Chinas first comprehensive competition law, the Anti-monopoly law of the People’s Republic of China (AML), was enacted on August 1, 2008. Despite a long history of planned economy, the Chinese economy has developed into one of the fastest growing economies in the world during the last decades. The adoption of the law was a crucial step towards a more market-based economy. Article 1 of the AML states that one of the aims to achieve with this law is to develop a socialist market economy. The notion was founded in the 1990s and can be found in several other Chinese legislations. The concept has no prominent definition and can be interpreted in many different ways, which opens up for the ruling Party to interpret the notion in accordance with their political believes. The central government will probably put most emphasize on the word “socialist” instead of “market economy” when interpreting the concept. The concept is of central meaning and will affect the interpretation of the other aims stated in article 1. The other aims are not ranked in any hierarchical order and are in conflict with each other. The central government will give priority to the aims which are beneficial for a socialist society. The aim to promote public interest, which includes state owned enterprises, will be strongly favored. Also the aim economic efficiency will be prioritized since China strives to become a rich country. Consumer welfare will not be highlighted but might be more important in the future. One reason that the aims are vague and not put in any hierarchical order could be that the objectives for adopting AML were not solely of competition reasons. The objectives show that AML is part of a wider economic policy. Neither does the central government strive towards a free market. Instead the goal is to establish a fair market. A fair market will most probably be a market beneficial for state owned enterprises and can therefore be contradictory to the keystones of competition. Competition principals arise from sophisticated market economies and China aims to apply those principals in the light of socialist ideology. AML covers the general competition provisions but with a specific chapter to regulate administrative monopolies. It can still be seen as contradictory to prohibit administrative monopolies but without any sanctions stipulated for violation of the provisions. Also the fundamental elements for establish effective competition are missing. The statute cannot be seen as objective or provide legal certainty and the competition authorities do not have divided responsibilities. Neither is any specific competition court established. Other factors that can contribute to an inefficient competition law are China’s history and culture, affected by socialist ideology. Time is required in China in order to develop an efficient competition culture. Altogether, it is no coincident that the notion of socialist market economy is undefined. The notion includes a quest to enhance the socialist society with strong economic development. More specific guidance is determined by the central government when the right time has come. From a Chinese perspective, the aims in article 1 will be achieved since the undefined concepts open up for different interpretations. From a sophisticated point of view, the aims will not be seen as achieved since no effective competition is established.

<p>Chinas first comprehensive competition law, the Anti-monopoly law of the People’s Republic of China (AML), was enacted on August 1, 2008. Despite a long history of planned economy, the Chinese economy has developed into one of the fastest growing economies in the world during the last decades. The adoption of the law was a crucial step towards a more market-based economy. Article 1 of the AML states that one of the aims to achieve with this law is to develop a socialist market economy. The notion was founded in the 1990s and can be found in several other Chinese legislations.</p><p>The concept has no prominent definition and can be interpreted in many different ways, which opens up for the ruling Party to interpret the notion in accordance with their political believes. The central government will probably put most emphasize on the word “socialist” instead of “market economy” when interpreting the concept. The concept is of central meaning and will affect the interpretation of the other aims stated in article 1. The other aims are not ranked in any hierarchical order and are in conflict with each other. The central government will give priority to the aims which are beneficial for a socialist society. The aim to promote public interest, which includes state owned enterprises, will be strongly favored. Also the aim economic efficiency will be prioritized since China strives to become a rich country. Consumer welfare will not be highlighted but might be more important in the future.</p><p>One reason that the aims are vague and not put in any hierarchical order could be that the objectives for adopting AML were not solely of competition reasons. The objectives show that AML is part of a wider economic policy. Neither does the central government strive towards a free market. Instead the goal is to establish a fair market. A fair market will most probably be a market beneficial for state owned enterprises and can therefore be contradictory to the keystones of competition. Competition principals arise from sophisticated market economies and China aims to apply those principals in the light of socialist ideology. AML covers the general competition provisions but with a specific chapter to regulate administrative monopolies. It can still be seen as contradictory to prohibit administrative monopolies but without any sanctions stipulated for violation of the provisions.</p><p>Also the fundamental elements for establish effective competition are missing. The statute cannot be seen as objective or provide legal certainty and the competition authorities do not have divided responsibilities. Neither is any specific competition court established. Other factors that can contribute to an inefficient competition law are China’s history and culture, affected by socialist ideology. Time is required in China in order to develop an efficient competition culture.</p><p>Altogether, it is no coincident that the notion of socialist market economy is undefined. The notion includes a quest to enhance the socialist society with strong economic development. More specific guidance is determined by the central government when the right time has come. From a Chinese perspective, the aims in article 1 will be achieved since the undefined concepts open up for different interpretations. From a sophisticated point of view, the aims will not be seen as achieved since no effective competition is established.</p>

中國自2001年加入WTO並開放境內市場後，外資便開始以併購方式迅速進入中國市場，造成中國諸多產業遭外資壟斷，使中國於2007年8月30日迫切通過前後立法超過二十年的《反壟斷法》，並於2008年8月1日開始實施以規範外資併購行為。中國《反壟斷法》係管理市場秩序的主要法律亦被稱作「經濟憲法」，惟相較於世界先進國家已有悠久歷史，相關法規範已發展成熟，檢視該法的規範與實際操作上卻仍可發現諸多問題。 　　本文擬從外國競爭經濟法理論出發，剖析中國《反壟斷法》的立法基礎，並先探究該法之立法過程、規範範圍、執法機構分散與行政壟斷問題，再申論外資併購中國境內企業涉及反壟斷申報審查制度，最後進入本文核心議題即國家安全與濫用市場支配地位，輔以詳細數據與實際案例探討，翼望得以作為外資併購中國企業之參考依據。 / Since 2001 China has became one of the members of WTO, foreign investors used mergers and acquisitions as business strategy to dominate position in some specific markets in China, which caused China government adopted the first “Antimonopoly Law” on August 30, 2007 and it went into effect on August 1, 2008. China’s antimonopoly law also called“Economic Constitution”aims to establish the new economic order; however, compared with the western developed countries which has developed a great legal system, its substance has aroused suspicion and criticism. This paper seeks to provide an assessment for China’s “Antimonopoly Law” from the analysis of the soul of antitrust theory to discuss the structure of China’s “Antimonopoly Law” including the drafting stage, application of the law, lack of substantive enforcement authority and the issue of administrative monopoly. Then, this paper aims to solve the problem of the provisions of thresholds for concentration of foreign investors. After the basic discussion the issue above, this paper tries to discuss the core issue –national security and abuses of dominant market position—by providing statistics and analyzing real cases to draft conclusion for the foreign investors to follow when seeking to undertake mergers and acquisitions in China.