关注微信

推荐商品

    加载中... 正在为您读取数据...
分享到:
  • 倾销:反倾销法抑或竞争法(英文)[平装]
  • 共1个商家     26.30元~26.30
  • 作者:毕莹(作者)
  • 出版社:知识产权出版社;第1版(2011年11月1日)
  • 出版时间:
  • 版次 :
  • 印刷时间:
  • 包装:
  • ISBN:9787513008631

  • 商家报价
  • 简介
  • 评价
  • 加载中... 正在为您读取数据...
  • 商品描述

    编辑推荐

    《倾销:反倾销法抑或竞争法(英文)》由知识产权出版社出版。

    作者简介

    毕莹,浙江大学光华法学院讲师。2003年获清华大学法学学士学位,2006年获清华大学国际法学硕士学位,2009年获日本九州大学国际法学博士学位。主要从事国际经济法的研究,在The Journal of World Investment&Trade.日本《法政研究》等国内外公开发行的学术刊物上发表论文数篇;主持国家社科基金课题1项:“中曰韩自贸区竞争与反倾销规则协调研究。”

    目录

    Chapter 1 Time to Reexamine Dumping: Antidumping Law or Competition Law
    1.1 Overview of Antidumping Law
    1.1.1 The Etymology of "Dumping"
    1.1.2 Legislative Development of Antidumping: Domestic to International
    1.2 The Proliferation of Antidumping laws and Actions
    1.2.1 The Proliferation of Antidumping laws
    1.2.2 The Proliferation of Antidumping Actions
    1.2.3 New Features of Antidumping Application
    1.3 The Problem of Antidumping Law
    1.3.1 "Protectionist Abuse" Criticism
    1.3.2 Tariff - Like Barrier
    1.3.3 "Attractive Features" for Protectionism
    1.4 "Antidotes" to Prevent Protectionist Abuse
    1.4.! Further Refining
    1.4.2 Reform by Competition
    1.5 Antidumping: Time to Go Back to Basics

    Chapter 2 Dumping in Economic Theories and Antidumping Law
    2.1 Dumping in Economic Theories
    2.1.1 The Traditional Dumping Theory of Viner
    2.1.2 The Modern Dumping Theory of Willig
    2.1.3 Generally Recognized Harmful Dumping:Predatory Dumping
    2.2 Dumping in the Original Antidumping Law
    2.2.1 The U.S.1894 Wilson Act
    2.2.2 The U.S.1916 Antidumping Law
    2.2.3 The U.S.1921 Antidumping Law
    2.2.d Antidumping laws in Other Countries
    2.2.5 Antidumping: Anti Cross-border Predatory Price Discrimination
    2.3 Dumping in the International Antidumping Agreement
    2.3.1 GATT/WTO: Standardizing Antidumping Law
    2.3.2 Basic Common Requirements on Dumping
    2.3.3 "Dumping is Harmful" : Self-evident Premise
    2.4 Summary

    Chapter 3 Predatory Price Discrimination in Economic Theories and Competition Law
    3.1 Predatory Price Discrimination in Economic Theories
    3.1.1 Price Discrimination: Primary-line and Secondary-line Competition
    3.1.2 Predatory Pricing
    3.2 Overview of Competition Law
    3.2.1 Consensus on the Basic Competition Principles
    3.2.2 Predatory Price Discrimination
    3.3 Predatory Price Discrimination in Competition Law
    3.3.1 Competition Rules and Cases in the U.S.
    3.3.2 Competition Rules and Cases in the EU
    ……
    Chapter 4 Dumping: Antidumping Law or Competition Law
    Chapter 5 Difficulties of Substitution in Practice
    Chapter 6 The "Substitution" Debate and the New Users
    Chapter 7 Time to Reexamine Dumping: "Trust
    Antitrust to Dump Antidumping
    Conclusion
    Appendix List of Chinese Antidumping Cases (1997-2010)
    Bibliography

    文摘

    版权页:



    插图:



    The debate of antidumping versus competition is a relatively new but very significant issue. Based on all of the above analysises and examinations from both traditional and new heavy users of antidum-ping, this book argues for putting the issue of dumping under compe-tition rules instead of antidumping rules. The domestic antidumping rules and the WTO Antidumping Agreement should be finally substitu-ted by the harmonized domestic competition rules and their basic standard, i. e. the international competition agreement on predatory price discrimination, all around the world in future.
    The original and supposed goal of antidumping rules should be the same as that of competition rules. In economic theories, efficiency approach favored by most econ
    mists, suggests that dumping is one kind of transnational price discrimination, and only predatory dum-ping is generally recognized as harmful. As to antidumping law, a jour-ney back to its birth time as well as the following evolvement indicate that, originally antidumping was actually part of antitrust law, to deal with the import price discrimination, and it is only for dealing with these foreign conducts more efficiently that antidumping rules were changed and gradually distinctive from antitrust rules. However, nei-ther the change of special rules nor that of legal areas can be the evi-dence to question the original and supposed justification of antidum-ping.