International Business Competition
The Significance of Convergence in International Business in Providing Legal Certainty
Introduction
One of the primary developments that global competition has achieved in recent years is convergence. The proliferation of distinct regimes of competition law increased concerns on inconsistent enforcement. The desire to harmonize global competition also pushed for convergence. The notably established jurisdictions such as the United States, the European Union (EU), China, and several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) who are convergence’ proponents have constantly put effort into building a consensus on the distinct aspects of competition law. Furthermore, they encourage other jurisdictions to converge and adopt the set of international practices. These best practices have been summarized in the forms of guidelines, recommendations, and discussion writings. Emerging jurisdictions are also expected to incorporate the recommended practices and also converge into the different approaches of competition law formulated by the existing jurisdictions.
Legal certainty in one of the fundamental values that all contemporary and democratic legal systems aspire to achieve. This is because the value is a representation of public interest in terms of preciseness, equality, and expected rules of law. Legal certainty evades the possibility of legal conflicts from the parties that are subject to the laws and also make accurate estimations of their chances in cases of litigation. Notably, the common law systems cited legal certainty as one of its reasons in justifying the doctrine of precedent. This doctrine was a guarantee that the laws had a certain future and thus, indispensable during their application. Legal certainty would also become one of the primary goals of convergence in global competition law. It is understood that legal certainty is a valuable element of legal systems since its use to full potential will allow the flourishing of all the members as they are protected from the risks associated with unfair distortions in the competition environment.
This research paper seeks to understand the significance of convergence in international business especially in its ability to provide legal certainty. this paper will be in reference to the convergence done by the United States, the EU, and China as they pursue maximization of their allocative efficiency as an objective of their respective competition regimes.
The convergence of the US, EU, and China In Pursuit of Maximizing Allocative Efficiency in the Respective Competition Regimes.
Allocative Efficiency
The rapid growth in international trade over the last twenty years gave rise to an intensive academic and policy debate on the effect of global commerce on economic growth. Despite the present research being based on inconclusive cross-country data, the studies that have utilized the firm-level data have provided convincing evidence that global trade positively affects production. Subsequently, international trade acts as a booster to the creation of liberal economies. transparency or openness has also been found to improve the efficiency of a firm. This efficiency is experienced in processes such as the allocation of resources from the less efficient producers to the more efficient. Notably, even if the efficiency of a firm was not affected as global trade is freed, the relative expansion of the most-efficient firms would cause improvements in productivity levels. Also, with an increase in productivity for the exporting firms, the non-exporting firms end up contracting and could easily cease production and exit the market. allocative efficiency will increase productivity levels as resources are now allocated to the firms with high production for exportation purposes.
The Convergence of the EU Competition laws and the US Antitrust laws
The convergence between the EU and the US through competition laws was in pursuit of allocative efficiency and the maximization of consumer benefits. These are the main reasons given for other competition regimes to use as a reference. In pursuing allocative efficiency, through competition law, the process will depend on the systematic effects-based economic analysis of market power that has been developed within the jurisdiction of the US antitrust law and the EU competition law. The United States has realized the importance of globalizing the antitrust rules in handling the problems that arise due to globalization. To this effect, in conjunction with transforming the different approaches, the US would start internationalizing its antitrust norms through informal multilateral consensuses such as the OECD and Global Competition Initiation.
The International Competition Policy Advisory Committee (ICPAC) would provide the guidelines for antitrust globalization such that the transparency in governmental actions is increased while deepening the cooperation between the US and other international enforcement authorities. This would also create a greater harmonization and system’ convergence. Currently, the US has signed bilateral agreements with Australia, EU, Israel, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for antitrust enforcement. the country would favor the transfer of its antitrust policy through bilateral agreements over multilateral agreements in terms of competition regulations.
The EU would also actively engage in exporting its competition law that it had acquired 12 new members by 2010. In 2004, the EU and China had institutionalized a permanent Competition Policy Dialogue to focus on providing technical Helpance to the development of a competition regulation regime in China. Furthermore, consultations and exchanges on the development of competition law would also occur. This agreement had a direct effect on the development of the Anti-Monopoly law adopted in China in 2007.
Notably, the convergence of these two laws from the EU and the US have been illustrated by communication, cooperation, and interactions. Both regimes have declared their unwavering intention of adopting allocative efficiency and maximization on consumer surplus. they both have applied the economic analysis models in assessing the market powers and the hindrances on the competition being enforced. Therefore, both are aligning themselves to concentrate on an economic analysis that is based on effects to build the juris[pedence of the competition law. they become primary inspirations up the development of international competition regulations. the pursuit of allocative efficiency becomes a norm for the global development of competition laws.
The Anti-Monopoly Laws in China
China’s Anti-monopoly laws are substantially part of the established antitrust laws by the US and used also by the EU and Canada. the “economic efficiency that the company is working on comprises both allocative and productive efficiency. This is an illustration of the use of the antitrust laws in the preservation of competitive markets that can efficiently allocate resources and maximize the welfare of consumers. The objective of allocative efficiency and maximizing consumer benefits has been founded on the neo-classical microeconomic price theory. As China constructs its market economy, they have methods that can adjust the economic analysis framework for that particular construction. With China enforcing its anti-monopoly laws while developing its competition regime, it has set itself to work on achieving both efficiency and non-efficiency goals
The Significance of the Principle of Legal Certainty as Provided in the Convergence of International business
The legal certainty principle is fundamental to both society and its laws. This is because of its fundamental role in stabilizing normative expectations and the provision of a framework to facilitate social interactions. it also defines the scope of individual freedom and political powers. Many legal debates both national and transnational have been structured using legal certainty as to their normative ideal. systems with formal principles in their rules of law consider the principle of legal certainty a superior principle as it gives justification to how legally valid are the incorporated group of values.
In the formation of all EU laws, the legal certainty principle has been fundamental. This general principle in EU law refers to the fact that rules of law need to be clear, precise, and predictable in their impacts so that any interested members are sure of their positions, different situations and the legal relationships that are governed by the EU law. In terms of the demand for being clear and precise, the principle seeks to ensure streamlined accessibility and the ability to guide the behavior of its members. This illustrated the importance of making proper publications and refusing the use of extremely broad terms that cannot guide individual conduct. Furthermore, the demand for clarity and preciseness stresses the critical role of the judiciary especially in defining the normative content of rules and the interpretive criteria to be followed in distinct contexts. On its second part of predictability, the principle refers to the proper management of legal expectations which are a basic requirement in building confidence for the legal system. It is about balancing the legal effectiveness of public authorities and members adhering to the set laws. To this effect, the legal certainty principle will be able to merge the unity and coherence required in legal systems.
Notably, the convergence of the EU’s Competition law and the US antitrust laws have been guided by the legal certainty principle. For instance, this is evident in the remedies to different issues as they happen across instruments. Remedies are an essential element in the enforcement of competition law. Therefore, the proper remedies will allow the business to continue with the business plans through quick interactions with the right commission. Convergence brings about a change in structures to firms that are competing in markets. An inherent link does exist between the structural remedies and the scope of assessing the convergence part. it is however important to note that antitrust and competition laws have both similarities and differences. One of the differences is in the behavioral remedies preferred by antitrust as the competition law looks into having structural remedies. Despite the differences, having similarities that are guided with particular principles streamline the efforts of achieving the objectives of convergence.
In the search for the right remedies for this convergence, many of the parties involved will primarily think of the impacts it will have on businesses. the Commission would also be thinking of how suitable the remedies are in dealing with the particular concern or disruptive element in competition. Furthermore, there is a need for how practical the implementation of the remedies will be. Considerably, the objective cannot coincide. Therefore, a constructive dialogue was required that would endorse remedies that eliminated any concerns effectively, be proportional, and have the legal certainty element. This led to the creation of simple, workable, and easier to implement remedies. Legal certainty is assured since even in the face of concerns and implementation of solutions, businesses are assured of continuing with their plans and that the competition has not been distorted or is being restored. the laws have also set valid precedents that the businesses are made aware of and the likelihood of their adoption in future events.
While the Anti-monopoly laws are still underground development to ensure their convergence achieves their primary objectives, several regulators have been signaled to enforce some recommendations gained from the convergence of the US and the EU. These recommendations are focussed on achieving a balance between the protection of IP (Intellectual Property) rights and competition. This is a single element recommended to require approaches implemented by the US and EU and hence no limits have been put on what the laws can adopt. This development considers the recommendations and also the best approach that will meet the particular events in China. Notably, legal certainty as a principle has been indicated as a significant element in the recommendations.
One of the recommendations in achieving that balance gained from the EU is the introduction of the “block exemption” style for its provisions in the upcoming interpretations. This will provide the immunity needed in pro-competitive arrangements involving IP licenses. apart from achieving that balance between economic freedom of members and competition-protection, it increases the legal certainty among the holders of IP rights through the license arrangements. An improved legal certainty will increase the incentives for the holders to IP rights that they could invest in any upcoming innovations.
Another recommendation that also considers the legal certainty principle is setting up a general approach such as the “rule of reason” approach adopted the US in the Assessment of particular IP issues. This is incorporated into the practices of IP licensing. while China and the United States may have distinct ap[proachjes having similar styles can be incorporated as they assess the competitiveness and impact of the licensing arrangements of IP rights. Furthermore, the general approach will also aid in resolving challenging situations that have not been considered in the mandatory laws. mandatory law joined with a “rule of reason” approach potential provides a greater level of legal certainty for the holders and users to the IP.
The Convergence of the EU Competition Law, US Antitrust law, and China’s Anti Monopoly laws have been directed to manifest in clear, codified ex-ante rules. The regulations they enforce must be unambiguous and detailed considering the integration of different member states with distinctive features from their national laws. When the rules implemented have these kinds of characteristics, they easily contribute to adhering to the legal certainty principle and specifically predictability. Many members such as the Europeans become uncomfortable with a regime that has regulations that are less predictable and more pragmatic. Furthermore, this will normally occur in the case by case approach in the analysis of competition law which has deeply embedded cultures. The rules must become easier to copy that other jurisdictions can easily diffuse them into their regulation regimes
While the legal certainty principle remains to be fundamental to regulation regimes especially in convergence in international law, the lack of a precise definition linguistically increases concern on whether the regulations have fulfilled the requirements. Others may wonder whether to consider legal provisions, normative acts, law systems, or the procedures. Therefore, the regimes are expected to be determined and accept the broad nature of the legal certainty principle. This broad nature does express the principal as an important premise that the members who are subject to particular laws need to understand it so that they could make better plans of action. The next thing to specify the notion of demonstrating cases that are open violations to the requirements of the legal principle. The characteristics such as ambiguity, constant changes, retroactivity, and deriving one’s rights are open violations to the conditions of the principle. The third step is to conceptualize the current affairs in comparison to the typical cases involving uncertainties, these cases are granted sub principles to the whole legal certainty principle. When several valid positive principles are collected for the principle of clarity and stability, the right acquired rights are protected and no events of retro-activity would occur.
Conclusion
The Convergence happening in international business is focussed on harmonizing different elements among the competing nations. The EU law and the US Antitrust law together with China’s Anti Monopoly laws have illustrated the harmonization process as regimes incorporate distinct regulations into their own. Notably, in these regulation regimes, one notable element has been adherence to the legal certainty principle. While there is no one specific definition, the regimes need to focus on their significant elements of clarity, preciseness, and predictability. The members become more aware of the regulations including their positions and the outcomes in case of litigation.
Bibliography
A. Books/ Articles
Alexander Italianer, “Legal certainty, proportionality, effectiveness: the Commission’s practice on remedies,” [Charles River Associates Annual Conference, 5 December 2012].
Bradford, Anu, Adam Chilton, Katerina Linos, and Alexander Weaver. “The Global Dominance of European Competition Law Over American Antitrust Law.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 16, no. 4 (2019): 731-766.
Bruno Deffains and Catherine Kessedjian, “Index of Legal Certainty: Report for the Civil Law Initiative(Fondation pour le Droit Continental)” [2015].
Dr. Loukas Misteli, “Is Harmonisation a Necessary Evil? The Future of Harmonisation and New Sources of International Trade Law,” [Foundations and Perspectives of International Trade Law, London: Sweet & Maxwell. 2001], 3-27.
Fujii, Hidemichi, Shunsuke Managi, Roman Matousek, and Aarti Rughoo. “Bank efficiency, productivity, and convergence in EU countries: a weighted Russell directional distance model,” [The European Journal of Finance 24, no. 2, 2018]: 135-156.
Kordela, Marzena. “The principle of legal certainty as a fundamental element of the formal concept of the rule of law.” Rev. Notariat 110 (2008): 587.
López-Córdova∗ J, ‘Labor Regulation And The Allocative Efficiency Of International Trade’
Mark Fenwick, Mathias Siems, and Stefan Wrbka, “The Shifting Meaning of Legal Certainty in Comparative and Transnational Law,” [Hart Publishing, 2017].
Qianlan Wu, “Competition Laws, Globalization and Legal Pluralism: China’s Experience” [2014].
Rodríguez, Pablo J. Martín. “The principle of legal certainty and the limits to the applicability of EU law.” Cahiers de droit européen 52, no. 1 (2016): 115-140.
Tian, Yijun. “The impacts of the Chinese anti-monopoly law on IP commercialization in China & general strategies for technology-driven companies and future regulators.” [Duke L. & Tech. Rev. , 2010] : i.
Xiaoye Wang, “The Evolution of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law” [2014].
B. Legislation
European Competition Law
The United States Antitrust Laws
China’s Anti-Monopoly Laws
