Analysis of Agreements Under U.S. And EC Antitrust Law – Convergence or Divergence?

122 Pages Posted: 9 Oct 2011

See all articles by Alison Jones

Alison Jones

King's College London – The Dickson Poon School of Law

Date Written: 2006

Abstract

This article explores the question of whether, following the modernization of EU competition law, Article 101(1), or Article 101 as a whole, requires, or is developing toward requiring, a rule of reason analysis similar to that carried out in the US under section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890. It commences by examining section 1 of the Sherman Act, its objectives, and the tools that have been utilized to resolve the question of whether an agreement unreasonably restrains trade. It then examines Article 81 against this backdrop. It concludes that despite a greater convergence between the US and EU approach to objectives in recent years, the bifucated structure of Article 81 and the difficulty of isolating competition from other Community policies means that significant differences undoubtedly remain and that the US approach to rule of reason analysis has not been embraced as a mechanism for distinguishing between agreements which do, and those which do not, harm competition.

Suggested Citation

Jones, Alison, Analysis of Agreements Under U.S. And EC Antitrust Law – Convergence or Divergence? (2006). Antitrust Bulliten, Vol. 51, No. 4, p. 691, Winter 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1932209

Alison Jones (Contact Author)

King's College London – The Dickson Poon School of Law ( email )

Somerset House East Wing
Strand
London, WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
562
Abstract Views
1,643
rank
68,635
PlumX Metrics