations. The need for competition law enforcement cooperation becomes more prominent. However, due to the significant differences in economic development levels and cultural differences among the contracting parties of the CPTPP, the competition laws of member states have not yet achieved convergence. The CPTPP adopts a soft-coordination approach in terms of competition policy content, focusing more on macro aspects and procedures to seek the maximum common denominator in competition policy rules and achieve convergence of competition laws among the contracting parties in the future.Chapter Two elaborates on the coordination and cooperation of competition policy in the CPTPP. Given the consistent advocacy by the United States that competition policy can only be coordinated and competition enforcement can only be cooperative, this chapter is titled “Coordination and Cooperation of Competition Policy in the CPTPP”. Firstly, the theoretical basis of international cooperation and international competition enforcement is established. Secondly, an analysis is conducted on the focus of competition policy coordination, including national competition laws, private rights of action, consumer protection, and extraterritorial enforcement. Departing from tradition, the CPTPP does not focus solely on defining national competition laws but emphasizes respecting the national competition laws of the contracting parties, requiring them to implement national competition laws through non-discrimination and transparency. Furthermore, the analysis and elaboration of procedural fairness, non-discrimination and transparency, and technical cooperation principles in competition law enforcement procedures reveal that the CPTPP aims to integrate competition laws among the contracting parties by upholding and strengthening the basic principles of non-discrimination and transparency of the World Trade Organization. Chapter Three argues the rules of competition for state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP. Firstly, through theoretical analysis of the application of competition law to state-owned enterprises, the theoretical origins of defining state-owned enterprises are traced, and the analysis of different recognition standards for state-owned enterprises in various international legal systems reveals inconsistencies. The same enterprise may be recognized as state-owned enterprise under one set of standards and as a private enterprise under another, leading to confusion among relevant members and perplexity for adjudicators. Therefore, the definition of state-owned enterprises in international law awaits unified standards. Secondly, through deconstructing the definition of state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP, it is discovered that while the definition of state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP appears to be expanded on the surface, it actually restricts the scope of recognition of state-owned enterprises. Thirdly, the CPTPP considers engaging in commercial activities as one of the criteria for identifying state-owned enterprises and provides an explanation of commercial activities. It also stipulates that a government must directly own or control more than 50% of the shares or have the power to appoint a majority of directors, disregarding the existence of indirect ownership issues. This definition has been revised in the USMCA, leaving room for negotiation for China to join the CPTPP. Fourthly, through analysis of transparency, non-discrimination, and commercial considerations in the competition rules for state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP, it is found that the high standards of transparency and disclosure obligations, the richness of content covered by non-discrimination and commercial considerations, and the reshaping of non-commercial assistance rules in the CPTPP are innovative, outlining a blueprint for future regional trade agreements. Finally, the high standard rules for state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP create external pressure, which can, to some extent, reduce resistance to domestic reforms of Chinese state-owned enterprises, thereby urging reforms in China's state-owned enterprises.Chapter Four explores the dispute resolution mechanism in the CPTPP competition policy. This chapter analyzes relevant issues regarding the application of dispute resolution mechanisms in the CPTPP competition policy. Firstly, through the study of relevant contents of the CPTPP text, it is found that the dispute resolution paradigm adopted by the CPTPP for competition policy disputes has a significant impact on current and future dispute resolutions on this topic in regional trade agreements, making it likely to become a template for resolving related disputes in future regional trade agreements, as evidenced by the USMCA. Secondly, the CPTPP adopts two approaches to resolving competition policy disputes: disputes arising from competition policy rules exclude the application of general dispute resolution under this Agreement and are resolved through a single-paradigm of negotiation; disputes arising from non-discrimination, commercial considerations, and non-commercial assistance grant jurisdiction to the general dispute resolution mechanism. Thirdly, the CPTPP departs from the traditional single resolution paradigm in regional trade agreements for disputes arising from competition policy, opting for a composite paradigm, opening a new chapter in resolving this issue in current regional trade agreements. Furthermore, in dispute resolution procedures, special information-gathering procedures have been established, representing another major innovation in dispute resolution procedures by the CPTPP. Finally, by analyzing the formation procedure of expert groups in the dispute resolution mechanism of the CPTPP, it is found that although this dispute resolution mechanism ostensibly improves the efficiency of dispute resolution, it still cannot escape the fate of the WTO Appellate Body due to theoretical loopholes, allowing respondent contracting parties who “maliciously”obstruct the formation of expert groups to take advantage. Although these theoretical loopholes can be remedied, it is politically challenging to analyze them from a political perspective. Since the dispute resolution paradigm of competition policy in the CPTPP is still innovative and lacks much experience to draw upon, the specific implementation effects remain to be tested by future practice.Chapter Five explores the path for China to align its competition policy with the CPTPP. This chapter mainly responds to the issues generated by the analysis in Chapters Two, Three, and Four, conducts an adaptability analysis of China's competition policy with the CPTPP competition policy, and proposes negotiation pathways for China to join the CPTPP. Firstly, countermeasure analysis is conducted for competition policy, proposing improvements to China's competition policy system, enhancing the transparency of competition policy enforcement, and making recommendations for deepening competition policy enforcement cooperation. Secondly, relevant countermeasures are proposed for aligning with CPTPP state-owned enterprise competition rules. Through deconstruction of the definition of state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP, it is discovered that there are gaps in indirect ownership or control in the definition of state-owned enterprises in the CPTPP, and it is proposed that China can fully utilize these gaps in designing a more diverse equity structure to circumvent the high standard state-owned enterprise rules of the CPTPP, thereby seeking a longer transition period for China's state-owned enterprise reform and mitigating the impact of the high standard state-owned enterprise rules on China's state-owned enterprise reform after joining the CPTPP. Thirdly, in terms of competition policy dispute resolution, through an analysis of the current situation of China's participation in free trade agreements on competition policy issues, it is found that China's dispute resolution paradigm under competition policy is relatively single, not only inconsistent with the development trend of future free trade agreements but also unable to resonate with the new generation of international economic and trade rules. Finally, it is suggested to use the RCEP multilateral as a “booster” and the China-Japan-Korea trilateral as a “pressure relief valve” to transition from a single-paradigm to a composite-paradigm for dispute resolution arising from competition policy in an orderly manner.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2024-06-05
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2024-05-31
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 一、中文类参考文献 (一)著作类 1.沈铭辉:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定:基于FTA战略视角的研究》,北京:经济管理出版社,2015年版。 2.张伯伟:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定研究》,天津:南开大学出版社,2016年版。 3.张晗:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP)与中国》,北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2016年版。 4.中国社会科学院世界经济与政治研究所国际贸易研究室:《(跨太平洋伙伴关系协定)文本解读》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2016年版。 5.徐泉:《国家经济主权论》,北京:人民大学出版社,2006年版。 6.杨泽伟:《国际法析论》,北京:人民大学出版社,2003年版。 7.曾华群:《国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展》,北京:法律出版社,2009年版。 8.黄洁:《TPP视野下的中国自由贸易区战略研究》,上海:上海人民出版社,2016年版。 9.刘继峰:《竞争法学原理》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007年版。 10.肖竹:《竞争政策与政府规制—关系、协调及竞争法的制度构建》,北京:中国法制出版社,2009年版。 11.钟立国:《区域贸易协定争端解决机制:理论及其条约法实践》,上海:上海人民出版社,2014年版。 12.刘志云:《国际经济法律自由化原理研究》.厦门:厦门大学出版社,2005年版。 13.白树强:《全球竞争政策—WTO 框架下竞争政策议题研究》,北京,北京大学出版社,2011年版。 14.曹建明、贺小勇:《世界贸易组织》,北京:法律出版社,2011年版。 15.丁茂中:《竞争中立政策研究》,北京,法律出版社 ,2018年版。 16.冯辉、石伟:《贸易与投资新规则视野下的竞争中立问题研究》,上海:上海人民出版社,2018年版。 17.宫仁海:《论贸易救济法与竞争法的冲突与协调——以区域贸易制度安排为视角》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2016年版。 18.史际春:《国有企业法论》,北京:中国法制出版社,1997年版。 19.石伟:《“竞争中立”制度的理论和实践》,北京:法律出版社,2017年版。 20.孙晋:《竞争性国有企业改革路径法律研究——基于竞争中立原则的视角》,北京:人民出版社,2020年版。 21.杨国华:《WTO中国案例评析》,北京:知识产权出版社,2015年版。 22.杨卫东:《国企工具论》,武汉:武汉大学出版社,2012年版。 23.应品广:《竞争中立规则研究:国际比较与中国选择》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2020 年版。 24.杨国华:《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》规则研究[.上海:上海人民出版社.2020年版。 25.翟立强:《<跨太平洋伙伴关系协定>的发展、现实挑战与中国应对策略研究》,北京:中国财政经济出版社,2018年版。 26.赵维田:《世贸组织(WTO)的法律制度》,吉林:吉林人民出版社,2000年版。 27.刘宁远、司平平、林燕萍:《国际反垄断法》,上海:上海人民出版社,2009年版。 28.孙晋:《中国竞争法与竞争政策发展研究报告(1980-2015)》,北京:法律出版社,2016年版。 29.孙晋、李胜利:《竞争法原论》,北京:法律出版社,2020年第2版。 30.吕明瑜:《竞争法教程》,北京:中国人民出版社,2021年第3版。 31.黄勇:《国际竞争法研究:竞争法实施中的国际冲突与国际合作》,北京:中国友谊出版公司,2002年版。 32.徐士英:《竞争政策研究-国际比较与中国选择》,北京:法律出版社,2013年版。 33.[美]戴维·格伯尔:《全球竞争:法律、市场和全球化》,陈若鸿译,北京:中国法制出版社,2012年版。 34.[德]弗里德里希·李斯特:《政治经济学的国民体系》,陈万煦译,上海:商务印书馆,1983年版。 35.[美]理查德·波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》,蒋兆康译,北京:法律出版社2012年版. 36.[德]曼弗里德·诺伊曼:《竞争政策-历史、理论及实践》,谷爱俊译,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年版。 37.马西莫·莫塔:《竞争政策-理论与实践》,沈国华译,上海:上海财经大学出版社,2006年版。 (二)论文类 38.黄勇:“基于市场化、法治化、国际化的国际竞争利力建设(一)”,《经济导刊》,2023年第2期。 39.黄勇:“基于市场化、法治化、国际化的国际竞争利力建设(一)”,《经济导刊》,2023年第3期。 40.刘向东:“对接CPTPP完善中国竞争规则基础制度的建议”,《全球化》,2022年第4期。 41.任宏达:“CPTPP非商业援助条款解析思辨及中国的应对”,《国际法研究》,2023年第2期。 42.翁国民、宋丽:“美墨加协定对国际经贸规则的影响及中国之因应—以NAFTA与CPTPP为比较视角”,《浙江社会科学》,2020年第8期。 43.刘向东、李浩东:“中国提出加入CPTPP的可行性与实施策略分析”,《全球化》,2019年第5期。 44.白洁、苏庆义:“CPTPP的规则、影响及中国对策:基于和TPP对比的分析”,《国际经济评论》,2019年第1期。 45.彭磊、姜悦:“中国加入CPTPP可行性及替代方案的实证研究”,《国际经贸探索》,2021年第8期。 46.袁波:“CPTPP的主要特点、影响及对策建议”,《国际经济合作》,2018年第12期。 47.钟立国:“从NAFTA 到TPP: 自由贸易协定竞争政策议题的晚近发展及其对中国的启示”,《武大国际法评论》,2017年第6期。 48.包晋:“TPP谈判中的竞争中立议题”,《武大国际法评论》,2014 年第1期。 49.[美]威廉·库珀:“从NAFTA 到TPP(上)—纪念北美自由贸易协定签订20周年”,王宇译,《金融发展研究》,2014年第9期. 50.董灵、黄勇:“论区域贸易协定中的竞争条款与我国可能的路径选择”,《国际贸易》,2011 年第4期。 51.骆旭旭:“区域贸易协定的竞争条款研究”,《华侨大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2011年第3期. 52.王卫中:“国有企业改革三个层面的框架设计”,《东岳论丛》2016年第3期。 53.漆彤、窦云蔚:“论〈跨太平洋伙伴关系协定〉国有企业透明度规则”,《武大国际法评论》,2016年第2期。 54.徐士英:“国家竞争政策体系基本确立的重要标志”,《中国价格监管与反垄断》,2016年第7期。 55.王晓晔、陶正华:“WTO的竞争政策及其对中国的影响—兼论制定反垄断法的意义”,中国社会科学,2003年第5期。 56.韩立余:“国际法视野下的中国国有企业改革”,《中国法学》,2019年第6期。 57.赵海乐:“是国际造法还是国家间契约—“竞争中立”国际规则形成之惑》,《安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》”,2015年第1期。 58.刘雪红:“国有企业的商业化塑造—由欧美新区域贸易协定竞争中立规则引发的思考”,《法商研究》,2019年第2期。 59.韩立余:“TPP国有企业规则及其影响”,《国家行政学院学报》,2016年第1期。 60.王婷:“竞争中立:国际贸易与投资规则的新焦点”,《国际经济合作》, 2012年第9期。 61.王先林:“国际贸易协定谈判中的竞争政策问题”,《竞争政策研究》,2015年第7期。 62.殷敏:“美式与欧式跨区域贸易协定竞争政策比较研究及中国对策”,《竞争政策研究》,2017年第5期。 63.成先平、刘伊明:“论CPTPP非商业援助规则的适用”,《邯郸学院学报》,2022年第2期。 64.闻韬:“区域贸易协定中的竞争章节研究”,《法学论坛》,2018年第7期。 65.殷敏:“新区域主义时代下第美国区域贸易协定—戴维甘茨<区域贸易协定:法律、政策>介平”,《政法论坛》,2017年第3期。 66.张瑞萍:“反垄断国际合作中的积极礼让原则分析”,《环球法律评论》,2006年第2期。 67.杨继军、艾玮炜:“区域贸易协定服务贸易条款深度对增加值贸易关联的影响”,《国际贸易问题》,2021年第2期。 68.孙晋:《公平竞争原则与政府规制变革》,《中国法学》,2021年第3期。 69.沈伟:“国际经济活动中的国有企业身份困境—国际规则的分析”,《华侨大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2021年第4期。 70.邓亚辉:“TPP国企条款对我国企业的影响及对策”,《当代经济》,2016年第16期。 71.顾敏康、孟琪:“TPP国企条款对我国国企的影响及对策”,《中国政法大学学报》,2014年第6期。 72.蒋奋、周威:“CPTPP对国有企业的补贴规制与中国因应”,《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》,2021年第6期。 73.秦佳萌、李红:“CPTPP国有企业规则介绍与评析”,《国际工程与劳务》, 2021年第5期。 74.王先林:“国际贸易协定谈判中的竞争政策问题—以WTO和TPP谈判为例”.《竞争政策研究》, 2015年第1期。 75.陈汉、彭岳:“TPP关于国有企业的规则研究”,《北京化工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2018 年第1期。 76.陈晓华:“国有企业法律规制与政治规制:从竞争到融合”,《法学评论》,2019年第6期。 77.陈卫东:”中美围绕国有企业的补贴提供者身份之争: 以WTO相关案例为重点”,《当代法学》,2017年第3期。 78.丁茂中:“竞争中立政策走向国际化的美国负面元素”,《政法论坛》,2015年第4期。 79.东艳、张琳:“美国区域贸易投资协定框架下的竞争中立原则分析”,《当代亚太》,2014 年第6期。 80.樊富强:“澳大利亚关于国有企业竞争中立政策的实施与评析”,《对外经贸实务》,2016年第10期。 81.冯辉:“竞争中立:国企改革、贸易投资新规则与国家间制度竞争”,《环球法律评论》,2016年第2期。 82.干潇露:“竞争推进与竞争中立:政府反竞争行为规制研究”,《浙江树人大学学报》,2012年第2期。 83.韩立余:“构建国际经贸新规则的总思路”,《经贸法律评论》,2019年第4期。 84.黄志瑾:“国际造法过程中的竞争中立规则——兼论中国的对策”,《国际商务研究》,2013年第3期。 85.金善明:“困境与路径:竞争法国际化的规范分析”,《社会科学》,2012年第11期. 86.李国海:“论反垄断法对国有企业的豁免”,《法学评论》,2017年第4期。 87.李俊峰:“竞争中性的国际规制演进与中国因应策略—以美欧互诉“民用大飞机补贴案”为参照”,《上海财经大学学报》,2021年第1期。 88.李思奇、金铭:“美式国有企业规则分析及启示—以NAFTA、TPP、USMCA为例”,《国际贸易》2019年第8期。 89.刘笋、许皓:“竞争中立的规则及其引入”,《政法论丛》,2018年第5期。 90.刘瑛:“跨太平洋伙伴关系协定国有企业章节的中国应对”,《东方法学》,2016年第5期。 91.马其家、樊富强:“TPP 对中国国有企业监管制度的挑战及中国法律调整—以国际竞争中立立法借鉴为视角”,《国际贸易问题》,2016年第5期。 92.吴振国:“加强竞争政策国际协调 共同维护市场公平竞争”,《竞争政策研究》, 2017年第5期。 93.熊月圆:“竞争中立”视阈下的TPP国企规则评析”,《金融发展研究》,2016年第9期。 94.徐林:“从加入WTO到加入CPTPP:中国产业政策的未来”,《比较》, 2021年第116辑。 95.张久琴:“竞争政策与竞争中立规则的演变及中国对策”,《国际贸易》, 2019年第10期。 96.郑文通、王雪佳:“中国竞争政策与结构性改革”, 《比较》,2020年第5辑。 97.殷敏、葛琛:“RCEP竞争政策争端解决规则的困境及中国应对”,《竞争政策研究》,2022年第4期。 98.沈伟:“竞争中性原则下的国有企业:竞争中性偏离和竞争中性化之困”,《上海经济研究》,2019年第5期。 99.高程:“新帝国体系中的制度霸权与治理路径—兼析国际规则 “非中性” 视角下的美国对华战略”,《教学与研究》,2012年第5期。 100.苏庆义:“中国是否应该加入CPTPP”,《国际经济评论》,2019年第4期。 101.艾素君:“WTO框架下服务贸易补贴的立法构想”, 《上海大学学报(社会科学版)》,2021年第2期. 102.余敏友、席晶:“论WTO争端解决机制中的证据规则”,《法学评论》,2003年第6期。 103.韩立余:“WTO争端解决程序中的举证责任”,《现代法学》,2007年第3期。 104.朱榄叶:“WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题”,《当代法学》,2007年第1期。 105.秦国荣:“论WTO反补贴诉讼机制—兼论我国应对国际反补贴诉讼之对策”, 《法商研究》,2006年第2期。 106.石静霞:“国际服务贸易规则的重构与我国服务贸易的发展”,《中国法律评论》,2018年第5期。 107.沈伟、方荔:“国际经贸协定国企条款的立法趋势与中国的立场演化”, 《国际经济评论》,2022年第5期. 108.王秋雯:“国有企业规则在区域贸易谈判平台中的新发展与中国对策”,《国际贸易》,2018年第6期. 109.毛真真:“国有企业补贴国际规则对比研究—从传统补贴规则到非商业支持规则”,《河北法学》,2017年第5期。 110.李仲平:“模糊与澄清:上游补贴利益传递分析的法律依据探析—以GATT/WTO裁决为样本”,《国际经贸探索》,2015年第1期. 111.周一帆:“美欧日WTO补贴规则改革方案评析及中国应对”,《太平洋学报》,2022年第7期. 112.张月姣:“中国在WTO诉美国反补贴措施案中胜诉的意义及启示”,《国际法研究》,2022年第3期。 113.陈瑶:“补贴专向性审查的争议、发展与中国对策”,《武大国际法评论》 ,2021年第6期。 114.张目强:“补贴与反补贴措施协定〉 中的补贴专向性”,《政法论坛》 ,2012年第2期。 115.顾宾、 徐程锦:“国际经济法视域下的国有企业公私主体地位认定标准”,《国际法研究》,2022年第4期。 116.廖凡:“政府补贴的法律规制:国际规则与中国应对”,《政治与法律》,2017年第12期。 117.胡建国、刘柒:“美国对华反补贴中公共机构的泛化及法律规制”,《法学》,2019年第10期。 118.李本、徐欢颜:“境外投资补贴的规制动因、 审查框架与中国应对—以欧盟 〈外国补贴条例草案〉为切入点”,《国际贸易》,2021年第11期。 119.应品广:“从贸易政策到竞争政策:国有企业国际造法的路径选择”,《世界经济研究》2022年第3期。 120.姜影:“法国国有企业管理体制改革的历程及成效”, 《法学》,2014年第6期。 121.崔凡、 苗翠芬:“中国外资管理体制的变革与国际投资体制的未来”,《国际经济评论》,2019年第5期。 122.钟立国:“RCEP 竞争政策条款研究”, 《竞争政策研究》,2021年第1期。 123.毛志远:“美国TPP国企条款提案对投资国民待遇的减损”,《国际经贸探索》,2014年第1期。 124.屠新泉、徐林鹏、杨幸幸:“国有企业相关国际规则的新发展及中国对策”,《亚太经济》,2015年第2期。 125.沈铭辉:“竞争中立视角下的TPP国有企业条款分析“,《国际经济合作》,2015年第7期。 126.吴宇飞:“ 论反垄断双方合作中的信息交换机制”,《国际法研究》,2016第2期。 二、外文类参考文献 (一)论文类: 127.Matsushita, M. (2019). Competition Law and Policy in the CPTPP. Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 16(5). 128.Matsushita, M. (2023). Interplay of Competition Law and Free Trade Agreements in Regulating State-Owned Enterprises. German Law Journal, 24(1). 129.Wang, H. (2019). The future of deep free trade agreements: the convergence of TPP (and CPTPP) and CETA?. Journal of World Trade, 53(2). 130.Jiang, H., & Yu, M. (2021). Understanding RCEP and CPTPP: from the perspective China’s dual circulation economic strategy. China Economic Journal, 14(2). 131.Zhou, W. (2021). Rethinking the (CP) TPP as a model for regulation of Chinese state-owned enterprises. Journal of International Economic Law, 24(3). 132.BOBOWSKI, S., CVECIC, I., & DOBRZANSKI, P. (2021). The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)–Genesis and Challenges of The Trans-Pacific Mega-Regionalism in Trade. 133.Kang, S. (2019). The CPTPP’s Competition and SOE Chapters: Possible Impacts for Potential New Members. Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 16(5). 134.Sourgens, F. G., Bray, A. D., Ishikawa, T., Kim, J., Whitsitt, E., Chaisse, J., & Forrest, S. (2019). An Introduction to the TDM Special Issue on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 16(5). 135.Nawawi, W. K. (2018). Emerging Rules for State-Owned Enterprises: Chapter 17 of the CPTPP1. Malaysia’s Trade Governance at a Crossroads, 271. 136.Kawase, T., & Ambashi, M. (2018). Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: overview and assessment. Emerging Global Trade Governance. 137.Nam, J. (2022). State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): A Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement Experience in Developing New Disciplines in the New World Order. 138.Remy, J. Y., & Sandford, I. Rules for State-Owned Enterprises in Chapter 17 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Balancing Market-Oriented Discipline and Policy Flexibility for States. 139.Jackson, J. K. (2016). The trans-pacific partnership (TPP): Analysis of economic studies. 140.KURIYAMA, C. (2012). APEC and the TPP: are they mutually reinforcing?. The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Quest for a Twenty-first Century Trade Agreement. 141.Cernat, L. (2005). Eager to ink, but ready to act? RTA proliferation and international cooperation on competition policy. Competition provisions in regional trade agreements: how to assure development gains, 4. 142.Teh, R. (2009). Competition provisions in regional trade agreements. Regional rules in the global trading system. 143.Bilal, S., & Olarreaga, M. (1998). Regionalism, competition policy and abuse of dominant position. J. World Trade, 32, 153. 144.Beckford, D. S. (2012). Implementing effective competition policy through regional trade agreements: the case of CARICOM. In Competition Policy and Regional Integration in Developing Countries. Edward Elgar Publishing. 145.Wooton, I., & Zanardi, M. (2004). Antidumping versus antitrust: Trade and competition policy. Handbook of International Trade: Economic and Legal Analyses of Trade Policy and Institutions, 2, pp383-402. 146.Bi, Y. (2015). Rising Mega RTA: China-Japan-Korea FTA under the New Trade Dynamism. JE Asia & Int'l L., 8,pp 299. 147.Brusick, P., Alvarez, A. M., & Cernat, L. (2005). Competition provisions in regional trade agreements: How to assure development gains. UN. 148.Evenett, S. J. (2005). What can we really learn from the competition provisions of regional trade agreements?. 149.Anderson, R. D., & Müller, A. C. (2015, September). Competition Law/Policy and the Multilateral Trading System: A Possible Agenda for the Future. In E15 Expert Group on Competition Policy and the Trade System, ICTSD, World Economic Forum, Geneva. 150.Thoene, U., & Gaitán-Guerrero, L. A. (2019). Competition Law and Policy in the Regional Context: European Union Experiences for the Pacific Alliance. The Pacific Alliance in a World of Preferential Trade Agreements: Lessons in Comparative Regionalism, pp215-233. 151.Bown, C. P. (2017). Mega‐regional trade agreements and the future of the WTO. Global Policy, 8(1), pp107-112. 152.Bhattacharjea, A. (2006). The case for a multilateral agreement on competition policy: a developing country perspective. Journal of International Economic Law, 9(2), pp293-323. 153.Nawawi, W. K. (2021). 6. New Rules for State-Owned Enterprises in the CPTPP. In The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (pp. 138-161). ISEAS Publishing. 154.Matsushita, M., & Lim, C. L. (2020). Taming Leviathan as merchant: Lingering questions about the practical application of Trans-Pacific Partnership's State-owned enterprises rules. World Trade Review, 19(3),pp402-423. 155.Ding, R. (2020). Interface 2.0 in rules on state-owned enterprises: A comparative institutional approach. Journal of International Economic Law, 23(3), pp637-663. 156.Su, X. (2022). Liberalising the Chinese Market: State-Owned Enterprise Disciplines in CAI. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 23(4), pp545-571. 157.Zhao, G. Accession Challenges to the CPTPP: Analyzing the Impacts of the UK and China’s. 158.Kawase, T., & Ambashi, M. (2018). 9 Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Emerging Global Trade Governance: Mega Free Trade Agreements and Implications for ASEAN. 159.Ding, Z., & Zhao, W. China’s CPTPP bid reveals the political dimension of global trade ambitions. 160.Rioux, M. (2021). From the NAFTA to the USMCA: Competition, Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises. In NAFTA 2.0: From the first NAFTA to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (pp. 127-137). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 161.Oxford Analytica. (2021). China will bargain hard in CPTPP membership talks. Emerald Expert Briefings, (oxan-es). 162.Duan, Y., & Kang, Y. (2022). Research on Competitive Neutrality of SOEs with Special Functions in China. Sustainability, 14(13), 7810. 163.Gantz, D. A. (2020). The USMCA: Updating NAFTA by Drawing on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper, (20-06). 164.IGLESIAS M., J. P. (2021). Is It Possible to Use State-Owned Enterprises to Promote Industrial and Technological Development Under Article 17.4 of the CPTPP? Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 48(4), pp309–334.https://doi-org.elib.tcd.ie/10.54648/leie2021021 165.Duan, Y., & Kang, Y. (2022). Research on Competitive Neutrality of SOEs with Special Functions in China. Sustainability (2071-1050), 14(13), 7810–N.PAG. https://doi-org.elib.tcd.ie/ 10.3390/su14137810 166.Anderson, R. D., Kovacic, W. E., Müller, A. C., Salgueiro, A., & Sporysheva, N. (2020). Competition Policy and the Global Economy: Current Developments and Issues for Reflection. George Washington Law Review Arguendo, 88(6), pp1421–1476 167.Goggin, Thoma, The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Expanding International Regimes, Masters Abstracts International. 2015. 168.Agyekum, Afia Fosua. Potential Impact of TPP Trade Agreement on U.S. Bilateral Agricultural Trade: Trade Creation or Trade Diversion? Masters Abstracts International.2015. 169.Yong Shik Lee, The Eagle Meets the Dragon-Two Superpowers, Two Mega RTAs, and So Many in Between: Reflections on TPP and RCEP, Journal of World Trade, Vol.50, 2016. 170.Lee, C., & Fukunaga, Y. (2014). ASEAN regional cooperation on competition policy. Journal of Asian Economics, 35, pp77-91. 171.Nicholson, M. W. (2008). An antitrust law index for empirical analysis of international competition policy. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(4), 1009-1029. 172.Sokol, D. D. (2008). Order Without (Enforceable) Law: Why Countries Enter into Non-Enforceable Competition Policy Chapters in Free Trade Agreements. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 83,pp 231. 173.Sokol, D. D. (2009). Competition policy and comparative corporate governance of state-owned enterprises. BYU L. Rev., pp1713. 174.Singh, A. (2002). Competition and competition policy in emerging markets: international and developmental dimensions. Growth and Economic Development,pp 207. 175.Matsushita, M. (2004). Basic Principles of the WTO and the Role of Competition Policy. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 3, pp363. 176.Hoekman, B. M., & Mavroidis, P. C. (1994). Competition, competition policy and the GATT. World Economy, 17(2), pp121-150. 177.Shapiro, C. (2002), "Competition Policy and Innovation", OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2002/11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/037574528284. 178.Marsden, P. (2003). Competition Policy for the WTO. Competition Lawinsight, 6. 179.Kawase, T., & Ambashi, M. (2018). Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: overview and assessment. Emerging Global Trade Governance, pp207-225. 180.Matsushita, M. (2017). State-owned enterprises in the TPP agreement. Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law Rule-Making: TPP as a New Model for Trade Agreements? 47, pp187-203. 181.Ines Willemyns, Disciplines on State-Owned Enterprises in TPP: Have Expectations Been Met?,Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Working Paper No. 168, January 2016, pp 13. 182.Matsushita M (2023). Interplay of Competition Law and Free Trade Agreements in Regulating State-Owned Enterprises.German Law Journal 24, 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.8 183.Rioux, M. (2022). From the NAFTA to the USMCA: Competition, Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises. In: Gagné, G., Rioux, M. (eds) NAFTA 2.0. Canada and International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81694-0_9 (二)著作类: 184.Nam, J. (2021). The TPP’s Competition Policy Chapter: Towards Convergence. In J. Huerta-Goldman & D. Gantz (Eds.), The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership: Analysis and Commentary (pp. 489-509). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/9781316678770.022. 185.Motta, M. (2004). Competition policy: theory and practice. Cambridge university press. 186.Williams, M. (2005). Competition policy and law in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Cambridge University Press. 187.Peritz, R. J. (2000). Competition policy in America: history, rhetoric, law. Oxford University Press on Demand. 188.Doern, G. B., & Wilks, S. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative competition policy: National institutions in a global market. Oxford University Press. 189.Baker, J., Gavil, A., Kovacic, W., & Wright, J. (2016). Antitrust Law in Perspective: Cases, Concepts, and Problems in Competition Policy, 3d. 190.Graham, E. M., & Richardson, J. D. (1997). Global competition policy. Peterson Institute. 191.Cini, M., & McGowan, L. (1998). Competition policy in the European Union (p. 6). Basingstoke: Macmillan. 192.Trebilcock, M. J. (2003). The law and economics of Canadian competition policy. University of Toronto Press. 193.Hoekman, B. M., & Holmes, P. (1999). Competition policy, developing countries and the WTO (Vol. 66). World Bank Publications. 194.Gal, M. S. (2003). Competition policy for small market economies. Harvard University Press. 195.Budzinski, O. (2008). The governance of global competition: competence allocation in international competition policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. 196.Comanor, W. S., Goto, A., & Waverman, L. (Eds.). (2005). Competition Policy in the Global Economy: Modalities for Co-operation. Routledge. 197.Scherer, F. M. (1994). Competition policies for an integrated world economy. Brookings Institution Press. 198.Kovacic, W. E. (2008). Competition policy in the European Union and the United States: Convergence or divergence (p. 21). US FTC. 199.Phlips, L. (1995). Competition policy: a game-theoretic perspective. Cambridge University Press. 200.Singh, A., & Dhumale, R. (2001). Competition policy, development, and developing countries (pp. 122-145). Palgrave Macmillan UK. 201.Neumann, M., & Weigand, J. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook of competition. Edward Elgar Publishing. 202.Rodriguez, A. E., & Menon, A. (2010). The limits of competition policy: the shortcomings of antitrust in developing and reforming economies (Vol. 43). Kluwer Law International BV. 203.Hüschelrath, K. (2009). Competition policy analysis–An integrated approach (pp. 11-212). Physica-Verlag HD. 204.Khemani, R. S. (Ed.). (1999). A framework for the design and implementation of competition law and policy. World Bank Publications. 205.Wilks, S. (1999). In the public interest: Competition policy and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Manchester University Press. 206.Mehta, P. S. (Ed.). (2012). Evolution of competition laws and their enforcement: A political economy perspective. Routledge. 207.San, G., & Chao, Y. C. (2001). International and Comparative Competition Laws and Policies. International and Comparative Competition Laws and Policies, 1-570. 208.Frazer, T., & Waterson, M. (1994). Competition law and policy: cases, materials and commentary. 209.Fox, E. M., & Mateus, A. M. (2011). Economic Development: The Critical Role of Competition Law and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 210.Ong, B. (Ed.). (2018). The regionalisation of competition law and policy within the ASEAN economic community. Cambridge University Press. 211.Kameoka, E. (2014). Competition Law and Policy in Japan and the EU. Edward Elgar Publishing. 212.Toth, A. G. (2008). The Oxford Encyclopaedia of European Community Law. Vol. 3: Competition Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. 213.Gerard, D., & Komninos, A. (Eds.). (2020). Remedies in EU Competition Law: Substance, Process and Policy. Kluwer Law International BV. 214.Wu, Y., Wu, Y., & WANG. (2019). Reforming WTO rules on state-owned enterprises. Springer Singapore. 215.Chiu, B. & Lewis, M. (2006). Reforming China's state-owned enterprises and banks. Edward Elgar Publishing. 216.Yusuf, S., Nabeshima, K., & Perkins, D. H. (2006). Under new ownership: privatizing China's state-owned enterprises. World Bank Publications. 217.Vagliasindi, M. (2008). The effectiveness of boards of directors of state owned enterprises in developing countries (Vol. 4579). World Bank Publications. 218.Vernon, R., & Aharoni, Y. (Eds.). (2014). State-Owned Enterprise in the Western Economies (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. 219.Ramamurti, R., & Vernon, R. (Eds.). (1991). Privatization and control of state-owned enterprises. World Bank Publications. 220.Sheng, H., & Zhao, N. (2013). China's state-owned enterprises: Nature, performance and reform (Vol. 1). World Scientific. 221.Kowalski, P. (2019). State-owned Enterprises and the Trade Wars. Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI). 222.Lin, J. Y., Cai, F., & Li, Z. (2001). State-owned enterprise reform in China. Chinese University Press. 223.Vagliasindi, M. (2008). Governance arrangements for state owned enterprises (Vol. 4542). World Bank Publications. 224.Baum, M. A., Hackney, C., Medas, P., & Sy, M. (2019). Governance and State-Owned Enterprises: How Costly is Corruption?. International Monetary Fund. 225.Lam, K. N. T. (2016). Chinese state owned enterprises in west Africa: Triple-embedded globalization. Taylor & Francis. 226.Schneider, H. (2021). Strategy, independence, and governance of state-owned enterprises in Asia (pp. 3-20). Springer Singapore. 227.Holz, C. A. (2003). China's industrial state-owned enterprises: Between profitability and bankruptcy. World Scientific. 228.Huber, J., Jara, M., Kim, H., Ter-Minassian, T., & Wagner, R. (2019). Fixing State-Owned Enterprises: New policy solutions to old problems. Inter-American Development Bank. 229.Li, M. (2002). Three essays on China's state owned enterprises: Towards an alternative to privatization. University of Massachusetts Amherst. 230.Taghizadeh-hesary, F., Yoshino, N., Kim, C. J., & Kim, K. (2021). Reforming State-Owned Enterprises in Asia. Springer Singapore. 231.MacAvoy, P. W., Stanbury, W. T., Yarrow, G., & Zeckhauser, R. (Eds.). (2012). Privatization and state-owned enterprises: lessons from the United States, Great Britain and Canada (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media. 232.SAPIR, A., & HOEKMAN, B. M. (2021). State-owned enterprises and international competition: towards plurilateral agreement. CEPR Press. Jurzyk, M. E. M., & Ruane, M. C. (2021). Resource misallocation among listed firms in China: The evolving role of state-owned enterprises. International Monetary Fund.
回到顶部