重估本身违法原则的制度成本——评李剑教授《制度成本与规范化的反垄断法》  

Re-assessing the Institutional Costs of Rule of Per Se Illegality:Comments on Professor Li Jian’s“Institutional Costs and Normative Antimonopoly Law”

作　　者：兰磊[1] Lan Lei

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学

出　　处：《竞争政策研究》2020年第2期61-82,共22页Competition Policy Research

基　　金：2018年华东政法大学科学研究项目“大数据环境下限制竞争行为规制研究”(18HZK006)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：《制度成本与规范化的反垄断法》以规则-标准理论为框架,多角度论证了本身违法原则的制度成本优势,进而主张“回归”本身违法原则并通过类型化使之“新生”。但该文错位地在标准与合理原则、规则与本身违法原则之间建立对应关系,而无视结构型合理原则这一更加丰富的规范类型。法律规范对企业行为具有引导功能,不当的规范会引导企业作出次优选择。市场经济的基本逻辑要求对于认识尚不清晰的行为采用合理原则。理论分析和美欧实践均表明,依赖行为类型化的本身违法原则“新生”之路不可行。走出分析模式争议的出路在于认清合理原则是一个由多种具体分析模式组成的系谱,加强对各种行为的经济效果研究,并在此系谱上寻找最为契合的分析模式。Based on the rule-standard framework,the Article“Institutional Costs and the Normative Antimonopoly Law”articulated relative advantages of the rule of per se illegality,thereby advocated for“returning”to the per se rule and making it“reborn”through categorization.However,the Article mistakenly equated standard with rule of reason,and rule with the rule of per se illegality,ignoring the much richer body of norms in form of structured rules of reason.Legal norms have the effect of channeling behaviors of firms and improper legal norms will channel firms to secondbest choices.The fundamental logics of the market economy system mandates that the rule of reason shall be used where competitive effects of conducts are not yet clear.Both theoretical analysis and practices in US and EU prove that the approach of the“reborn”per se rule through categorization is not feasible.The way out of the mode of analysis debate is to recognize that the rule of reason is a spectrum composed of many specific modes of analysis,to deepen research into economic effects of various categories of conducts,and to identify the most suitable mode of analysis tailored to each category of conducts.

关 键 词：反垄断法 合理原则 本身违法原则 类型化 交易成本经济学 

分 类 号：D912.29[政治法律—民商法学]