【摘要】 对于排他行为，我国反垄断法尚未确立竞争损害的实质分析规则，也未提供竞争损害分析的具体方法，这给反垄断执法实践带来了困难。在域外，无论是欧盟模式还是美国模式，都逐渐倾向于采取实质分析的进路，并发展出了多种具体分析方法，这些方法可为我国的规则完善提供借鉴。在我国，采取实质分析规则同样是可取的：一方面，对于可能引发竞争损害和提高竞争效率的排他行为，实质分析有助于衡量其净影响，避免过度执法或执法不足；另一方面，我国目前具备实质分析的制度基础。在具体方法上，我国应当以消费者福利测试作为竞争损害的主要判断标准，以市场封锁标准、同等效率竞争者测试、利润牺牲测试、无经济意义测试、提高竞争对手交易成本理论等分析方法作为辅助标准。更多还原

【Abstract】 Regarding the exclusionary conduct, the anti-monopoly law has not yet established the substantive analysis of competition harm, nor has it provided specific methods for competition harm analysis, which brings difficulties to the enforcement of anti-monopoly law. The EU and the US are gradually inclined to take the approach of substantive analysis and have developed a variety of analytical methods. This provides a mirror for China. In China, it is also advisable to adopt substantive analysis rules. On the one hand, it is because exclusionary conduct may simultaneously cause competition harm and improve efficiency, substantive analysis helps to measure the net impact and avoid false positive or false negative errors. On the other hand, China now has the institutional basis for substantive analysis. In terms of analytical method, the anti-monopoly law of China should adopt the consumer welfare standard as the main criterion of analysis and apply the foreclosure standard, equally efficient rival test, profit sacrifice test, no economic sense test and raising rival’s cost theory as the auxiliary standards.更多还原