Suchergebnisse

This book analyses multi-level governance in competition policy, or "antitrust federalism" as it is called by students of competition policy, in the US and the EU from a comparative perspective. The book compares how competition laws and authorities of different levels - the federal and the state levels in the US and the national and the supranational levels in the EU - interact with each other. The EU and the US stand among the strongest existing examples of multi-level polities and they developed mature competition policies. Despite such similarities, however, recent developments imply that they are moving in different directions in the field of antitrust federalism. Inspired by these divergent policy developments taking place at both sides of the Atlantic, the book addresses three principal research questions: firstly, what are the key similarities and differences between the US and the EU in terms of antitrust federalism; secondly, what are the reasons for differences (if any), and finally, can the US and the EU draw any policy lessons from each others experiences in antitrust federalism? The book is essentially multidisciplinary in nature and it aims to initiate a dialogue between the law and political science literatures in its field. The book argues that the legal literature of antitrust federalism has employed out of date regulatory competition models which do not reflect the complexities of policy enforcement in modern multi-level polities. The book suggests that policy network models provide a more suitable framework for this analysis; and it critically reviews the British and Continental European policy network models. The book uses the common conceptual framework of European policy network models as the main analytical framework in the analysis of antitrust federalism. However, the book also shows that constitutional courts significantly affect different network designs in different polities through interpretation of constitutional power sharing and exercise mechanisms; and it critiques the political science literature for overlooking such essential role of the constitutional courts in building network models. The EU and the US are the preeminent examples of multi-level polities and both have highly developed competition policies. Despite these similarities however, recent developments suggest that they are moving in different directions in the area of antitrust federalism. This book examines multi-level governance in competition policy from a comparative perspective. The book analyses how competition laws and authorities of different levels - the federal and the state levels in the US and the national and the supranational levels in the EU - interact with each other. Inspired by the increasingly divergent policy developments taking place on both sides of the Atlantic, the author asks whether the EU and the US can draw policy lessons from each other's experiences in antitrust federalism. Antitrust Federalism in the EU and the US reveals the similarities and differences between the European and American models of antitrust federalism whilst employing policy network models in its comparative analysis of issues such as opacity and accountability in networks. The book is essentially multidisciplinary in its effort to initiate dialogue between the Law and Political Science literatures in this field. This book will be of particular interest to academics, students and practitioners of Competition Law, Constitutional Law and Political Science.

AbstractUnion competition law protects 'consumer welfare', but what role do consumers play in competition policy‐making? This is the question that this article seeks to answer. In the search for an answer, the article investigates the moral (output) and procedural (input) legitimacy of the recent competition law reforms. Following a discursive approach, the article looks into the roles played by institutions deliberating for citizens (consumer organizations, European Parliament and the Union Courts) in the reform process. This inquiry results in the questioning of the reforms' legitimacy, and it also leads to broader conclusions regarding the legitimacy of multi‐level governance: expert discourses overshadow potential deliberative qualities of networks, which exacerbates networks' legitimacy problems. Also, the input/output legitimacy dichotomy appears problematic, as expert policy‐making in the absence of citizen participation does not guarantee policies resonating with public interest.

Turkey is undergoing the most substantial constitutional reform process in its history, at the same time as carrying out significant peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers' Party. These two processes will have profound effects on the country's future governance. Most importantly, the processes could contribute to bridging gaps in Turkey's polarized society. As the processes take place in secret, their substantive contents are currently unknown. This article provides a critical analysis of the processes in the light of the new theory of constitutionalism, paying particular attention to the changing role of the European Union in Turkey's reform discussions. This analysis leads to some sceptical conclusions: given the secrecy, exclusiveness and political hostility surrounding the processes, it seems that they are unlikely to achieve their potential. In addition, despite its contradictions, the weakening of European Union conditionality appears to have negatively affected the reform process.

AbstractThis article aims to draw policy lessons from the American indirect purchasers' litigation experience for the design of the European private antitrust regime in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on damages actions. The article shows that in multi-level polities procedural aspects of antitrust litigation and judicial cooperation are as crucial as the substantive standards for the success of private enforcement regimes. From this perspective the article criticizes the White Paper for the lack of procedural assessment and urges the Commission to give due consideration to procedural standards and mechanisms of judicial cooperation before taking any legislative action.

The European Competition Network came into life in 2004 as an atypical network with a relatively hierarchical and highly regulated structure. As a result, predictions regarding the future functioning of this network were largely sceptical at the time of its inception. Now the network is about to complete its fifth year in operation and the European Commission is due to present a report to the European Parliament and the Council regarding experiences of policy enforcement by this network. Therefore, it is particularly timely to have a retrospective look at the European Competition Network and assess its achievements and failures. This paper reviews the structure and management methods of the European Competition Network in the light of the policy network literature and comments on initial experiences with its operation. The paper argues that in general the sceptical predictions regarding the operation of the network have not been realised. The network has been successful particularly in terms of accelerating communication between the competition authorities of Europe and increasing their contribution to the design of European competition policy. However, the paper also reveals certain weaknesses of the operation of this network. Particularly the inefficiencies of investigations by the national competition authorities, the low level of horizontal cooperation between the national competition authorities in individual investigations and the opaque nature of network management appear as matters which need to be addressed to achieve more effective network management.

Turkey-EU relations are currently in a state of flux. Turkey and the EU have moved apart in their political aspirations after accession talks faced a stalemate due to the Republic of Cyprus' EU accession as a divided island. The EU has been shaken to its very core by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and as a result the enlargement of the EU has dropped down the agenda. In contrast Turkey has become an economic powerhouse in an extremely volatile region. The Turkish government has been following a consistent policy of establishing itself as the leader in its region and as a result a significant part of the Turkish population no longer sees EU accession as the only option to secure long-term economic growth and political stability. The book explores the current challenges as well as opportunities facing the Turkey-EU relations

In recent years, Turkey has become an ever more important actor on the international stage. However, Turkey-EU relations still remain in a state of flux. The EU and Turkey seem to have moved apart in their political aspirations after Turkey's EU accession talks faced a stalemate over the Republic of Cyprus' EU accession as a divided island. Likewise, both Turkey and the EU have recently faced new socio-political realities, such as the Eurozone crisis, the Arab Spring and the Turkish government's shifting foreign policy towards the Middle East region. Such developments have rendered EU membe.