Antitrust: The Person-centred Approach

226 Pages·2014·1.41 MB·English

by  Abayomi Al-Ameen (auth.)

Abayomi Al-Ameen
Antitrust: The
Person-centred
Approach
Antitrust: The Person-centred Approach
ThiSisaFMBlankPage
Abayomi Al-Ameen
Antitrust: The Person-centred
Approach
AbayomiAl-Ameen
VisitingResearchFellow
BritishInstituteofInternational
andComparativeLaw
London
UnitedKingdom
ISBN978-3-319-01723-5 ISBN978-3-319-01724-2(eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-01724-2
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013949002
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2014
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor
informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerpts
inconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeing
enteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.Duplication
ofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightLawofthe
Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from
Springer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter.
ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor
anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with
respecttothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
Antitrust laws and policies have developedthrough high level theoriesthat seekto
designategoal(s)andspecifyproceduresforantitrustinstitutions.Withineachtheo-
retical construct and also through fresh insights, the goals and specifications of
antitrustundergoconstantrefinement:newgroundsarediscovered,oldassumptions
arereplacedandexigenciesdictatetheactivitiesofrelevantinstitutions.Thus,byits
nature, change is a constant in antitrust. This interesting “evolutionary” process is
greased through a flowing stream of empirical analysis, argumentations, counter-
arguments, assertions, rhetoric, polemics and iconoclasms. However, even as anti-
trustcontinuestoevolve,onethingremainsconstant—thesingleconstantissimply
themanneroftheorisingantitrust.Mostantitrusttheoriesseektoestablishthetasksof
antitrust institutions. For instance, they propose the goals that antitrust institutions
should champion. They argue on the veracity of a procedure. They debate on the
necessityofameasure.Theyarguetop-down.
Thepostulationswithinandbetweenthesetop-downschoolsofthoughtcomein
differentshapes,mostofwhichareundeniablyrelevanttoantitrustastheygiveto
the field both content and meaning. Notwithstanding, the problem is that if we
isolatethereasoningwithinaparticulartheoryandforgeanantitrustregimeonsuch
reasoning,ourframeworkwilllikelyfailtogivedueconsiderationtotheinterestsof
persons.Thisisbecausethechosentheoryislikelytoeliminateanyotherformof
antitrust analysis.Theconsequence is thatantitrustis diminished asa result ofits
incompletenessandattendantexclusionofinterests.
However,there isyettobeasingleacceptable principledapproach toantitrust
analysis as authorities, courts, practitioners and scholars often fail to reach a
convergenceonsimpletermsbecausetheyunderstandthosetermsthroughdifferent
ideologies.
Asaresultoftheproblemsassociatedwiththepresentwayinwhichweanalyse
antitrust, there is a temptation to propose an account of antitrust that avoids or
correctsthepresentproblems.However,beforesuchstepistaken,itisimportantto
ascertainwhyanewparadigmisreallyneeded.Thisiswhatbringsustothecruxof
this thesis. Where a particular antitrust issue is decided based on a mistaken
assumption that the theory applied in any instance is complete, a possible
v
vi Preface
consequence is that the reasoning in such a case might unduly disparage those
personswhoseinterestsmightverywellhavebeenprotectedifabroaderfoundation
wasadopted.Anotherlikelyeffectisthatwemightendupprotectinginterestswhich,
ifthechosentheorywasnotmistakeninsomeway,wouldnothavebeenprotected.It
is thus proposed as an idea of justice that we take a bottom-up, non-normative
perspective to antitrust analysis. In an attempt to accomplish this goal, the person-
centred approach to antitrust is developed and evaluated. Generally, this approach
seekstointroduceaperspectivetoantitrustanalysiswherebyissuesareconceptually
addressedfromthepositionofantitrustsubjects.Inanygivencase,antitrustsubjects
are those: consumers, businesses, individuals and societies that have interests in
specificantitrustissues,beitmarket-related,fairnessoronpublicpolicygrounds.
The thesis develops the conceptual basis for the pursuit of “justice as inclusive-
ness”.Toachievethis,itrecognisestheneedtodeemphasisethenormativecontentof
antitrusttheoriesandpractices.Thethesisrecognisesthattoachievetheinclusiveness
sought, antitrust analysis must adhere to the principles of pure procedural justice
whilstalsoremainingintelligibleandfunctionalforpolicy-making,adjudicationand
enforcement.Toachievethis,theperson-centredapproachidentifiestherequirement
of broadness as an essential condition. However, in order to avoid conceptual
absurdities, the scope of the person-centred account of broadness is clearly
delineated.
Itmustbenotedthatratherthanseekingtobuildaconclusivetheoryofantitrust
(which might fall short as being incomplete and mistaken), the person-centred
approachsimplystatesaperspectivewhichgivesabroaderoutlookonantitrustin
order to accommodate a variety of interests held or that can be held by different
persons.
Toreiterate,mymotivationforthisresearchstemsfromtheperceivedneedfor
justice (as inclusiveness). This germane requirement of justice is unlikely to be
noticedifantitrustisaddressedstrictlythroughatop-downparadigm.
Themainthemeandspecificargumentsinthisthesisaregenerallytheresultof
queries,someofwhicharestatedbelow:
OnSubstantiveAntitrust
– Shouldantitrustbebasedonasingle/limitedvalue(s)orshoulditbeleftopento
thevagariesofwhatantitrustsubjectsmayconsidertobeofinterestinantitrust?
– Whatarethepracticaldisadvantagesofasingle/limitedvalueapproachandhow
doesabroadscopesolvethem?
– Whatformshouldthebroaderscopetake?
– What are the practical challenges that a plural valued system attract? For
exampleuncertainty,unpredictability,practicality?Aretheyrealconcernsand,
ifso,howcantheyberemedied?
OnAntitrustEnforcement
– Whatisthepropermodeofenforcingantitrust?
– Onwhatcriteriadowedetermineifthesystemisbroadenoughattheenforce-
mentlevel?
Preface vii
– Caninstitutionsseekconflictinggoalsintheirenforcement?
– Whatshouldbethescopeofourenforcementeffortandwhatdoesthismeanto
thetaskofaccommodatingtheinterestsofdifferentantitrustsubjects?
– Thethesismakesduereferencetoseasoned scholarlymaterialsandalsodraws
onestablishedlegalandeconomictheories.Todrivemypoints,Ianalogisewith
EU law and US antitrust law. There is, however, a stronger emphasis on the
former.
London,UK AbayomiAl-Ameen
ThiSisaFMBlankPage
Acknowledgements
ThisbookislargelyaproductofmyPh.D.whichIundertookattheSchoolofLaw
Swansea University. I am grateful to God for guarding my path through the most
tryingtimesofmyresearch.AlotofthanksalsogoestoProfessorJukkaSnellfor
critiquingmyideasandguidingmethroughtheturbidstageofvelocity.Ialsothank
Dr.BebhinnDonnelly-Lazarovforherexemplarysupport.ThanksalsogoestoDr.
ChristopherTownleyforhisremarkablescrutiny.
I undertook my research with the kind financial assistance of Swansea Law
School.ItrulydidfindtheenvironmentattheLawSchoolencouragingasthestaff
membershadapositivedispositiontowardsme.IalsothanktheBritishInstituteof
International and Comparative Law (BIICL) as it gave me the enabling environ-
menttoreflectonmyworkandfine-tuneitforpublicationasamonograph.
Finally,Ithankmyfamilyfortheircontinuedsupportandforbearance.
London,UK AbayomiAl-Ameen
ix