The international dimension of the EC's antitrust policy: Extending the level playing field

European Foreign Affairs Review

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 459-479

  Devuyst, Youri ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937265359     PISSN: 13846299     EISSN: 18758223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/eerr1998033     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Fidler's attempt to put competition policy in an international relations context is a notable exception: see Fidler, 'Competition law and international relations' 3 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1992) 563-589.
2. 'The European Union as a world trading partner' 3 European Economy (1997) 1.
3. On EC competition policy in general, see for instance Bellamy and Child, Common Market Law of Competition (Sweet and Maxwell, London 1993 with 1996 supplement);
4. Korah, An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice (Hart, Oxford 1997); Van Der Woude, Jones and Lewis, EC Competition Law Handbook (Sweet and Maxwell, London 1997).
5. Van Miert, 'Current trends in European competition policy', speech delivered before the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, I1 May 1993, 7.
6. For a comment, see Lange and Byron Sandage, 'The WoodPulp decision and its implications for the scope of EC competition law' 2 Common Market Law Review (1989) 137-165
7. 'York 1990), 451467.
8. European Community Competition Policy 1997: 27th Report on Competition Policy (Commission, Luxembourg 1998) paras. 87-88 (these annual reports will be referred to as Comp. Report).
9. * Competition Policy in the New Trade Order: Strengthening International Cooperation and Rules. Report of the Group ofExperts (Commission, Luxembourg 1995), 4 (this report will be referred to as Expert Group Report).
10. Van Miert, 'EU competition policy in the new trade order', in Hope and Maeling (eds.), Competition and Trade Policies: Coherence or Conflict? (Routledge, London 1998), 184. lo Expert Group Report, 9-10.
11. IZ Case C-327191, France v. Commission [I9941 ECR 1-3641.
12. l 4 Schaub, 'International cooperation in antitrust matters: making the point in the wake of the BoeinglMDD Proceedings' 1 Competition Policy Newsletter (1998) 3.
13. I 5 On the positive comity concept, see Atwood, 'Positive comity: is it a positive step?' in Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute International Antitrust Law and Policy Conference (Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 1993), 79-89.
14. see Bavasso, 'BoeinglMcDonnell Douglas: did the Commission fly too high?' 4 European Competition Law Review (1998) 243-248.
15. See Communication from the Commission to the Council concerning the Agreement between the European Communities and the Government of the United States on the Application of Positive Comity Principles in the Enforcement of their Competition Laws, COM (97) 233 final, 18 June 1997, 3.
16. On the extraterritorial use of US antitrust laws, see Byowitz, 'The unilateral use of US antitrust laws to achieve foreign market access: a pragmatic assessment', in Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute International Antitrust Law and Policy Conference (Fordham Corporate Law Institute, New York 1997), 21-36
17. and Griffin, 'Foreign governmental reactions to US assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction' 2 European Competition Law Review (1998) 64-73.
18. Proposal for a Council and Commission decision concluding the agreement between the European Communities and the Government of Canada regarding the Application of their Competition Laws, COM (98) 352 final, 4 June 1998.
19. Revised Recommendation of the Council concerning Cooperation between Member Countries on Anticompetitive Practices affecting International Trade, OECD C(95) 130final, 27-28 July 1995.
20. See for instance Comp. Report 1995, 87.
21. On the concept 'pyramid of privilege', see Mishalani, Robert, Stevens and Weston, 'The pyramid of privilege' in Stevens (ed.), EEC and the Third World (Hodder and Stoughton, London 198l), 60-82.
22. See also Almestad, 'The competition policy in the European Economic Area', in Hope and Maeling, op. cit., 192-198.
23. For the Commission's view on competition relations with the CEECs, see Van Miert, 'Competition policy in relation to the Central and Eastern European countries: achievements and challenges' 2 Competition Policy Newsletter (1998) 1-10.
24. See also Fingleton, Fox, Neven and Seabright, Competition Policy and the Transformation of Central Europe (Centre for Economic Policy Research, London 1996)
25. and Van den Bossche, 'The international dimension of EC competition law: the case of the Europe Agreement' 1European Competition Law Review (1997) 24-37.
26. see Hakura, 'The extension of EC competition law to the Mediterranean region' 4 European Competition Law Review (1998) 204-210.
27. Communication from the Commission to the Council, Towards an International Framework of Competition Rules, COM (96) 284, 18 June 1996.
28. Van Miert, 'The WTO and competition policy: the need to consider negotiations', Address before Ambassadors to the WTO, Geneva, 21 April 1998,2.
29. see Hoekman and Mavroidis, 'Competition, competition policy and the GATT' 2 The WorldEconomy (1994) 121-150;
30. Fox, 'Toward world antitrust and market access' 1American Journal of International Law (1997) 1-25;
31. Graham and Richardson (eds.), Global Competition Policy (Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC 1997).
32. Klein, 'No monopoly on antitrust', Financial Times, 14February 1998;
33. Barshefsky, 'Remarks on the global trading system', Speech delivered at the Institute of International Economics, Washington, DC, 15 April 1998 (published by the US Mission to the EU as USA Text TRl1);