MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3161573447

경쟁법의 국제규범화를 위한 논의의 역사

2011· article· ko· W3161573447 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

Revue경쟁법연구 · 2011
Typearticle
Langueko
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWorld Trade Organization Law
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNegotiationCompetition lawEnforcementCharterCompetition (biology)Political scienceLaw and economicsOpposition (politics)Proportionality (law)LawWork (physics)International tradeBusinessEconomicsEngineeringMarket economyPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,915
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,008

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,217 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue경쟁법연구Même sujetWorld Trade Organization LawTravaux en français237 207