摘要
《制度成本与规范化的反垄断法》多角度论证了合理原则的弊端。但它以偏概全地基于某种复杂的合理原则子类型批判整个合理原则系谱,从而误判其制度成本。法律中包含较为抽象的原则,经由个案考量—正当化—类型化的过程逐渐得以细化。合理原则提供了这种细化机会,有助于降低规则的制定成本,结构型合理原则是此细化过程的结果。现行反垄断法范式下经济学是不可或缺的工具,相关费用并非全都归咎于合理原则。各种经济学理论满足必要条件时均可在个案中适用,并可纳入规则体系。原告胜诉率本身不是应追求的目的,并且许多表象掩盖了真实的原告胜诉率。《反垄断法》的规范化之路在于以合理原则为基础,通过处理大量案件积累经验,并经由类型化发展结构型合理原则。
principles/standards in laws,which gradually become concretized through individual-deliberation-justification-categorization.Rule of reason offers opportunities for this concretization,which contributes to reducing the costs of making rules and ends in structured rules of reason.Upon satisfying certain criteria,economic theories from any school may be used in adjudicating individual antitrust cases and may incorporated into legal rules.Plaintiff’s win rate itself is not a goal worth pursuing in itself and factually is not as low as it seems.The rationalization of Antimonopoly Law lies in developing structured rules of reason through accumulating experience by dealing with huge amount of cases and categorizing from those cases,all only possible under the framework of the rule of reason.
出处
《经贸法律评论》
2020年第3期102-126,共25页
Business and Economic Law Review
作者简介
兰磊,华东政法大学知识产权学院副教授,法学博士。
