The role risk taking has played in American history has helped shape current legislation concerning gambling. This thesis attempts to explain the discrepancies in legislation regarding distinct forms of gambling. While casinos are heavily regulated by state and federal laws, most statutes dealing with lotteries strive to regulate the activities of other parties instead of those of the lottery institutions. Incidentally, lotteries are the only form of gambling completely managed by the government. It can be inferred that the United States government is more concerned with people exploiting gambling than with the actual practice of wagering. In an effort to more fully understand the gambling debate, whether it should be allowed or banned, I examined different types of sources. Historical sources demonstrate how ingrained in American culture risk taking, the core of gambling, has been since the formation of this nation. Sources dealing with the economic implications of gambling were also studied. Additionally, sources dealings with the political and legal aspects of gambling were essential for this thesis. Legislature has tried to reconcile distinct problems associated with gambling, including corruption. For this reason sports gambling scandals and Mafia connections to gambling have also been examined. The American government has created much needed legislature to address different concerns relating to gambling. It is apparent that statutes will continue to be passed to help regulate the gambling industry. A possible consideration is the legalization of sports wagering to better regulate that sector of the industry.

La trascendencia práctica del tema del régimen jurídico de las joint ventures es indudable. En los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, y más especialmente en España, las joint ventures remiten a una idea de mayor eficiencia económica, permitiendo a las empresas formar alianzas entre ellas, y así mejorar su competitividad, adaptando sus estructuras a las dimensiones crecientes de los mercados europeos y mundiales.Las joint ventures no están reguladas como tales en ninguna legislación nacional europea. El derecho comunitario se concentra por su parte en el análisis de los efectos de estas operaciones sobre la competencia. Las joint ventures adquieren en la práctica, únicamente, su contenido jurídico.Este estudio tiene por objetivo presentar un análisis a la vez teórico y práctico del régimen jurídico de las joint ventures, intentando definir el "valor añadido" del trabajo del jurista profesional cuando interviene en la creación y el funcionamiento de las joint ventures. La adopción de esta óptica funcionalista permite integrar el análisis de los diversos aspectos jurídicos de las joint ventures, sus estructuras contractuales y societarias así como su tratamiento en derecho de la competencia, que se abordan tradicionalmente en estudios separados, e insistir en la interelación existente entre las diversas ramas del derecho afectadas. Este estudio se concentra esencialmente en las cuestiones planteadas por las joint ventures en el ámbito del derecho de las obligaciones y del derecho societario.El jurista profesional desempeña, en primer lugar, una función de naturaleza organizativa, creando un conjunto de reglas obligatorias (reglas jurídicas) para todas las empresas participantes en la operación, de acuerdo con sus intereses estratégicos. El resultado puede ser, por ejemplo, la conclusión de un simple contrato, la constitución de una AEIE o la de una sociedad de capital. La complejidad de la organización jurídica de la joint venture impide estudiar de manera separada, como dos piezas aisladas, el llamado acuerdo de base de la joint venture por un lado, y la sociedad eventualmente constituida, la llamada filial común, por otro. El hecho de no entender la filial común como parte de un todo unitario y más complejo no permite describir correctamente las especialidades del régimen aplicable a dicha sociedad frente a sociedades constituidas en otros contextos económicos. La organización compleja de las joint ventures se diferencia de otros negocios jurídicos complejos por razón de su finalidad económica específica, la de establecer una alianza entre empresas. Tal como indica el derecho comunitario de la competencia, la joint venture es una operación en la que: (i) participan dos o más empresas independientemente activas en el mercado; (ii) se agrupan recursos necesarios al desarrollo de una actividad económica común en el seno eventualmente, pero no obligatoriamente, de una entidad separada (la llamada empresa común"); (iii) las empresas participantes ejercen un control conjunto sobre dicha actividad económica común. Estos tres elementos forman el núcleo de la definición de la joint venture en derecho.La cuestión de la validez y eficacia jurídica de los pactos presentes en el contrato complejo de joint venture, cuando implica la existencia de una sociedad de capital, es la que más dificultades plantea. El problema respecto a la joint venture, como respecto a muchos otros contratos complejos, es organizar un discurso sobre el uso de la libertad y sus consecuencias en el ámbito del derecho de sociedades.Mientras el jurista profesional organiza la joint venture, atrae también la atención del legislador sobre las necesidades jurídicas de las empresas que deciden "aliarse" en el seno de una joint venture. Los pactos presentes en los contratos complejos de joint venture no dependen únicamente del contenido del derecho aplicable a la sociedad "filial común" por ejemplo, sino también de la creatividad de los juristas profesionales. Las finalidades a cubrir por el contrato lo serán en regla general mediante combinaciones originales y complejas de mecanismos jurídicos, demostrándose una vez más el papel relevante de la práctica en la formación del derecho. Como consecuencia, puede observarse una tendencia a la flexibilización del derecho aplicable a las sociedades de capital, sobre todo en los países europeos continentales. Esta adaptación del derecho a la realidad práctica se observa también, y de manera significativa, en otras ramas del derecho, como en derecho de la competencia donde el legislador intenta introducir un tratamiento cada vez más pragmático de los efectos producidos por las joint ventures sobre los mercados. El análisis de la organización jurídica de las joint ventures en la práctica demuestra, sin embargo, la falta de utilidad y de oportunidad de una ordenación legal de la joint venture como tal en Europa. Como en el caso de la organización de la empresa, basta con que los operadores "candidatos" a la alianza encuentren en el derecho positivo los legal tools, o instrumentos jurídicos, adaptados a los objetivos económicos legítimos que persiguen ( por ejemplo, diversas formas sociales, la AIE, la UTE, la cuenta en participación etc), y sobre la base de los cuales puedan conservar y reforzar el sentimiento de confianza que necesitan tener en la operación y en su "aliado" para alcanzar con éxito estos objetivos. / This study provides a comprehensive analysis of both practical and theoretical legal issues raised by joint ventures in Europe. In the European Union member states and especially in Spain, joint ventures are viewed as a high efficient strategic operation - allowing alliances between firms, which may improve their competitiveness and adapt them to the growing dimensions of European markets and to the new global economy. Joint ventures are not organised as such by any statute law in Europe. European law focuses on the analysis of the effects they may produce on competition. Joint ventures obtain a legal content only in practice.The aim of this study is to define the "added value" of the practical work of lawyers, when they take part in processes of creation of joint ventures. This question allows to integrate the analysis of different legal aspects of joint ventures - their contractual and corporate structure as well as their legal treatment under competition law - which are traditionally treated in separate studies, and to point out the existence of on-going interfaces between them. This study focuses essentially on the contractual and corporate aspects of joint ventures. Practitioners set up, first of all, mechanisms which are compulsory - i.e. legal rules - for the firms involved in the operation according to their strategic interests. The result may be, for instance, the creation of a mere "contractual joint venture", of an European Economic Interest Grouping, or the incorporation of a "joint venture company". The complexity of the joint venture legal organisation prevents from studying separately the so-called "joint venture agreement" on which is based the operation, and the company which may be incorporated within it. The joint venture company is only a part of a more complex ensemble, which needs to be understood as such in order to be correctly analysed.The complex legal organisation of joint ventures differs from any other complex legal organisations because of its specific purpose, ie. establish a strategic alliance between firms. It aims to organise an operation in which: (i) participate two or more firms independently active on the market; (ii) are gathered the resources necessary to carry out a common business activity, possibly but not obligatory within a separate entity; and (iii) the participating firms jointly control the common business activity. Those three features are at the basis of the legal definition of joint ventures.The question of the legal validity and efficiency of the terms and conditions present in incorporated joint venture agreements is the more problematic one for the practitioners. The main difficulty in relation with joint ventures like in relation with many other complex agreements is to determine the limits of use of contractual freedom in company law.While organising the operation, the practitioners are also drawing the attention of the legislator on the legal needs of the firms willing to enter into alliances. The terms and conditions present in joint venture agreements depend not only on the content of the statute law applicable to the joint venture company for example, but also on the creative skills of the practitioners. The joint venture agreement needs to cover different purposes generally through original and complex combinations of legal mechanisms, proving once again the relevant role of practice in the generation of law.As a result, it is possible to observe a certain "flexibilization" of the rules in company law, especially in continental Europe. This new tendency develops in parallel with the movement observed in competition law towards a more realistic and pragmatic analysis of joint venture effects on the markets.The analysis of the legal organisations of joint ventures existing in practice demonstrates however the lack of necessity for a statutory regulation of this (strategic) operation in Europe. Like in the case of the organisation of a firm, the economic players willing to enter into strategic alliances only need to find in statute law different "legal tools" which may adapt their legitimate economic interests - such as different company forms, the Economic Interest Grouping, the partnership - and on the basis of which they can conserve and reinforce the confidence they need to have in their partner and in the operation in order to achieve successfully their purposes.

L’actualisation des données sur le contentieux privé des pratiques anticoncurrentielles fait naître laconviction que l’état de sous-développement souvent pointé est aujourd’hui dépassé. Les statistiquessont nettes : des dizaines d’affaires sont plaidées chaque année. Toutefois, ce contentieux s’esquissesous des traits qui ne sont pas exactement ceux du contentieux indemnitaire de masse faisant suite àla commission d’ententes internationales. C’est un fait majeur qui doit être noté car l’essentiel desprojets de réforme furent bâtis sur cet idéal type. Trois des caractères les plus saillants de la réalitéjudiciaire témoignent de cette fracture entre droit positif et droit prospectif. D’abord, le contentieuxprivé est majoritairement un contentieux contractuel entre professionnels aux forces déséquilibrées. Ensuite, c’estun contentieux national – voire local – plus qu’un contentieux international. Enfin, c’est plutôt uncontentieux autonome se déployant devant les juridictions judiciaires sans procédure préalable oupostérieure des autorités de concurrence (stand alone). Paradoxalement, les actions complémentaires(follow-on), pourtant réputées d’une mise en oeuvre aisée, sont plus rares. Ces observations invitentalors à réviser l’ordre des priorités de toute réflexion prospective. Ainsi, la lutte contre l’asymétried’informations et de moyens entre litigants, l’essor de sanctions contractuelles efficaces, larecomposition du rôle des autorités juridictionnelles et administratives dans le procès civil ou encorele développement des procédures de référé s’imposent avec urgence. Mais s’il paraît légitime desoutenir ce contentieux autonome déjà existant, il n’en reste pas moins utile de participer à laréflexion déjà amorcée pour développer le contentieux indemnitaire de masse tant attendu et dont onne peut négliger les atouts. De lege ferenda, le contentieux privé de demain présenterait donc uncaractère bicéphale ; il serait à la fois autonome et complémentaire. Il faut alors tenter de concevoir unrégime efficace pour ces deux moutures du contentieux privé en tenant compte de leurs exigencesrespectives. Or l’analyse positive et prospective de leurs fonctions révèlent que contentieuxautonome et contentieux complémentaire s’illustrent autant par les fonctions qu’ils partagent que parcelles qui les distinguent. Il serait donc excessif de vouloir en tous points leur faire application derègles particulières ou, à l’inverse, de règles identiques. C’est donc vers l’élaboration d’un régime commun complété par un régime particulier à chacun d’eux que s’orientera la présente recherche.PREMIÈRE PARTIE. Le régime commun aux contentieux privés autonome et complémentaireSECONDE PARTIE. Le régime particulier à chacun des contentieux privés autonome et complémentaire / Pas de résumé en anglais

不論是反全球化或是支持全球化，我們都無法否認，全球化已經是一個現在進行式。另外一個與全球化一樣逐步成長的乃是市場經濟體制，市場經濟體制植基於開放競爭有助於資源合理分配的觀念，而全球化則擴大了資源分配的範圍。然而，全球化和市場經濟體制的發達，貿易壁壘的消除，也帶動跨國界限制競爭活動的發展，反托拉斯不再是單純的國內問題，而是國際問題。 國際反托拉斯所帶來的問題大致可分為下述兩種，一是阻礙國際貿易的發展，二是因為各國不同的反托拉斯標準造成國際緊張以及企業成本。第一類問題可以細分為下述幾種情況：1. 國際卡特爾破壞市場競爭機制以及消費者福祉； 2. 跨國公司在全球濫用獨占力，影響國際競爭秩序和消費者福祉；3. 競爭法的缺乏以及競爭法的不力執行構成市場進入障礙。第二類問題亦可以細分為下屬幾種情況：1. 國際合併的多國標準造成企業的額外成本，不利國際合併之進行，並造成國際緊張；2. 國與國間產業政策以及競爭政策的衝突。 面對上述這些跨國性的反托拉斯問題，各界紛紛提出競爭法調和的呼籲，此議題近來在各國際組織也漸獲重視。事實上為了處理國外限制競爭行為對國內所產生的影響，以保護本國利益，國內法方面已有所謂的「域外適用（extraterritorial application）」對策產生。但是競爭法的域外適用並無法全然解決現時國際限制競爭行為所帶來的問題，反而還帶來了新的問題，並造成國際緊張。為了在國際案件有效執行反托拉斯法，不論是在卡特爾案件或是獨占力濫用案件，各國競爭法主管機關互相合作與協調都是不可或缺的。至於將競爭法提升至國際法層次，避免國家以非關稅措施破壞自由貿易制度，似乎也有需要。 本文目的在於藉著對競爭法調和現況的瞭解和其成就之分析來尋求目前全球化時代，貿易自由化時代下跨國限制競爭問題的解決之道。 全文一共分為六章，第一章為緒論，為本論文做出開端，闡明全球化時代國際競爭秩序的問題，並提出研究範圍與目的。 第二章研究關於國際競爭秩序的雙邊條約，著眼於美國和歐盟，澳洲和紐西蘭，以及我國和世界各國所訂立的條約。討論範圍為該些雙邊關係所建立之合作內容，其具體成效，成功失敗之因素，以及可供世界各國借鏡之處。台灣部分則著眼於我國目前現狀之檢討，和未來走向之研究。 第三章為從事競爭法調和的區域性國際組織，研究範圍包括歐盟、APEC以及NAFTA。其中APEC所從事的活動較近於政策性的調和，屬於競爭政策的宣導；NAFTA則進一步具有競爭法的實體規範；歐盟不但具有實體規範，並具有一套全球獨步的競爭法執行架構。 第四章為國際組織，將討論UN, WTO和OECD在國際競爭法的發展。UN基本上雖為政治組織，但是對於競爭議題也相當重視；WTO部分則將討論目前競爭議題在WTO體系的進展，並進一步討論WTO進行國際競爭法調和工作的可行性和不可行性；OECD對於競爭議題也一直相當重視，本文將探討OECD在競爭議題方面的研究成果。 第五章為全球性的競爭法規範，討論的範圍有UNCTAD所提出的「管制限制性商業行為的一套多邊協議的公平原則和規則（Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices）」以及DIAC。這兩套全球性的競爭法不但都具有實體規範也都提出一套制度性規範，雖然兩者都未能成為具有拘束力的國際競爭法，但是其所提出的實體規範內容和架構設計仍值得我們做進一步的研究。「管制限制性商業行為的一套多邊協議的公平原則和規則」本身是以聯大決議的形式呈現，因此在某一角度而言，「管制限制性商業行為的一套多邊協議的公平原則和規則」並未失敗，然而DIAC原本乃是預定成為WTO的附件之一，唯最後這樣的理想並未實現，因此我們有必要去問，DIAC的失敗因素為何？是基於其實體內容的設計問題，或是制度面的設計問題？或者是因為其他的外在因素？ 最後，在第六章的結論，本文將試圖分析各種競爭法調和方式的利弊得失，並且提出建議。 / Some people oppose globalization, while others support globalization. However, it is undeniable that globalization is an on-going trend. Another on-going trend is market-oriented economy structure. The structure of market-oriented economy bases on the theory that competition contributes to reasonable allocation of resource. On the other hand, globalization expands the scope of the allocation of resources. However, the proliferation of globalization and the structure of market-oriented economy and the elimination of trade barriers also promote the development of transnational anticompetitive activities. Antitrust is no more a pure domestic issue, it is also an international issue nowadays. International antitrust problems could be divided into two parts. First, the international antitrust activities hinder the development of international trade. Second, different antitrust standards of each country cause international tense situation and increase enterprises’ cost. First situation contains following aspects: 1. International cartels ruin market competition system and welfare of consumers. 2. Transnational companies abuse their dominant power all globally and affect international competition order and consumers’ welfare. 3. Absence of competition law and unenforcement of it constitute market entrance obstacles. Second situation also contains following aspects: 1.Different standards of international mergers bring many results, such as increasing enterprises’ extra cost, hindering the proceedings of international mergers, and causing international tensions. 2. The conflict between industry policy and competition policy of countries. Facing those transnational antitrust problems, the issue of the harmonization of competition law has been raised. This issue is drawing more and more attention in several international organizations day by day. In fact, to deal with the domestic effect of abroad anticompetitive activities to protect national interest, the theory “extraterritorial application” of domestic law has been raised. However, the extraterritorial application of domestic law is unable to solve all the problems that the international anticompetitive activities have brought. Furthermore, it has also made new problems and caused international tensions. To enforce antitrust law effectively in international cases, cooperation and coordination between national competition agencies are unavoidable. In addition, bringing antitrust law up to international law level and avoiding nations ruin free trade system by non-tariff strategy seem also be needed. The main purpose of this essay is to understand and analysis the current situation of the harmonization of competition law and to find out the solution of transnational competition problems in the era of globalization and the era of free-trade. This essay has been divided into 6 chapters. The first chapter is the introduction, which illustrates the international competition problems in the era of globalization and brings out the studying scope and purpose of this essay. The second chapter talks about international competition bilateral treaties between U.S. and E.U., Australia and New Zealand, Taiwan and other countries. The discussing scope contains the cooperation content which was set up by the bilateral treaty, its concrete result, and the reasons of its failure or success. As for Taiwan, this essay focuses on the review of its current situation and where its future is. The third chapter talks about regional international organizations which involve in the harmonization of competition law, such as E.U., APEC and NAFTA. APEC’s activities are more closer to the harmonization of policies, which promote competition activities. NAFTA has substantial competition regulations. E.U. not only has substantial regulations but also has the first set of enforcement system of international competition law in the world. The forth chapter is international organization, which talks about the development of international competition law in U.N., WTO and OECD. Although basically U.N. is a political organization, it also highly emphasizes competition issues. In addition, this chapter talks about the development of competition issues in the WTO system and the possibilities of promoting the harmonization of international competition law in WTO. Additionally, OECD also emphasizes competition issues very much. This chapter also talks about the study result of OECD in the competition issues. The fifth chapter is the global competition regulations, which contains “Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices” of UNCTAD and “ Draft International Antitrust Code”. Both of the global competition laws contain substantial regulations and the design of enforcement systems. Although both of them ended up in unrestrictive regulations, they also deserve further research. “Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices” was brought out with the form of UN General Assembly Resolution, but it is successful in some aspect. DIAC was meant to be an Annex of WTO originally. However this idea was not realized at the end. Why DIAC failed? Was it because of the design of its substantial content or the design of the enforcement structure or other outside factors? At last, this essay will analysis the shortages and advantages of all kinds of the harmonization of competition law and bring out recommendations in the conclusion of chapter 6.