공정거래위원회의 경쟁주창
Competition Advocacy of the Korea Fair Trade Commission
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Market competition is not only deterred by private businesses, but is also disrupted by public regulatory interventions, regulatory legislation, and other rulemakings. However, public regulations differ from private business practices. Even when an existing public regulation may seem to contradict with the concept of market competition, it is likely that the public regulation was introduced to address a different type of market failure which competition law does not adequately cover. What might be considered anti-competitive when done by private parties may be treated differently by the government when done through public restraints. Accordingly, in many cases it is difficult to legally assign blame to a private business practice that was affected by the central or local government regulations. Thus, as to public restraints and actions of businesses pertaining to such public restraints, there was a clear need for effective facilitation for market competition via means other than enforcement of competition law. The concept that arose in response to this need is “competition advocacy,” which refers to the measures that are applied where an enforcement of competition law is deemed inappropriate. The Korean experience with competition advocacy, given the scope of power granted to the Korea Fair Trade Commission(“KFTC”), provides a unique experiment for a broader set of advocacy powers for competition authorities worldwide. Against this background, this article is written for the purpose of providing an overview of the substance and the application of the competition advocacy and to seek a more objective view on the competition advocacy system. In chapter II, this article analyzes the institutional framework from which the competition advocacy stems. In chapters III and IV, the article provides an overview of the KFTC’s activity in the context of the relationship between competition advocacy and competition law enforcement. In chapter V, the article objectively evaluates whether the role of competition advocacy is carried out for the rightful purpose within the given institutional framework. This article concludes by considering what seems to be the lesson for other jurisdictions and suggests that the KFTC must undertake competition advocacy in a manner appropriate for promoting pro-competitive environment.
Abstract
Market competition is not only deterred by private businesses, but is also disrupted by public regulatory interventions, regulatory legislation, and other rulemakings. However, public regulations differ from private business practices. Even when an existing public regulation may seem to contradict with the concept of market competition, it is likely that the public regulation was introduced to address a different type of market failure which competition law does not adequately cover. What might be considered anti-competitive when done by private parties may be treated differently by the government when done through public restraints. Accordingly, in many cases it is difficult to legally assign blame to a private business practice that was affected by the central or local government regulations. Thus, as to public restraints and actions of businesses pertaining to such public restraints, there was a clear need for effective facilitation for market competition via means other than enforcement of competition law. The concept that arose in response to this need is “competition advocacy,” which refers to the measures that are applied where an enforcement of competition law is deemed inappropriate. The Korean experience with competition advocacy, given the scope of power granted to the Korea Fair Trade Commission(“KFTC”), provides a unique experiment for a broader set of advocacy powers for competition authorities worldwide. Against this background, this article is written for the purpose of providing an overview of the substance and the application of the competition advocacy and to seek a more objective view on the competition advocacy system. In chapter II, this article analyzes the institutional framework from which the competition advocacy stems. In chapters III and IV, the article provides an overview of the KFTC’s activity in the context of the relationship between competition advocacy and competition law enforcement. In chapter V, the article objectively evaluates whether the role of competition advocacy is carried out for the rightful purpose within the given institutional framework. This article concludes by considering what seems to be the lesson for other jurisdictions and suggests that the KFTC must undertake competition advocacy in a manner appropriate for promoting pro-competitive environment.
참고문헌 (23)
- 공정거래위원회, "2002년 공정거래백서" (2002), 공정거래위원회
- 공정거래위원회, "공정거래위원회 30년사" (2011), 공정거래위원회
- 공정거래위원회, "2011년 공정거래백서" (2012), 공정거래위원회
- 신동권, "독점규제법" (2011), 박영사
- 신현윤, "경제법" (2012), 법문사
- 이호영, "공정거래법" (2011), 홍문사
- 이호영, "산업규제와 경쟁법의 관계에 관한 연구", 경영법률, 20(1), pp.545~592 (2009), 한국경영법률학회
- 임종훈, "한국입법과정론" (2012), 박영사
- 선진국사례를 기초로 한 경쟁영향평가 방안 및 모델 개발, "정인석", 한국산업조직학회, ~ (2009)
- 국무총리실, "규제영향분석서 작성 지침", ~ (2008)
- 이황, "세계화와 한국 경쟁법의 발전, In 한국의경쟁정책" (2011), 형설출판사
- 권오승, "독점규제법 30년" (2011), 법문사
- 조학국, "경쟁문화의 확산과 경쟁주창 역할-한국 공정위의 경쟁주창 역할과 시사점-", 공정경쟁, (87) (2002), 공정경쟁연합회
- 진양수, "독과점구조의 심화와 경쟁정책 방향", KDI Focus, 통권 : 19 (2012), 한국개발연구원
- 홍대식, "사법적 관점에서 본 공정거래법 ― 시장지배적지위 남용행위를 중심으로 ―", 상사법연구, 27(2), pp.333~371 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- Baldwin, Robert, "Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice" (1999), Oxford University Press
- "Advocacy and Competition Policy Report" (2002)[URL]
- "Competition Assessment Toolkit" (2010)[URL]
- Cooper, James C., "U.S. Convergence with International Competition Norms: Antitrust Law and Public Restraints on Competition", Boston University Law Review, 90, pp.1555~ (2010)
- "Korea's experience in competition advocacy and ways to improve the effectiveness of the advocacy" (2004)[URL]
- Lee, Nam Ki, "Advocacy Role of the Korea Fair Trade Commission in Regulatory Reform", OECD Global Forum on Competition (2001)
- Stucke, Maurice E., "Better Competition Policy", St. John’s Law Review, 82, pp.951~ (2008)
