UNCTAD MODEL REKABET KANUNU VE MUHTEMEL BİR ULUSLARARASI REKABET ANLAŞMASINA ULAŞILMASINDAKİ ROLÜ

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 46, 49 - 89, 01.06.2011

Talat Kaya

Öz

Son 20 yıl içerisinde rekabetin korunmasına ilişkin kanun çıkaran ülke sayısında belirgin bir artış gözlemlenmektedir. Çoğunlukla gelişmekte olan bu ülkeler rekabet kanunlarını hazırlarken ABD ve Avrupa Birliği gibi gelişmiş ülke veya toplulukların tecrübelerinden yararlanmaktadır. Rekabet kanunu çıkaran veya mevcut kanunlarını değiştiren ülkelerin dikkate aldıkları diğer bir kaynak ise UNCTAD gibi uluslararası kuruluşlar tarafından hazırlanan Model Rekabet Kanunlarıdır. UNCTAD Model Kanunu gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerin tecrübeleri dikkate alınarak esnek yapıda hazırlanmıştır. Model Kanundan yararlanmak isteyen ülkeler, kanunu diledikleri değişiklikleri yaparak kullanma olanağına sahiptirler

Anahtar Kelimeler

UNCTAD, Model Rekabet Kanunu, Uluslararası Rekabet Anlaşması, Rekabet Anlaşması Müzakereleri, Rekabetin Korunması

UNCTAD MODEL LAW ON COMPETITION AND ITS ROLE IN A POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AGREEMENT

Öz

Increasing number of countries has enacted competition laws over the past 20 years. In preparing their own laws, these countries, most of which are developing countries, benefit from the experiences of countries and communities such as United States and the European Union. The other source that the countries take into account in issuing or changing competition laws is the model competition laws, prepared by the international organizations like UNCTAD. UNCTAD Model Law has been prepared in a flexible structure, by taking into consideration of the experiences of the developed and developing countries. Countries, who wish to benefit from the Model Law, have the possibility to use it by making the changes as they wish

Anahtar Kelimeler

UNCTAD, Model Law on Competition, International Competition Agreement, Competition Agreement Negotiations, Protection of Competition

Kaynakça

• AKINCI, A. (2001), Rekabetin Yatay Kısıtlanması, Rekabet Kurumu Lisansüstü
• Tez Serisi No:5, Ankara. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW (1991)
• Report of the Special Committee on International Antitrust, http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-comments/1991/reports/1991_Full_Report. pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2010.
• ASLAN, Y. (1999), Amerikan Rekabet Hukuku Sistemi, Rekabet Kurumu
• Perşembe Konferansları. ASLAN, Y. (2007), Rekabet Hukuku, Genişletilmiş 4. Baskı, Bursa.
• AŞÇIOĞLU ÖZ, G. (2000), Avrupa Topluluğu ve Türk Rekabet Hukukunda
• Hakim Durumun Kötüye Kullanılması, Rekabet Kurumu Yayın No 51, Ankara. CALKINS, S. (2007), Competition Law in the United States of America, Wayne
• State University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 07-14. ÇATALCALI, T. (2003), Kartel Teorisi, İhracat Kartelleri ve Kriz Kartelleri
• Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara. DIŞ TİCARET MÜSTEŞARLIĞI (2003), Türkiye Açısından Değerlendirme
• DTÖ V. Bakanlar Konferansı Cancun (10-14 Eylül 2003), http://www.dtm.gov.tr/dtmweb/index.cfm?action=detay&yayinID=156&icerikI
• D=259&dil=TR, Son Erişim Tarihi: 10.07.2010.
• DPT (2007), Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı, Rekabet Hukuku ve Politikaları Özel
• İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Ankara. EZRACHI, A. (2004), The Role of Voluntary Frameworks In Multinational
• Cooperation Over Merger Control, George Washington International Law Review, No: 36. FOX, E. (1997a), Rekabet Hukukunun Önemi ve Küreselleşen Dünyadaki Yeri
• Rekabet Kurumu Perşembe Konferansları. FOX, E. (1997b), “US and EU Competition Law: A Comparison”, J. David
• Richardson and Edward M. Graham (Ed.), Global Competition Policy içinde. GÜVEN, P. (2008), Rekabet Hukuku, Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı, Ankara.
• KACZOROWSKA, A. (2008), European Union Law, Routledge-Cavendish
• Publishing, London and New York. KARAKOÇ, O. (2003), Rekabet Kurallarının Uluslararasılaşması Süreci ve Uluslararası Örgütler, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara.
• KOÇ, A. (2005), Rekabet Hukukunda Seçici Dağıtım Anlaşmaları, Rekabet
• Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara. KORAH, V. (2006) Cases and Materials on EU Competition Law, Third
• Edition, Hart Publishing, Oxford-Portland Oregon. KUDRLE, R.T (2007), “The Globalization of Competition Policy”, Sushil
• Vachani (Ed), Transformations in Global Governance: Implications for Multinationals and Stakeholders içinde, s. 22-48. LEE, C. (2004) Model Competition Laws: The World Bank-OECD and UNCTAD Approaches Compared, Centre for Regulation and Competition
• International Conference, http://www.competition-regulation.org.uk/conferences/southafrica04/lee.pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2010.
• MATSUSHITA, M. (1997), Reflections on Copetition Policy/Law in the Framework of the WTO, International Antitrust Law&Policy: Fordham
• Corporate Law 1997 içinde, s. 31-51.
• NICHOLSON, M.W. (2008), An Antitrust Law Index For Empirical Analysis
• Of International Competition Policy, Journal Of Competition Law And Economics, No. 4 (4), s. 1009-1029.
• OECD (1986a), Revised Recommendation of the Council Concerning Co- operation Between Member Countries on Restrictive Business Practices
• Affecting International Trade, C(86)44 (Final). OECD (1986b), Recommendation of the Council Concerning Co-operation
• BetweenMember Countries on Potential Conflict between Competition and Trade Policies, C(86)65(Final). OECD (1998), Recommendation of the OECD Council Concerning Effective
• Action Against Hard Core Cartels, C(98)35/Final. OECD (2004), United States-Report on Competition Law and Institutions, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/53/34427452.pdf
• Son Erişim Tarihi: 18.07.2010, Paris.
• OECD (2005), Competition Law and Policy in the European Union http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/41/35908641.pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi: 18.07.2010.
• PETERSMAN, E.U (1999), Competition-oriented Reforms of the WTO World
• Trade System-Proposals and Policy Options, (editor Roger Zach), Towards WTO Competition Rules, Kluwer Law International. TİRYAKİOĞLU, B. (1997), Rekabet Hukukundan Doğan Kanunlar İtilafı, Ankara.
• UNCTAD (1998), Report of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on
• Competition Law and Policy on its first session, TD/B/COM.2/13, TD/B/COM.2/CLP/5, Geneva, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c2 clp98d5.pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi: 15.07.2010.
• ÜNLÜSOY, K. (2003), Rekabet Hukukunda Bağlama Anlaşmaları, Rekabet
• Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara. WALLER, S.W. (1997), The Internationalization of Antitrust Enforcement
• Boston University Law Review 343, No 77, International Competition Law, A New Dimension For The Wto?, Cambridge University Pres. WEATHERILL, S. (2005) Cases and Materials on EU Law, 7th Edition
• Oxford University Pres. WOOD, P.D. (1994-1995), Internationalization of Antitrust Law: Options for the Future; DePaul L. Rev. 1289, No 44.
• WORLD BANK and OECD (1999), A Framework for the Design and Implementation of Competition Law and Policy, (Dünya Bankası/OECD Model Kanunu) http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_34535_1916760_1_1_1_1,0 html, Washington, D.C., Paris, Son Erişim Tarihi: 29.09.2009. WORLD
• Declaration, WT/MIN(96)/Dec. ORGANIZATION (1996), Singapore Ministerial
• WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (2001), Doha Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.
• WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (2003), Cancun Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(03)/20.
• WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (2004), Doha Work Programme Decision
• Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, WT/L/579.
• YANIK, M. (2003), Rekabet Hukukunun Hakim Durum ve Hakim Durumun
• Kötüye Kullanılması Uygulamalarında Piyasa Giriş Engelleri, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara. YAVUZ, Ş. (2003), Amerikan Antitröst Hukukunda Yeniden Satış Fiyatının
• Belirlenmesi Sorunu: “Per se” veya “Rule of reason”, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara. ZACH, R. (1999), Towards WTO Competition Rules, Key Issues and Comments on the Wto Report (1998) on Trade and Competition, Kluwer Law International.
• MAHKEME VE KURUL KARARLARI AB Case-35/96 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851.
• Case-6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can V Commission (1973) ECR 215.
• Cases-56/64 and 58/64 Establishments Consen SA and Grunding Gmbh v. Commission (1966) ECR 199, (1966) CMLR 418. ABD
• Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. (1993).
• Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U. S. 104, 117 (1986).
• Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 US 1 (1958).
• Postal Service V. Flamingo Industries (Usa) Ltd. (02-1290) 540 U.S. 736 (2004).
• Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949).
• Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 US 1 (1958).
• NW Wholesale Statıoners v. Pac. Statıonery, 472 U. S. 284 (1985).
• Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association 493 U.S. 411 (1990).
• State oil Co v. Khan, 522 U.S 3 (1997). Türkiye
• Danıştay 10. Daire Esas No: 2001/4817 Karar No: 2003/4770.
• Rekabet Kurulu Kararı, Dosya Sayısı: 2008-3-106 Karar Sayısı: 08-50/722-282.