Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Discussion for establishment of international competition law began in the 1940s when the Second World War was nearing to an end. The attempt to set forth regulation of anti-competitive acts in the ITO charter was frustrated as countries such as the U.S. failed to obtain domestic support. Afterwards, the U.S tried to expand extraterritorial application of competition law, the most representative of which was the Alcoa decision of 1945, but such effort provoked backlash from counterpart countries including the UK, Australia and Canada. As a result, the U.S shifted toward entering into bilateral agreements to strengthen cooperation in antitrust enforcement. In 1961, the Competition Committee was set up in the OECD as a venue for discussion of major antitrust issues. Discussion in the OECD Competition Committee led to the efforts to establish best practices, recommendations and other rules that have rather weak binding force, which had continued until now. The UN established the SET, rules and principles governing antitrust issues, in 1980 after negotiation among member countries. At that time, countries like the U.S pushed for passage of legally binding rules, but their attempt was foiled in the face of opposition from developing countries, creating the SET in the form of non-binding self-imposed regulation. In the 1980s, with the launch of the WTO and increased interest in competition law, efforts to establish international completion law became more active. Europe started to work toward creation of legally binding rules in the early 1990s, which developed into the effort to establish antitrust regulation in the WTO system. However, such attempt ended in failure when the discussion within the WTO was officially abandoned in the Cancun Ministerial Meeting in 2003. On the other hand, the U.S focused its effort on bilateral consultation aimed to expand access to markets of other countries, rather than establishment of antitrust regulation in international organizations. The case in point was Structural Impediments Initiatives (SII) the country carried out with Japan. In the 2000s, there has been a heightened call for converging competition policy of different countries especially on merger regulation within the U.S. Moreover; opposing decisions on the GE/Honeywell merger by the U.S and EU further raised a need to create an international consultative body. In response to such calls, the International Competition Network (ICN) was set up in October 2001 with participation from 14 countries including Korea. The ICN has now emerged as a major gathering for international discussion on competition law. Based on such trend, it is expected that discussion for establishment of international competition law will be focused on how currently non-binding international antitrust regulation, in the form of recommendation or best practice, can develop into the system that has stronger binding force. Therefore, it is believed that Korea needs to respond to the current trend in the international antitrust community with systematic strategy and principles.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».