【作者】 林敏；

【导师】 殷继国；

【作者基本信息】 华南理工大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 反垄断法又被称为“经济宪法”,是保证市场竞争秩序、维护公共利益的核心法律制度,带有浓厚的“公法”色彩。商事仲裁作为一种制度化的司法外争议解决方式,奉行私人意思自治原则,具有简便、快捷、高效的特点。囿于反垄断公法与仲裁私制度的价值冲突,我国反垄断争议解决以行政执法为主兼以私人民事诉讼,仲裁解决被排除在外,选择性执法、效率低下和原告败诉率高等问题饱受民众诟病。自20世纪下半叶以来,随着市场经济的蓬勃发展与国际商事贸易联系的日益紧密,反垄断争议案件数量显著增多,美国和欧盟则先后通过“美国安全公司案”、“三菱汽车公司案”、“Eco Swiss案”、“Kotam诉JBL案”等司法实践,逐步实现了反垄断争议不可仲裁到可仲裁的转变,为反垄断争议的解决带来了新的思路。然而国内对于反垄断争议仲裁问题的研究,仍处于学术讨论阶段,止步于可仲裁性论证。有鉴于此,实现我国反垄断争议仲裁的突破尤为必要。反垄断争议仲裁问题涉及可仲裁性与制度构建两方面,可仲裁的探讨是制度构建不可回避的前置问题,而制度构建也是确立仲裁路径之后的应有之义。本文以反垄断争议能否诉诸仲裁以及如何构建我国反垄断争议仲裁制度为主线,在分析域外经典案例的基础之上总结经验,结合我国现行法律体系及客观现状,论证了我国实行反垄断争议可仲裁的必要性及可行性,提出除行政垄断或涉及公共政策不能提交仲裁之外,应将垄断协议行为、滥用市场支配地位和经营者集中这三类引起的横向反垄断争议纳入仲裁范围。紧接着就我国反垄断争议仲裁体系的创设从法律原则、实体制度、程序设计三个方面给出了完整的观点,提出了诸如完善仲裁意思自治、谨慎适用公共政策、确定反垄断争议可仲裁范围、制定主动适用的实质司法审查标准,建立仲裁员选任培训机制以及仲裁机制下反垄断争议的举证责任分配、证据交流体系等切实可行的多元建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Anti-Monopoly Law is also called "Economic Constitution",which ensures the market competition order and protects the public interest,with a strong "public law" color.Commercial arbitration,as an institutionalized means of settlement of extrajudicial disputes,adheres to the principle of private autonomy of will and has the characteristics of simplicity,rapidity and efficiency.Confined to the value conflict between anti-monopoly public law and arbitration private system,the settlement of anti-monopoly disputes in China mainly focuses on administrative enforcement and private civil lawsuit,while arbitration resolution is excluded.Selective law enforcement,inefficiency,and high rates of the plaintiff’s failure have been widely criticized.Since the second half of the 20 th century,with the booming market economy and the increasingly close connection between international commercial trade,the number of anti-monopoly dispute cases has increased significantly.The United States and the European Union has passed the "America Safety Equipment Case","Mitsubishi Motors Case","Eco Swiss Case","Kotam v.JBL Case" and other judicial practice.The change of anti-monopoly disputes from non-arbitrable to arbitrable has been realized gradually,which has brought new ideas for the resolution of anti-monopoly disputes.However,domestic research on the arbitration of anti-monopoly disputes is still in the stage of academic discussion,which is limited to the arbitrability argumentation.In view of this,it is particularly necessary to realize the breakthrough in China’s anti-monopoly dispute arbitration.The problem of anti-monopoly dispute arbitration involves two aspects: arbitrability and system construction.The discussion of arbitrability is an inevitable preposition problem in the system construction,and the construction of system is also the principle that should be included after the establishment of arbitration path.This paper mainly discusses whether the antimonopoly disputes can be submitted to arbitration and how to construct China’s anti-monopoly dispute arbitration system.Based on the analysis of extraterritorial classic cases,the paper combines China’s current legal system and objective current situation,and demonstrates the necessity and feasibility of applying anti-monopoly dispute arbitration in China.In addition to the administrative monopoly or involved in public policy cannot be submitted for arbitration,the monopoly agreements,abuse of dominant market position and concentration caused by these three transverse antitrust dispute should also be included in the scope of arbitration.Then this paper gives a complete view on the establishment of China’s anti-monopoly dispute arbitration system from three aspects: legal principle,entity system and program design.Finally,this paper put forward a number of practical and multiple suggestions,such as improving autonomy of arbitration intention,careful application of public policy,determination of arbitration scope of anti-monopoly disputes,formulation of substantive judicial review standards for active application,the establishment of a training mechanism for arbitrators’ selection and appointment,the distribution of burden of proof and the exchange of evidence under the arbitration mechanism.更多还原