Title

臺灣金融產業的競爭政策—以競爭法的觀點出發

Translated Titles

The Competition Policy on Taiwan Financial Industry: From the Perspective of Competition Law

DOI

10.6342/NTU.2012.02519

Authors

顏雅倫

Key Words

競爭政策 ; 金融機構 ; 金融產業(金融業) ; 金融控股公司 ; 小型經濟體 ; 結合管制 ; 公平交易法 ; 行為經濟學 ; 陶德-法蘭克法案 ; Competition Policy ; Financial Institution ; Financial Industry ; Financial Holding Company ; Small Economy ; Merger Control ; Fair Trade Act ; Dodd-Frank Act

PublicationName

國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2012年

Academic Degree Category

博士

Advisor

廖義男

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

個別經濟體與社會對政府與市場以及其相對位置的想像、信念與價值判斷,相當大程度地決定了反托拉斯法的執法態度與傾向,以及應如何具體解釋充斥高度不確定法律概念的反托拉斯法條文。臺灣於1980與1990年代推動與制定競爭法制時,深受德國新自由主義以降的歐陸競爭法影響。惟不同於美國反托拉斯法以經濟效率優先但以消費者福利為標準、同受德國新自由主義影響的歐洲聯盟競爭法則是認為消費者利益為反射利益而在執行層面有多元目標的考量,臺灣負載政府管控的發展主義傳統,經濟政策素來強調追求規模經濟與經濟效率的重要性。本文以為,臺灣身為東北亞地區的相對小型經濟體,競爭政策的執行無法忽視廠商達成最低效率規模的重要性,不宜讓競爭政策同時肩負財富分散與保護中、小型企業的任務,故宜採取經濟效率優先及整體福利標準的競爭政策,但同時應特別避免因屈從追求或扶植國家龍頭企業的誘惑,而放鬆競爭法的執行,應僅在必要範圍內重視產業的規模經濟。另鑑於包括臺灣在內的東亞地區過往政府長期介入甚或扭曲市場的歷史,政府與管制仍然是主要的問題,與美國解除管制過度而於金融危機後以行為經濟學為基礎重回管制的情事顯有不同。且墊基於有利管制之行為經濟學的反托拉法政策理論,迄今尚未能就廠商或市場行為提出完整、一致性實證預測,其不論在理論基礎或是執法機關負荷能力上,都不是現階段的良好選擇。 金融危機的發生,再度觸及關於競爭政策與產業政策的爭論核心。臺灣金融業歷來一直受到高度管制,從2001年金融改革以來,臺灣政府也明確支持整併金融業,在金融產業形成國內龍頭產業。臺灣金融產業是目前最能體現管制與競爭法規互動、消長與相互競爭關係、政府在市場經濟扮演的角色,以及臺灣競爭政策取向與發展的領域。本文彙整公平交易委員會(以下簡稱為「公平會」)歷年來關於金融機構的執行案例與金融業的管制法規結構,就公平會未來在金融產業執行競爭法,提出下列建議: 1. 公平會歷年來在金融機構結合案件的審理上,過度向產業政策傾斜,未來應以經濟效率優先,加強分析、研究金融機構規模經濟與範疇經濟可能產生的經濟效率,並據此判斷參與結合事業關於整體經濟利益的主張是否實在,包括適度依據公平交易法(以下簡稱為「公平法」)第12條第2項,為附加條件或負擔等附款,以確保整體經濟利益大於限制競爭之不利益。就結合違法性審核標準而論,宜採顯著阻礙競爭而非形成或強化市場支配地位為審查標準。 2. 金融機構太大不能倒並非公平交易法現在與未來要關注的焦點,應劃歸金融管制法規。另宜刪除我國金融法規明文豁免公平法結合申報等規定,若認為仍有必要因應金融穩定性為例外性處理,亦宜在法規設計上明確界定相關適用要件,並以縮短結合申報後的等待期間等方式為之,甚至亦可仿照美國所謂的口袋裁決(”pocket decree”)制度,解決短期金融穩定與長期市場競爭議題間的衝突。 3. 公平會應採實質影響標準加強釐清結合的認定。公平會在處理金融機構結合案件時,應參考與援用金融產業法規諸如金融控股公司法中關於控制性持股與關係人等規定,可讓適用公平法第6條第1項第5款時,能更有具體依據。此外,若一事業直接或間接掌控他事業董監事或經理人,就股份有限公司而言,除章程另有更高的規定外,應認為至少在一事業若擔任、取得或控制他事業的董事長、總經理,或超過三分之一以上的董事席次而足以否決應經董事會特別決議的重要事項,此時即應認為該事業對他事業具有實質影響,而有可能構成結合;如取得他事業常務董事一定席位而得以在公司日常事務經營扮演一定角色者,則必須再密切注意兩者有無其他兩者顯然處於同一管領力下的事實或影響競爭因素而得綜合判斷有構成結合的可能。以此一標準觀之,未來公平會若未能加強或注意政府在金融機構的實質影響力,以及金融業間透過多層次公司架構或家族集團設立多個投資公司以掌控多家金融產業等情事或可能,將可能低估臺灣金融業的實際市場集中度。 4. 依現行法規,金融控股公司與非金融事業仍有透過董事兼充、董事席位掌握(包括透過同一集團或家族所捐助財團法人等達成控股架構等及運用公司法第27條)等方式形成結合關係的可能。在台灣,一般產業集團與金融機構或金融控股公司實質結合的情形,並不罕見。未來金融市場逐步集中時,應特別注意當部分企業集團集中掌控金融業以後,可能藉由讓其所屬金融機構拒絕提供資本或服務予其集團下其他產業的競爭者,以獲取該集團在其他產業的競爭優勢,從事無關規模經濟效率的排他性行為。且因多角化結合在臺灣仍有其特殊風險存在,公平法第11條第1項第1款、第2款對掌握大型企業跨入新市場或跨市場的影響力,仍有重要意義。 5. 若未來在金融業的結合管制上採取比較寬鬆的政策,則除應加強不符合公平法第14條第1項但書之聯合行為的執法,另應嚴厲取締對效率無助益的具市場力量事業之排他行為或人為進入障礙。公平會應於管制法規有缺漏或於管制放鬆時積極介入促進市場競爭,並加強對金融業的瞭解(例如保險業的共保聯營行為)避免自行放棄執法。針對臺灣各類金融業基礎交易、結算與資訊處理平台等獨占事業以管制法規為主的法令結構,不宜援用美國Trinko 與Credit Suisse兩案的論理將仍以管制法規為重的金融領域(例如證券市場)之市場競爭行為均歸諸金融主管機關規制,諸如證券承銷過程中可能出現的限制競爭行為,仍有公平會適用公平法介入的空間與可能。 6. 公平會應妥善運用公平法第9條第2項規定,就金融機構的股權結構、轉投資行為以及金融市場法規與實務狀況等事項,定期與金融主管機關金融監督管理委員會(以下簡稱為「金管會」)進行溝通;於金融消費者保護法通過後,金管會制定子法及爭議處理機構於擬定或主管機關於審核爭議處理原則時,得仿照陶德-法蘭克法案的設計精神,妥善運用公平法第9條第2項規定,徵詢公平會的意見,將公平會已積累的案例類型予以納入。按公平法第24條並不適合充作保護金融商品消費者的主要依據,以相對市場優勢地位理論介入金融機構的搭售行為亦有不當,未來公平會在金融消費者保護事項,宜退居第二線,使公平會能將資源從此部分釋放出來,轉向本文所建議之反托拉斯法層面的加強管制。

English Abstract

Individual economies may adopt different ideologies concerning the interrelation between government and market, and their approach thereof will largely determine theirattitudes and tendencies in antitrust law enforcement, and how to interpret the highly uncertain legal concepts and terms in antitrust law. Upon advocating and establishing competition law in 1980s and 1990s, Taiwan was deeply influenced by European competition law, which follows German Ordo-liberalism tradition. Compared to American antitrust law emphasizing efficiency with consumer welfare standard and European Union competition law simultaneously pursuing multiple goals, Taiwan has been embedded the developmentalism tradition. Taiwan economic policies consistently recognize the importance of efficiency and economies of scale. Therefore, as a relatively small economy in North East Asia, the enforcement of Taiwan antitrust law could not ignore the merits of firms’ attaining minimum efficient scale (MES), and it is appropriate for Taiwan to adopt the competition policy highlighting efficiency and using total welfare criterion. Nevertheless, Taiwan should be wary of the temptation of pursuing or supporting national champions, and then loosening antitrust law enforcement. The emphasis placed on economies of scale should be limited to necessary extent. In addition, in Taiwan, the lasting governmental intervention and regulations related to the market economy are still the main issues, which is different from the background of strong advocates of re-regulation based upon the behavioral economies in the United States after the financial crisis. Moreover, since behavioral antitrust policy has not presented a comprehensive and coherent set of theories and empirical evidence to predict market activities, it is not a good choice for Taiwan antitrust enforcement now. The recent financial crisis triggered the debate about and tension between competition policy and industry policy. Taiwan financial industry is highly regulated, and Taiwan government explicitly supports the mergers among financial institutions in order to foster national champion. Hence, financial industry is the specific field embodying the interrelation, competition and conflict between competition law and regulations, the role of Taiwan government in Taiwan economy, and the approach and development of Taiwan competition policy. The author of this thesis compiled and analyzed the cases regarding financial institutions investigated by Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (“Taiwan FTC”) and Taiwan financial regulations. Based upon the foregoing, the author makes the suggestions as to the future enforcement of the Fair Trade Act (“FTA”) in financial industry as follows: 1. Taiwan FTC has submitted to industrial policy when reviewing the merger cases of financial institutions for many years. Taiwan FTC shall strengthen its economic analysis of and research onefficiency arising from economies of scale and scope possibly achieving by the mergers of financial institutions, and then,under Article 12 of the FTA,determine whether the overall economic benefit outweighs the disadvantages resulted from competition restraints, and it is necessary or appropriate to attach conditions or require undertakings to conduct specific acts. In addition, Taiwan FTC shall adopt the criterion of significantly impeding competition rather than forming or strengthening market dominating position in reviewing the legality of the merger case in dispute. 2. “Too big to fail” financial institutions should not be the main concern of the FTA and shall be coped with in financial regulations. The exemptions now described in Taiwan financial regulations from merger fillings should be deleted. Any exemption due to financial stabilization concerns should be clearly defined with shortening the waiting period after merger filings. Furthermore, following pocket decree procedure in the United States to balance short-term financial stabilization with long-term market competition may be a better choice compared to completely exemption. 3. Taiwan FTC should embrace material influence standard to resolve if there is any situation qualifying as the “merger” described in Article 6 of the FTA, and refer to “controlling interest” and “same concerned person ” defined in Article 4 of the Financial Holding Company Act upon the application of Article 6 I(5) of the FTA. Furthermore, in the event that one enterprise directly or indirectly control directors, supervisors, or high-rank officers of the other enterprise to the extent that the former enterprise could serve as or control the chairman of board of directors, chief executive officers, or be able to veto the matters required to be approved by the supermajority resolution of the boards of the latter enterprise, the former enterprise should be deemed to have a material influence on the latter enterprise, which is possible to establish the merger defined in Article 6 of the FTA; if the former enterprise could serve as or control the managing directors of the latter enterprise, Taiwan FTC shall thoroughly examineany other facts that these two enterprises are under the same control, or other factors that will influence market competition, in order to determine whether there is a merger under Article 6 of the FTA. 4. From this perspective, if Taiwan FTC is unable to notice the material influence of Taiwan government on several big financial conglomerates, and the plans or schemes that financial institutions or family groups use multi-tiers corporation structures, or investment corporations to control several financial institutions, Taiwan FTC may improperly underestimate the concentration rate of Taiwan financial market. 5. Financial holding companies could virtually merger with nonfinancial enterprises under Article 6 of the FTA through interlocking directorates or directly or indirectly controlling the directors of the other enterprises (especially by means of Article 27 of the Company Act or endowing foundations). It is common in Taiwan that family groups simultaneously control industrial groups and financial conglomerates, or industrial groups control financial institutions. Faced with Taiwan the potential financial merger wave in the following years, Taiwan FTC should be mindful of the risk that some industrial conglomerates controlling large or various financial institutions will pursue the competitive advantages,or engage in anti-competitive activities without any efficiency related to economies of scaleby directing the affiliated or controlled financial institutions not to give capital to the competitors of these industrial conglomerates or its subsidiaries or affiliates. Moreover, since conglomerate mergers may pose some competitive concerns in Taiwan, the market share thresholds described in Article 11 Ⅰ(1) and (2) are still meaningful for controlling the larger conglomerates’ influence straddling different markets. 6. If Taiwan FTC takes more lenient view on the mergers of financial institutions, Taiwan FTC shall strictly prohibit illegal cartels andinvestigate the exclusionary actions of the enterprises with market power and any barrier caused by these enterprises. In addition, Taiwan FTC shall vigorously enforce the FTA to stimulate market competition when the financial regulations are relaxed or there is any loophole therein, and look into the complicated financial activities, e.g. co(re)-insurance, more carefully so that Taiwan FTC will not take these activities for granted and be sluggish in enforcing the FTA with regard thereto.Financial regulations are more dominant in financial exchange, clearing, and information platform that are monopolies. However, it would be unwise to refer to Trinko and Credit Suisse cases in the United States and let the financial authority be completely in charge of market competition in some strongly regulated financial fields. For instance, there shall be still room for Taiwan FTC’s intervention ofapplying the FTA to anticompetitive activities related to securities underwriting. 7. Taiwan FTA and Financial Supervisory Commission (“FSC”) should establish a communication mechanism under Article II of the FTA on shareholding structure, investment, market dynamic related to financial institutions. In addition, after Financial Consumer Protection Act takes in force, FSC shall incorporate the rules developed from the cases invested by Taiwan FTC and targeting financial institution for protecting financial consumers under Article 9 II of the FTA. However, as for financial consumer protection, Taiwan FTC shall step back to the second line. Neither is appropriate to use Article 24 of the FTA as the main remedy to protect financial consumers, nor is proper to apply market relatively superior position theory to deal with tying in financial products. Then Taiwan FTC shall set its resources aside for strengthening antitrust law enforcement.

Topic Category 法律學院 > 法律學研究所
社會科學 > 法律學
Reference
  1. 王文宇(2003)。<論金融控股公司投資新創事業法制>,《法令月刊》第54卷第8期,頁46-57。
    連結:
  2. 何一芃(2005)。<金融控股公司對傳統競爭法的挑戰>,《法令月刊》第56卷第4期,頁64-71。
    連結:
  3. 吳元曜(2004)。<對行政院金融監督管理委員會組織法之評析>,《臺灣本土法學雜誌》第61期,頁116-135。
    連結:
  4. 吳秀明(2004)。<論關係企業與公平交易法之結合管制>,收錄於氏著《競爭法制之發韌與展開》,臺北:元照。
    連結:
  5. 李桐豪(2001)。<由美國金融服務業現代化法看我國的金融控股公司法>,《臺灣金融財務季刊》第2卷第2期,頁1-17。
    連結:
  6. 汪渡村(2007)。《公平交易法》增訂三版,臺北:五南。
    連結:
  7. 林心怡(2005)。<論全球化時代美國與歐體國際結合管制差異與衝突之緩和>,《公平交易季刊》第13卷第2期,頁101-178。
    連結:
  8. 張見地(2011)。<黑池交易與交易所之因應>,《證交資料》第591期,頁60-82。
    連結:
  9. 張英磊(2009)。《多元移植與民主轉型過程中我國環評司法審查之發展一個以回應本土發展脈絡為目的之比較法分析》,國立台灣大學法律學院法律學研究所博士論文。
    連結:
  10. 許耀明(2005)。<二○○四歐洲聯盟競爭法上關於事業結合規範之修正沿革評析>,《財產法暨經濟法》第3期,頁171-206。
    連結:
  11. 陳人傑(2000)。《市場進入障礙於事業結合管制之探討》,私立輔仁大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  12. 彭金隆(2003)。<論我國金融控股公司之投資與被投資事業管理>,《臺灣金融財務季刊》第4輯第1期,頁163-183。
    連結:
  13. 曾國烈(2005)。<金融改革與銀行業之演化與成長>,《臺灣金融財務季刊》第6輯第3期,頁1-14。
    連結:
  14. 黃茂榮(1993)。<公平交易法之理論與實務>,《作者自刊》,頁14。
    連結:
  15. 黃銘傑(2002)。<中小企業保護與競爭政策>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與實際-不同意見書》,臺北:學林。
    連結:
  16. 黃銘傑(2002)。<相對優勢地位濫用與公平交易法之規範>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與實際-不同意見書》,臺北:學林。
    連結:
  17. 楊雨耕(2009)。《金融服務業業務行為準則規範之研究-以金融商品之推介為中心》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  18. 葉斯偉(2005)。《從法律的觀點論金融機構合併與市場競爭秩序》,中原大學財經法律學系碩士論文。
    連結:
  19. 葉鼎煜(2006)。《金融監理行政中立問題之研究-以開發金經營爭奪戰法令形成為例》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  20. 廖義男(1995)。<公平交易法應否制定之檢討及其草案之修正建議>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與立法》,臺北:三民。
    連結:
  21. 劉孔中(2003)。《公平交易法》,臺北:元照。
    連結:
  22. 劉紹樑(2001)。<金融法制、企業併購與典範遷移-以合併法與控股法為中心>,《臺灣金融財務季刊》第2輯第2期,頁55-71。
    連結:
  23. 劉連煜(2007)。<金融控股公司監理之原則:金融與商業分離>,《律師雜誌》第333期,頁12-19。
    連結:
  24. 劉靜怡(1993)。《有線電視系統分區獨占原則之研究》,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  25. 劉靜怡(1999)。<初探網路產業的市場規範及其未來:以United States V. Microsoft案的發展為主軸>,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》第28卷第4期,頁1-66。
    連結:
  26. 戴敬哲(2008)。《論金融監督管理委員會之組織法制》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  27. 戴銘昇(2004)。<金融控股公司法的光與影(上) >,《法令月刊》第55卷第5期,頁62-74。
    連結:
  28. 謝易宏(2000)。<企業整合與跨業併購法律問題之研究-以「銀行業」與「證券業」間之整合為例>,《律師雜誌》第252期,頁23-62。
    連結:
  29. 蘇彥蓉(2008)。《我國資本市場整合之策略與法律問題研究》,國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文。
    連結:
  30. AREEDA, PHILLIP, ET AL., ANTITRUST LAW : AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION Vol. I (3d. ed. 2006).
    連結:
  31. AREEDA, PHILLIP, ET AL., ANTITRUST LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION Vol. IB (3d ed. 2006).
    連結:
  32. Armstrong, Mark, Competition in Two-Sided Markets, 37 RAND J. OF ECON. 3 668 (2006)
    連結:
  33. BAIN, JOE S., BARRIERS TO NEW COMPETITION : THEIR CHARACTER AND CONSEQUENCES IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 3 (1962).
    連結:
  34. Balleisen, Edard & Moss, David, Introduction, in GOVERNMENT AND MARKETS: TOWARD A NEW THEORY OF REGULATION 1-9 (Edward J. Balleisen & David A. Moss eds. 2010).
    連結:
  35. Blake, Harlan M. & Jones, William K., Toward A Three-Dimensional Antitrust Policy, 65 COLUM. L. REV. 422 (1965)
    連結:
  36. Bohm, Franz, Rule of Law in a Market Economy, in GERMANY’S SOCIAL MARKET ECONOMY: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION 46(Alan Peacock & Hans Willgerodt eds. 1989)
    連結:
  37. BORK, ROBERT H., THE ANTITRUST PARADOX: A POLICY AT WAR WITH ITSELF (1993).
    連結:
  38. Buxbaum, Hannah L., German Legal Culture and the Globalization of Competition Law: A Historical Perspective on the Expansion of Private Antitrust Enforcement, 23 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 474 (2005).
    連結:
  39. Carlson, Larry D., The Insurance Exemption from the Antitrust Laws, 57 TEX. L. REV. 1127 (1979).
    連結:
  40. CARNELL, RICHARD SCOTT, ET AL., THE LAW OF BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (4th ed. 2009).
    連結:
  41. Chang, Seung Wha, The Role of Law in Economic Development and Adjustment Process: The Case of Korea, 34 INT'L LAW. 267 (2000).
    連結:
  42. CHOWDHURY, ANIS & ISLAM, IYANATUL, THE NEWLY INDUSTRIALISING ECONOMIES OF EAST ASIA (1993).
    連結:
  43. Clark, Robert Charles., The Regulation of Financial Holding Companies, 92 HARV. L. REV. 789 (1979).
    連結:
  44. COOK, JOHN & KERSE, CHRISTOPHER, EC MERGER CONTROL (5th ed. 2009).
    連結:
  45. Cooter, Robert D., The Theory of Market Mordernization of Law, 16 INT'L REV. L. & ECON. 141 (1996).
    連結:
  46. Crane, Daniel A., Antitrust Modesty, 105 MICH. L. REV. 1193 (2007).
    連結:
  47. Crane, Daniel A., Did We Avoid Historical Failures of Antitrust Enforcement During the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis?, 77 ANTITRUST L.J. 219 (2010)
    連結:
  48. DENTON, GEOFFREY R., ET AL., ECONOMIC PLANNING AND POLICES IN BRITAIN, FRANCE AND GERMANY (1968).
    連結:
  49. Devlin, Alan., A Neo-Chicago Perspective on the Law of Product Tying, 44 AM. BUS. L.J. 521 (2007).
    連結:
  50. Diego Valiante, NYSE Euronext-Deutsche Borse Merger: Let the Dance Go On!, ECMI POLICY BRIEF No.18 (March, 2011), available at http://aei.pitt.edu/30825/1/No_18_Valiante_on_exchange_merger.pdf.
    連結:
  51. DODD–FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, available at at http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf.
    連結:
  52. Dolan, William F., Acquisitions and Mergers: An Overview 2010-2011, 1861 PLI/CORP 385 (2011).
    連結:
  53. Easterbrook, Frank H., The Limits of Antitrust, 63 TEX. L. REV.1 (1984).
    連結:
  54. Easterbrook, Frank H., Workable Antitrust Policy, 84 MICH. L. REV. 1696 (1986).
    連結:
  55. ELHAUGE, EINER & GERADIN, DAMIEN, GLOBAL ANTITRUST LAW AND ECONOMICS (2d ed. 2011).
    連結:
  56. Evans, Christian, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: A Missed Opportunity to Rein in Too-Big-to-Fail Banks, 13 DUQ. BUS. L.J. 43 (2011).
    連結:
  57. Evans, David S., The Antitrust Economics of Multi-Sided Platform Markets, 20 YALE J. ON REG. 325 (2003).
    連結:
  58. Fox, Eleanor M., Toward World Antitrust and Market Access, 91 AM. J. INT'L L. 1 (1997).
    連結:
  59. FOX, ELEANOR M., Trade, Competition, and Intellectual Property - Trips and Its Antitrust Counterparts, 29 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 481 (1996).
    連結:
  60. GAL, MICHAL S., COMPETITION POLICY FOR SMALL MARKET ECONOMIES (2003)
    連結:
  61. Gal, Michal S., Size Does Matter: The Effects of Market Size on Optimal Competition Policy, 74 S. CAL. L. REV. 1437 (2001).
    連結:
  62. Gerber, David J., Competition Law and International Trade: The European Union and the Neo-Liberal Factor, 4 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 37 (1995)
    連結:
  63. Gerber, David J., Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neo-Liberalism, Competition Law and the "New" Europe, 42 AM. J. COMP. L. 25 (1994).
    連結:
  64. GERBER, DAVID J., GLOBAL COMPETITION : LAW, MARKETS, AND GLOBALIZATION 1 (2010)
    連結:
  65. GERBER, DAVID J., LAW AND COMPETITION IN TWENTIETH CENTURY EUROPE: PROTECTING PROMETHEUS (1998).
    連結:
  66. Gifford, Daniel J. & Kudrle, Robert T., Antitrust Approaches to Dynamically Competitive Industries in the United States and the European Union, 7 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 695 (2011)
    連結:
  67. Giocoli, Nicola., Competition Versus Property Rights: American Antitrust Law, the Freiburg School, and the Early Years of European Competition Policy, 5 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 747 (2009).
    連結:
  68. Glaeser, Edward L., Paternalism and Psychology, 73 U. CHI. L. REV. 133(2006).
    連結:
  69. GOODHART, CHARLES, ET AL., FINANCIAL REGULATION-WHY? HOW AND WHERE NOW(1998)
    連結:
  70. Green, Stephen P., Macroeconomic Dilemmas & Alternative State Strategies, in THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSITION IN EAST ASIA : STRONG MARKET, WEAKENING STATE 176-194(Xiaoming Huang ed. 2001).
    連結:
  71. HALEY, JOHN OWEN, ANTITRUST IN GERMANY AND JAPAN: THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS 1947-1998 45 (2001).
    連結:
  72. HARRIS, RICHARD G., TRADE, INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION (1985)
    連結:
  73. Hovenkamp, Herbert., Antitrust and the Costs of Movement, 78 ANTITRUST L.J. 1 (2012).
    連結:
  74. HOVENKAMP, HERBERT, THE ANTITRUST ENTERPRISE: PRINCIPLE AND EXECUTION (2005).
    連結:
  75. Hovenkamp, Herbert., The Marginalist Revolution in Legal Thought, 46 VAND. L. REV. 305 (1993).
    連結:
  76. Huang, Xiaoming, Between the State and the Market : The Problem of Transition in East Asia, in THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSITION IN EAST ASIA : STRONG MARKET, WEAKENING STATE 3-23 (Xiaoming Huang ed. 2001).
    連結:
  77. Huang, Xiaoming, Contested State and Competitive State: Managing the Economy in a Democratic Taiwan, in THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSITION IN EAST ASIA : STRONG MARKET, WEAKENING STATE 139-175(Xiaoming Huang ed. 2001).
    連結:
  78. Iyori, Hiroshi., A Comparison of U.S.-Japan Antitrust Law: Looking at the International Harmonization of Competition Law, 4 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 59 (1995).
    連結:
  79. Jollsa, Christine., et al., A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 STAN. L. REV. 1471 (1998)
    連結:
  80. Karmel, Roberta S., Is the Public Utility Holding Company Act A Model for Breaking Up the Banks That Are Too-Big-to-Fail?, 62 Hastings L.J. 821 (2011).
    連結:
  81. KASERMAN, DAVID L. & MAYO, JOHN W., GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS: THE ECONOMICS OF ANTITRUST AND REGULATION (1995).
    連結:
  82. Kelman, Mark., Behavioral Economics As Part of A Rhetorical Duet: A Response to Jolls, SUNSTEIN, AND THALER, 50 STAN. L. REV. 1577 (1998).
    連結:
  83. KORAH ,VALENTINE, AN INTRODUCTORY GUIDE TO EC COMPETITION LAW AND PRACTICE (8th ed. 2004).
    連結:
  84. Korah, Valentine., The Interface Between Intellectual Property and Antitrust: The European Experience, 69 ANTITRUST L.J. 801 (2002).
    連結:
  85. Kovacic, William E. & Shapiro, Carl, Antitrust Policy: A Century of Economic and Legal Thinking, 14 1 J. OF ECON. PERSPECTIVES 43(2000), available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/century.pdf.
    連結:
  86. Kovacic, William E., Statement Submitted for the Record by Commissioner by William E. Kovacic on the Proposal to Create a Consumer Financial Protection Ageny to the Committee on Energy & Commerce and the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives(July 28, 2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/kovacic/090728stmtrecord.pdf.
    連結:
  87. Kovacic, William E., The Intellectual DNA of Modern U.S. Competition Law for Dominant Firm Conduct: The Chicago/harvard Double Helix, 2007 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 1 (2007).
    連結:
  88. Lande, Robert H., Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged, 50 HASTINGS L.J. 871, (1999)
    連結:
  89. Leslie, Christopher R., Rationality Analysis in Antitrust, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 261 (2010).
    連結:
  90. Liu, Lawrence S., Fostering Competition Law and Policy: A Facade of Taiwan's Political Economy, 1 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 77 (2002).
    連結:
  91. Lopatka, John E., & Page, William H., Economic Authority and the Limits of Expertise in Antitrust Cases, 90 CORNELL L. REV. 617 (2005).
    連結:
  92. Moeschel, Wernhard, Competition Policy from an Ordo Point of View, in GERMAN NEO-LIBERALS AND THE SOCIAL MARKET ECONOMY 142-159(Alan T. Peacock, et al. eds 1989).
    連結:
  93. MOLLE, WILLEM, THE ECONOMICS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION : THEORY, PRACTICE, POLICY (2006).
    連結:
  94. NORTON, JOSEPH J., FINANCIAL SECTOR LAW REFORM IN EMERGING ECONOMIES (2000).
    連結:
  95. OECD, Competition Policy, Industrial Policy and National Champions, DAF/COMP/GF(2009)9(Oct. 19, 2009), available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/44548025.pdf
    連結:
  96. OECD, Roundtable on Competition and Regulation in Retail Banking-- United States, DAF/COMP/WP2/WD(2006)60 (Oct. 2, 2006 ), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/international/docs/Banking_US.pdf
    連結:
  97. Owen, Bruce M., et al., China's Competition Policy Reforms: The Anti-Monopoly Law and Beyond, 75 ANTITRUST L.J. 231 (2008).
    連結:
  98. Peacock, Alan & Willerodt, Hans, Overall View of the German Liberal Movement, in GERMAN NEO-LIBERALS AND THE SOCIAL MARKET ECONOMY 1-15 (Alan T. Peacock, et al. eds 1989).
    連結:
  99. PERITZ, RUDOLPH J.R., COMPETITION POLICY IN AMERICA : HISTORY, RHETORIC, LAW (Rev. ed. 2001).
    連結:
  100. PITOFSKY, ROBERT., ET AL., TRADE REGULATION: CASES AND MATERIALS 2 (2010).
    連結:
  101. Pitofsky, Robert., The Political Content of Antitrust, 127 U. PA. L. REV. 1051 (1979).
    連結:
  102. POMFRET , RICHARD W. T., TRADE POLICIES AND INDUSTRIALIZATION IN A SMALL COUNTRY: THE CASE OF ISRAEL (1976).
    連結:
  103. POSNER, RICHARD A., A FAILURE OF CAPITALISM: THE CRISIS OF '08 AND THE DESCENT INTO DEPRESSION (2009).
    連結:
  104. Posner, Richard A., Rational Choice, Behavioral Economics, and the Law, 50 STAN. L. REV. 1551 (1998).
    連結:
  105. Posner, Richard A., The Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis, 127 U. PA. L. REV. 925 (1979).
    連結:
  106. Priest, George L., The Limits of Antitrust and the Chicago School Tradition, 6 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 1 (2010).
    連結:
  107. Rodriguez, A.E. & Williams, Mark D., The Effectiveness of Proposed Antitrust Programs for Developing Countries, 19 N.C. J. INT'L L. & COM. REG. 209 (1994).
    連結:
  108. Sauter, Wolf., The Economic Constitution of the European Union, 4 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 27 (1998).
    連結:
  109. Shefer, Michael, Guidelines for Legislation on Monopolies and Restrictive Practices in Small Economies, 15 ANTITRUST BULL. 781 (1970)
    連結:
  110. Shelanski, Howard A., The Case for Rebalancing Antitrust and Regulation, 109 MICH. L. REV. 683 (2011).
    連結:
  111. Silva, Andrea Gomes Da & Sansom, Mark., Antitrust Implications of the Financial Crisis: A UK and EU View, 23-SPG ANTITRST 24 (2009).
    連結:
  112. STIGLER, GEORGE J., THE ORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRY (1968)
    連結:
  113. Stucke, Maurice E., Lessons from the Financial Crisis, 77 ANTITRUST L.J. 313 (2010)
    連結:
  114. Stucke, Maurice E., Money, Is That What I Want?: Competition Policy and the Role of Behavioral Economics, 50 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 893 (2010).
    連結:
  115. SUEHIRO, AKIRA & GILL, TOM, CATCH-UP INDUSTRIALIZATION : THE TRAJECTORY AND PROSPECTS OF EAST ASIAN ECONOMIES (2008).
    連結:
  116. Sunstein, Cass R., & Thaler, Richard H., Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 1159 (2003).
    連結:
  117. THALER, RICHARD H. & SUNSTEIN, CASS R., NUDGE: IMPROVING DECISIONS ABOUT HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS (2008).
    連結:
  118. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, CONSUMER HANDBOOK ON ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGES (2011).
    連結:
  119. Tumlir, Jan, Franz Bohm and Economic-constitutional Analysis, in GERMAN NEO-LIBERALS AND THE SOCIAL MARKET ECONOMY 125-141 (Alan T. Peacock, et al. eds 1989)
    連結:
  120. Tor, Avishalom., The Fable of Entry: Bounded Rationality, Market Discipline, and Legal Policy, 101 Mich. L. Rev. 482 (2002).
    連結:
  121. U.S. FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION, THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT: FINAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES xi-xii (U.S. G.P.O. Official government ed. 2011).
    連結:
  122. WADE, ROBERT., GOVERNING THE MARKET: ECONOMIC THEORY AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN EAST ASIAN INDUSTRIALIZATION (1990).
    連結:
  123. Wade, Robert, State Intervention in “Outward looking” Development: Neoclassical Theory and Taiwanese Practice , in DEVELOPMENTAL STATES IN EAST ASIA 30-67 (Gordon White ed. 1988).
    連結:
  124. Webel, Baird, Congressional Research Service[CRS], R41350, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Issues and Summary (July, 29, 2010), http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/232/CRS-R41350.pdf
    連結:
  125. White, Gordon, State and Market in China's Socialist Industrilisation, in DEVELOPMENTAL STATES IN EAST ASIA 153-192 (Gordon White ed. 1988).
    連結:
  126. White, Gordon & Wade, Robert, Developmental States and Markets in East Asia: An Introduction , in DEVELOPMENTAL STATES IN EAST ASIA 1-29 (Gordon White ed. 1988)
    連結:
  127. Wilks, Stephen & Mcgowan, Lee, Competition Policy in the European Union: Creating a Federal Agency, in COMPARATIVE COMPETITION POLICY: NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN A GLOBAL MARKET 225-267(G. Bruce Doern & Stephen Wilks eds. 1996).
    連結:
  128. WILLIAMS, MARK, COMPETITION POLICY AND LAW IN CHINA, HONG KONG, AND TAIWAN (2005).
    連結:
  129. WILLIAMSON, OLIVER E., MARKETS AND HIERARCHIES: ANALYSIS AND ANTITRUST IMPLICATIONS (1975).
    連結:
  130. Wilmarth, Jr. Arthur E., Reforming Financial Regulation to Address the Too-Big-to-Fail Problem, 35 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 707 (2010)
    連結:
  131. Wilmarth, Jr. Arthur E., The Dodd-Frank Act: A Flawed and Inadequate Response to the Too-Big-to-Fail Problem, 89 OR. L. REV. 951 (2011).
    連結:
  132. WORLD BANK, EAST ASIA : THE ROAD TO RECOVERY (1998)
    連結:
  133. WORLD BANK, THE EAST ASIAN MIRACLE : ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PUBLIC POLICY (1993)
    連結:
  134. YUSUF, SHAHID. & EVENETT, SIMON J., CAN EAST ASIA COMPETE? : INNOVATION FOR GLOBAL MARKETS (2002).
    連結:
  135. Arndt Teichmann(1997)吳秀明譯。<支配市場事業及市場強勢事業之阻礙競爭與差別待遇行為>,《公平交易季刊》第5卷第4期,頁137-150。
  136. F.M. Scherer(2001)劉建勳譯。<競爭政策執行的百年歷程>,《公平交易季刊》第9卷第1期,頁113-121。
  137. 丁麗仙(1988)。《競爭法規之除外適用》,國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
  138. 王 顥(2006)。《歐盟競爭法對保險業之規範》,國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文。
  139. 王文宇(2001)。<金融機構跨業經營相關法律問題>,《 實用稅務》 第318 期,頁16-24。
  140. 王文宇(2011)。<2010臺灣法律發展回顧-金融法>,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,第40卷特刊,頁1945-1993。
  141. 王文宇、王志誠等(2002)。<從金融市場之演變論公平交易法之規範>,收錄於氏著《新世紀經濟法制之建構與挑戰-廖義男教授六秩誕辰祝壽論文集》,臺北:元照。
  142. 王文宇、余雪明(2000)。《銀行跨業經營法制之研究》,行政院經濟建設委員會委託專案研究報告,國立台灣大學法律學院執行。
  143. 王以國(2003)。《論公平交易法中調和競爭政策與產業管制之機制-以第四十六條之修正為中心》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
  144. 王志誠(2000)。<金融控股公司之經營規範與監理機制>,《政大法學評論》第64期,頁153-185。
  145. 王志誠(2005)。<金控集團之競爭規範>,《政大法學評論》第84期,頁89-161。
  146. 王志誠(2009)。<銀行業經營危機之處理與因應機制>,《月旦法學雜誌》第165期,頁5-28。
  147. 王志誠(2010)。<銀行業之投資規範-銀行業與產業之分合>,《月旦法學雜誌》第182期,頁223-237。
  148. 王志誠、李智仁(2008)。<從健全金融機構管理之角度論公股管理法制化之可能性>,《存款保險資訊季刊》第21卷第1期,頁106-148。
  149. 石世豪(2003)。<第一條>,《公平交易法之註釋研究系列(一) 第一條至第十七條》,行政院公平交易委員會92年度合作研究報告。
  150. 朱雲鵬(1995)。《競爭政策與產業政策互動關係之研究》,行政院公平交易委員會委託研究計畫。
  151. 行政院公平交易委員會(2004)。《公平交易法行政裁判案例彙編93年下冊》。
  152. 行政院公平交易委員會(2003)。《公平交易法修法沿革彙編(一)》。
  153. 行政院公平交易委員會(2003)。《公平交易法修法沿革彙編(二)》。
  154. 江朝國(2006)。<金融控股公司法下之保險子公司投資相關事宜>,《臺灣本土法學雜誌》第78期,頁131-138。
  155. 何之邁(2003),<第六條>,《公平交易法之註釋研究系列(一)第一條至第十七條》,行政院公平交易委員會92年度合作研究報告。
  156. 吳秀明(2004)。<從依賴性理論探討相對市場優勢地位>,收錄於氏著《競爭法制之發韌與展開》,臺北:元照。
  157. 吳秀明(2004)。<支配市場事業及市場強勢事業之阻礙競爭與差別待遇行為>,收錄於氏著《競爭法之發韌與展開》,臺北:元照。
  158. 吳秀明(2010)。<憲法與我國經濟部門之基本秩序>,收錄於氏著《競爭法研究》,臺北:元照。
  159. 吳秀明(2010)。<競爭法上之概括條款>,收錄於氏著《競爭法研究》,臺北:元照。
  160. 吳孟珊(1999)。《金融自由化下美國銀行控股公司(Bank Holding Company)監理相關法規之研究》,國立臺灣大學三民主義研究所碩士論文。
  161. 李宗賓(1999)。<美國金融現代化之立法爭議>,《國際金融參考資料》第44輯,頁31-37。
  162. 杜怡靜(2005)。<金融業者於金融商品販賣時之說明義務>,《月旦法學雜誌》第126期,頁5-18。
  163. 李智仁(2004)。<試論金融控股公司之監理問題>,《 存款保險資訊季刊 》第17卷第3期,頁177-203。
  164. 李憲佐(1999)。<競爭政策與企業經營關係>,收錄於氏著《商事法暨財經法論文集-王仁宏教授六十歲生日祝賀論文集》,臺北:元照。
  165. 阮品嘉(2003)。<金融跨業經營法制上的選擇及其業務範圍>,《月旦法學雜誌》第92期,頁151-166。
  166. 林仁光(2005)。<由企業併購規範制度觀察二次金融改革>,《台灣本土法學雜誌》第77期,頁194-201。
  167. 林仁光(2009)。<金融危機與轉機-談金融服務業之整合規範>,《月旦法學雜誌》第168期,頁93-105。
  168. 林育廷(2011)。<新金融爭端的有效解決-替代性金融爭端解決機制之過去、現在與未來>,《月旦法學雜誌》第199期,頁26-40。
  169. 林鐘雄(1993)。《貨幣銀行學》,臺北:三民。
  170. 邵慶平(2009)。<金融危機的形成、處理機制與法制基礎-對美國次級房貸金融危機的觀察>,《月旦法學雜誌》第165期,頁29-45。
  171. 施錦村(2011)。<事業多角化結合案件類型結構分析-以組合效果為中心>,《公平交易季刊》第19卷第1期,頁155-187。
  172. 胡祖舜(2008)。《從美國反托拉斯思維的演進看公平會的執法》,行政院公平交易委員會97年度研究發展報告。
  173. 殷乃平等(1995)。《金融防火強的設立與我國外來銀行體系之發展》,行政院經建會委託報告。
  174. 涂予尹(2001)。《我國銀行管制的法政策考察-成本效益分析的觀點》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
  175. 張玉山、李員淳(2000)。<競爭政策與管制政策之取捨及協調:以公用事業為例>,收錄於《第八屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文》。
  176. 梁哲瑋(1996)。<公平交易法第二十四條對定型化契約之監控與公平交易委員會之行業導正>,《公平交易季刊》第4卷第2期,頁39-62。
  177. 梁哲瑋(2000)。《足以影響交易秩序之欺罔或顯失公平之規範理論與實務檢討》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
  178. 莊春發(1998)。<競爭概念的發展、演變與反托拉斯法政策>,《公平交易季刊》第6卷第1期頁29-89。
  179. 莊春發(2000)。<競爭政策與產業政策之間的替代與互補>,收錄於《第八屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文》。
  180. 莊春發(2002)。<競爭的內涵與公平交易法規範>,《公平交易季刊》第10卷第3期,頁1-44。
  181. 陳志民(2011)。,《公平交易季刊》第19 卷第1期,頁1-64。
  182. 陳志龍(2007)。<探討金融集團之法制特色>,《月旦法學雜誌》第144期,頁54-66。
  183. 陳俊廷(2004)。《我國結合規範之研究-以審理程序及實體標準為中心》,國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。
  184. 陳洸岳(2011)。<金融消費者保護法下業者損害賠償責任初探>,《月旦法學雜誌》第199期,頁5-25。
  185. 郭時維(2006)。<淺談財務會計準則第三十四號公報>,《華南金控》第39期,頁6-12。
  186. 陳凱娟(2010)。《結合補救制度從美國法的認知-對公平交易法適用上之探討與啟示》,輔仁大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。
  187. 陳銘祥(1999)。<電信規範體制之檢討>,《經社法制論叢》第23期,頁61-81。
  188. 陳櫻琴(2000)。<國家競爭力與產業法制-臺灣高科技產業與競爭>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法與經濟政策》,臺北:翰蘆。
  189. 單驥、何之邁、吳秀明(1999)。《從依賴性理論探討相對市場優勢地位-以公平法立場之研析適用》,1999年行政院公平交易委員會合作研究計畫六。
  190. 彭金隆(2004)。《金融控股公司法制監理與經營策略》,臺北:智勝文化。
  191. 曾宛如(2009)。<金融海嘯下金融監理之反思>,《月旦法學雜誌》第168期,頁81-92。
  192. 曾國列等(1995)。《金融自由化所衍生之銀行監理問題之探討-美、日經驗對我國之啟示》,1995年財政部研究發展專題報告。
  193. 曾國烈(2003)。<我國金融改革及法規制定過程>,《存款保險季刊》第16卷第3期,頁1-13。
  194. 黃美瑛、盧彥瑋(2008),<臺灣金融業結合案例之經濟效益評估-金控公司範疇經濟衡量>,《公平交易季刊》第16卷第4期,頁31-66。
  195. 黃銘傑(2002)。<經濟法基本性格論>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與實際-不同意見書》,臺北:學林。
  196. 黃銘傑(2005)。<第四十六條>,《公平交易法之註釋研究系列(三)》,2005年公平交易委員會合作研究計畫。
  197. 黃銘傑(2010)。<公平交易法執行機制之現狀與未來>,《月旦法學雜誌》第186期,頁80-98。
  198. 楊敬先(1999)。《商業銀行投資股票之規範》,國立中興大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
  199. 葉志良(1999)。《電信與有線電視在媒介整合下相關管制規範之研究》,東吳大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
  200. 葉逸如(2005)。 <金融控股公司共同行銷之規範-以競爭法為中心>,《公平交易季刊》第14卷第2期,頁71-123。
  201. 詹鎮榮(2011)。<行政處分附款法制之傳統與革新-從公平交易法上之結合管制出發>,《公平交易季刊》第19卷第4期,頁1-57。
  202. 廖義男(1994)。<公平交易法之立法目的與保護之法益>,收錄於氏著《公平交易之釋論與實務》,臺北:三民。
  203. 廖義男(1995)。<公平交易法之立法經過>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與立法》,臺北:三民。
  204. 廖義男(1995)。<反托拉斯法不容擱置>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與立法》,臺北:三民。
  205. 廖義男(1995)。<憲法與競爭秩序之維護>,收錄於氏著《公平交易法之理論與立法》,臺北:三民。
  206. 廖義男(1997)。《行政法院裁判之評析-公平交易法實務與行政法院裁判之評析》,國科會專題研究計畫。
  207. 趙永祥、楊福清(2001)。<金融機構合併問題之探討>,《華醫學報》第15期,頁57-80。
  208. 趙楊清(1999)。<競爭政策與解除管制>,《公平交易季刊》第7卷第1期,頁137-148。
  209. 劉孔中(1995)。<公平交易法與消費者保護法之比較研究>,《人文及社會科學集刊》第7卷第2期,頁1-19。
  210. 劉其昌(2010)。<金融控股公司法制定案之分析>,《臺灣經濟金融月刊》第37卷第10期,頁9-33。
  211. 劉彥玲(2005)。《金融機構跨業經營之問題-試論金融控股公司之功能與侷限》,輔仁大學法律學系碩士論文。
  212. 劉紹樑(2001)。<我國金融機構融合態勢與法制之探討>,《風險管理》第8期,頁59-76。
  213. 劉紹樑(2004)。<建構競爭法制-從大陸經驗談起>,《月旦民商法雜誌》第3期,頁5-19。
  214. 劉連煜(2002)。<符合世界潮流趨勢之公平交易法有關結合規範之修正-事前申報異議制之採用>,《月旦法學雜誌》第83期,頁266-271。
  215. 劉華美(2001)。<論結合管制>,《月旦法學雜誌》第69期,頁81-100。
  216. 蔡昌憲(2010)。<美國金融消費者保護規範之展望-以消費者金融保護局之創設為中心>,《月旦財經法雜誌》第23期,頁187-219。
  217. 蔡朝安、謝文欽(2004)。<我國與外國有關商業行轉投資之規範>,《金管法令》,第3期,頁24-33
  218. 戴東雄等(1994)。《公平交易法第四十六條第一項之探討》,1992年公平會委託研究計畫。
  219. 戴敬哲(2007)。<我國金控跨業經營規範檢討-以金控公司為重心>,《月旦法學雜誌》第144期,頁94-104。
  220. 謝易宏(2008)。<金融產業與公平競爭>,《財經法制新時代-賴源河教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集》,臺北:元照。
  221. 謝易宏(2009)。<潰敗金融與管制迷思-簡評美國二○○八年金融改革>,《月旦法學雜誌》第164期,頁186-225。
  222. 謝嘉玲(2007)。《銀行銷售投資型保險相關法律問題之研究》,國立中正大學財經法律學研究所碩士論文。
  223. 謝德宗(1994)。《貨幣銀行學-理論與實際》,臺北:三民。
  224. 顏雅倫(2001)。《我國結合管制之檢討與前瞻-以金融產業之結合為例》,國立台灣大學法律學院碩士論文。
  225. 顏雅倫,楊志文(2012),<從德國交易所(Deutshe Borse)與紐約泛歐交易所(NYSE Euronext)合併案看交易所結合風潮的反托拉斯法議題>,《證交資料》第603期,頁45-66。
  226. 蘇永欽(1999)。<自由化、解除管制與公平交易法>,收錄於氏著《跨越自治與管制》,臺北:五南。
  227. 蘇永欽(1999)。<競爭法-台灣法律體系與經濟生活的新生事物>,收錄於氏著《跨越自治與管制》,臺北:五南。
  228. 蘇永欽(2002)。<公平交易法第四六條修正後的適用問題>,收錄於氏著《走入新世紀的私法自治》,臺北:元照。
  229. 蘇永欽、范建得(2000)。《公平交易法第四十六條修正後之適用問題研究》,行政院公平交易委員會89年度合作研究計畫。
  230. 英文文獻
  231. American Bar Association, Interview with J. Thomas Rosch, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, 23 ANTITRUST 32, 41 (2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/090126abainterview.PDF.
  232. Anderson Alan M., Insurance and Antitrust Law: The Mcarran-Ferguson Act and Beyond, 25 WM. & MARY L. REV. 81 (1983).
  233. A peaceful Europe – the beginnings of cooperation, EUROPEAN UNION, http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm(last visited December 9, 2011).
  234. Arnold, Thomas M. & Stevens, Jerry L., Mixed Agendas and Government Regulation of Business: Can We Clean Up the Mess?, 45 U. RICH. L. REV. 1059 (2011).
  235. BAEL, VAN & BELLIS, COMPETITION LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (4th ed.2 005).
  236. Bank Merger Competitive Review - Introduction and Overview (1995), ), avaialbe at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/6472.pdf
  237. Barnett, Thomas O., Merger Review: A Quest For Efficency (2007)
  238. Barr, Michael S, et al., The Case for Behaviorally Informed Regulation, in NEW PERSPECTIVES ON REGULATION 28(David Moss & John Cisternino eds. 2009).
  239. Bernanke, Ben S., Chairman, Financial Reform to Address Systemic Risk, Speech at the Council on Foreign Relations , BD. OF GOVERNORS OF FED. RESERVE SYS. (Mar. 10, 2009) , http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20090310a.htm
  240. Bloom, Margaret., The U.S. and Eu Move Towards Substantial Antitrust Convergence on Consumer Welfare Based Enforcement, 19-SUM ANTITRUST 18 (2005)
  241. Bohm, Franz et al., The Ordo Manifesto of 1936, in GERMANY’S SOCIAL MARKET ECONOMY: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION 15-25(Alan Peacock & Hans Willgerodt eds. 1989).
  242. Brief Summary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dodd_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf. (last visited Aug. 2, 2012)
  243. BUTTIGIEG, EUGENE, COMPETITION LAW : SAFEGUARDING THE CONSUMER INTEREST : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF US ANTITRUST LAW AND EC COMPETITION LAW (2009).
  244. Cantillon, Estelle & Yin, Pai-Ling, Competition between Exchanges: A Research Agenda (Nov. 2010), Forthcoming INT’L J. OF INDUS. ORG., at 14, http://www.ecares.org/ecare/personal/cantillon/web/Cantillon-Yin-IJIO.pdf.
  245. Carpenter, David H., CRS, R40530, Insolvency of Systemically Significant Financial Companies(SSFCs): Bankruptcy vs. Conservatorship/Receivership (Apr. 20, 2009) ,http://www.stlouisfed.org/timeline/pdf/crs2009-04-20.pdf.
  246. Comm’n of The European Communities, Sector Inquiry Under Article 17 Of Regulation (Ec) No 1/2003 On Retail Banking (Final Report) , at 3, COM(2007) 33 final(Jan.1, 2007), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0033:FIN:EN:PDF
  247. Communication from Japan, Introduction of Competition Laws and Policies and the Relationship of these to National Development Policies, WT/WGTCP/W/176(Dec. 13, 2001).
  248. Communication from the Republic of Korea, The Role of Competition Policy in the Process of Economic Development, WT/WGTCP/W/166(June 26, 2001).
  249. Communication from Trinidad and Tobago, Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, WT/WGTCP/W/143 (Aug. 2, 2000).
  250. Competitive Impact Statement of Plaintiff, United States v.Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, No.1:11-cv-02280(D. for the Dist. of Columbia Dec. 22, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f278500/278554.pdf.
  251. Complaint of Plaintiff, United States v.Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, No.1:11-cv-02280(D. for the Dist. of Columbia Dec. 22, 2011), availablea at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f278500/278545.pdf.
  252. Crane, Daniel A., Chicago, Post-Chicago, and Neo-Chicago, 76 U. CHI. L. REV. 1911 (2009).
  253. Crane, Daniel A., Rules Versus Standards in Antitrust Adjudication, 64 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 49 (2007).
  254. CRANE, DANIEL A., THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT (2011).
  255. DEMSETZ, HAROLD, ECONOMIC, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL DIMENSIONS OF COMPETITION (1982).
  256. Deutsche Borse and NYSE Euronext-Why the marriage failed, THE ECONOMIST (Feb 1, 2012, 5:55 PM), http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/deutsche-b%C3%B6rse-and-nyse-euronext.
  257. Devlin, Alan & Jacobs, Michael., Antitrust Divergence and the Limits of Economics, 104 NW. U. L. REV. 253 (2010).
  258. Devlin, Alan., Antitrust in an Era of Market Failure, 33 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 557 (2010).
  259. Dogan, Stacey L. & Lemley, Mark A., Antitrust Law and Regulatory Gaming, 87 TEX. L. REV. 685 (2009).
  260. Endo, Seiji, The Japanese State: Surviving Neoliberal Political Economy, in THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSITIO
  261. EU Treaties, EUROPEAN UNION, http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm (last visited Aug. 13, 2012)
  262. Europe without frontiers, EUROPEAN UNION, http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1990-1999/index_en.htm(last visited Aug. 13, 2012)
  263. European Comm’n, Issues Paper of Competition in EU Securities Trading and Post-trading(May 24, 2006), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/financial_services/securities_trading.pdf.
  264. Evans, David S. & Padilla, A. Jorge., Designing Antitrust Rules for Assessing Unilateral Practices: A Neo-Chicago Approach, 72 U. CHI. L. REV. 73 (2005).
  265. Evenett, Simon J., Would Enforcing Competition Law Compromise Industry Policy Objectives? (7 Feb. 7, 2005), www.alexandria.unisg.ch/export/DL/22317.pdf(last visited Aug. 12, 2012).
  266. FEJO, JENS, MONOPOLY LAW AND MARKET : STUDIES OF EC COMPETITION LAW WITH US AMERICAN ANTITRUST LAW AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE AND SUPPORTED BY BASIC MARKET ECONOMICS (1990).
  267. Fiebig, Andre., Crisis Cartels and the Triumph of Industrial Policy over Competition Law in Europe, 25 Brook. J. INT'L L . 607 (1999).
  268. Fiebig, Andre., Modernization of European Competition Law As A Form of Convergence, 19 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 63 (2005).
  269. Foer, Albert A., An Introduction to the American Antitrust Institute's 11th Annual National Conference: Are the Boundaries Between Public and Private in Transition?, 89 OR. L. REV. 753 (2011).
  270. Foer, Albert A., Preserving Competition After the Meltdown, THE ONLINE MAGZINE FOR GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY [GCP] (Dec. 2008), http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/files/bank%20meltdown%20article%2012-16-08_121520082145.pdf(last vsited Aug. 12, 4:30 PM, 2012).
  271. Foster, Sharon E., Systemic Financial-Service Institutions and Monopoly Power, 60 CATH. U. L. REV. 357 (2011).
  272. Foster, Sharon E., Too Big to Fail-Too Small to Compete: Systemic Risk Should Be Addressed Through Antitrust Law but Such A Solution Will Only Work If It Is Applied on an International Basis, 22 FLA. J. INT'L L. 31 (2010).
  273. Fox, Eleanor M., Monopolization and Dominance in the United States and the European Community: Efficiency, OPPORTUNITY, AND FAIRNESS, 61 NOTRE DAME LAW. 981 (1986).
  274. Further Expansion, EUROPEAN UNION, http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/2000-2009/index_en.htm(last visited Aug. 13, 2012)
  275. Gal, Michal S., Antitrust in A Globalized Economy: The Unique Enforcement Challenges Faced by Small and Developing Jurisdictions, 33 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1 (2009).
  276. Generally Intervention by Comm’r Neelie Kroes, EP ECON Coordinators Meeting,Neelie Kroes, Competition Aspects of EU Securities Trading and Post Trading (July 11, 2006), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/financial_services/speech11072006.pdf.
  277. Geradin, Damien., et al., Treaties on European Union Competition Law and Economics, Chapter I-Introduction (Oct. 7, 2010)(unpublished manuscript)
  278. Gottsa, Ilene Knable. et al., Nurture and Reaching the Age of Reason: The U.S./E.U. Treatment of Transatlantic Merger, 61 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 453 (2005).
  279. Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy COM (96) 721 final (Jan. 22, 1997), available at http://aei.pitt.edu/1147/1/verticle_restraints_gp_COM_96_721.pdf.
  280. Haley, John O., Competition Law for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Community: Designing Shoes for Many Sizes, 1 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 1 (2002).
  281. Haley, John O., Competition Policy for East Asia, 3 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 277 (2004).
  282. Haris, Apostolopoulos, Anti-Competitive Abuse of Ip Rights and Compulsory Licensing Through the International Dimension of the Trips Agreement and the Stockholm Proposal for Its Amendment, 6 RICH. J. GLOBAL L. & BUS.265, (2007).
  283. Harry First, Antitrust in Japan: The Original Intent, 9 PAC. RIM L. & POL'Y J. 1 (2000).
  284. Haucap, Justus, Bounded Rationality and Competition Policy, in COMPETITION POLICY AND THE ECONOMIC APPROACH: FOUNDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS (Josef Drexl, et al eds., 2011).
  285. HAYAMI, YUJIRO & GODO, YOSHIHISA, DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS : FROM THE POVERTY TO THE WEALTH OF NATIONS (3d ed. 2005).
  286. Hochstadt, Eric S., The Brown Shoe of European Union Competition Law, 24 CARDOZO L. REV. 287 (2002).
  287. HOVENKAMP, HERBERT, ECONOMICS AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW (1985).
  288. HOVENKAMP, HERBERT, FEDERAL ANTITRUST POLICY: THE LAW OF COMPETITION AND ITS PRACTICE (4th ed. 2011)
  289. Hovenkamp, Herbert., Post-Chicago Antitrust: A Review and Critique, 2001 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 257 (2001).
  290. Hovenkamp, Herbert., United States Competition Policy in Crisis: 1890-1955, 94 MINN. L. REV. 311 (2009).
  291. Iyori, Hiroshi., Competition Policy and Government Intervention in Developing Countries: An Examination of Japanese Economic Development, 1 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 35 (2002).
  292. Jacksona, Howell E. & Burlingameaa, Laurie., Kickbacks or Compensation: The Case of Yield Spread Premiums, 12 STAN. J.L. BUS. & FIN. 289 (2007).
  293. JALAN, BIMAL., PROBLEMS AND POLITICS IN SMALL ECONOMIES (1982).
  294. Jebsen, Per. & Stevens, Robert., Assumptions, Goals and Dominant Undertakings: The Regulation of Competition Under Article 86 of the European Union, 64 ANTITRUST L.J. 443 (1996).
  295. Jiang, Xiaojuan., Promoting Competition and Maintaining Monopoly: Dual Functions of Chinese Industrial Policies During Economic Transition, 1 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 49 (2002)
  296. Jin, Paul., Turning Competition on Its Head: Economic Analysis of the Ec's Decision to Bar the Ge-Honeywell Merger, 23 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 187, (2002)
  297. Jung, Youngjin. & Chang, Seung Wha., Korea's Competition Law and Policies in Perspective, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 687 (2006).
  298. Kareff, Scott M., Tetra Pak International Sa v. Commission (Tetra Pak II): The European Approach to Monopoly Leveraging, 28 LAW & POL'Y INT'L BUS. 549 (1997).
  299. Kauper, Thomas E., Merger Control in the United States and the European Union: Some Observations, 74 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 305 (2000).
  300. Khan, Mushtaq H. & Blankenburg, Stephanie, The Political Economy of Industrial Policy in Asia and Latin American, in INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT : THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CAPABILITIES ACCUMULATION 336-377(Mario Cimoli, et al eds. 2009).
  301. KHEMANI, R.S. & SHAPIRO, D. M. , OECD, GLOSSARY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION ECONOMICS AND COMPETITION LAW (1993), available at http://www.oecd.org/regreform/liberalisationandcompetitioninterventioninregulatedsectors/2376087.pdf.
  302. Khemani, R.S. Merger Policy in Small vs. Large Economies, in CANADIAN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY AT THE CENTENARY 205-223 (R. S. Khemani, et al., 1991).
  303. Kolasky, William J., Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen., Antitrust Div.U.S. Dep’t of Justice, United States and European Competition Policy: Are There More Differences than We Care To Admit?, Address Before the European Policy Center, Brussels, Belgium (Apr. 10, 2002), at 6, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/10999.pdf
  304. Kovacic, William E., Merger Enforcement in Transition: Antitrust Controls on Acquisitions in Emerging Economies, 66 U. CIN. L. REV. 1075 (1998).
  305. Kroes, Neelie, Member of the European Comm’n in charge of Competition Policy, Preliminary Thoughts on Policy Review of Article 82, Speech at the Fordham Corporate Law Institute (Sept. 23, 2005), at 3, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/537&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  306. Lao, Marina, Editor's Note: Symposium on the Effect of Economic Crises on Antitrust Policy, 77 ANTITRUST L.J. 213 (2010).
  307. Lee, Hyun-Hoon, Korea’s Competition Policy and Its Application to Other Asia Economics , in COMPETITION POLICY AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS IN MAJOR ASIAN ECONOMIES 89 (Van Hoa Ed. Tran ed. 2003).
  308. Lehr, Stefan & Hempel, Rolf, Act against Restraints of Competition to be amended, INTERNATIONAL LAW OFFICE(August 11, 2011)(last visited Aug. 14, 2012), http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=68d7670b-4c1d-4760-a6bb-99801e4830db.
  309. Lowe, Philip, Dir. Gen. Dg Competition, How Different is EU Anti-Trust? A Route Map for Advisors, An Overivew of EU Competition Law and Policy on Commercial Practice, 10 (October 16, 2003), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2003_038_en.pdf.
  310. Lucas, John P., Pruning the Antitrust Tree: Credit Suisse Securities (Usa) LLC v. Billing and the Immunization of the Securities Industry from Antitrust Liability, 59 MERCER L. REV. 803 (2008).
  311. Macey, Jonathan R. & Holdcroft, Jr. James P., Failure Is an Option: An Ersatz-Antitrust Approach to Financial Regulation, 120 YALE L.J. 1368 (2011).
  312. MALINAUSKAITE, JURGITA, MERGER CONTROL IN POST-COMMUNIST COUNTRIES: EC MERGER REGULATION IN SMALL MARKET ECONOMIES (2011).
  313. Markham, Jr. Jesse W., Lessons for Competition Law from the Economic Crisis: The Prospect for Antitrust Responses to the "Too-Big-to-Fail" Phenomenon, 16 FORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN. L. 261 (2011).
  314. Masuyama, Seiichi, The Evolving Nature of Industrial Policy in East Asia: Liberalization, Upgrading, and Integration, in INDUSTRIAL POLICIES IN EAST ASIA 3-18(Seiichi Masuyama, et al. eds. 1997).
  315. Matsushita, Mitsuo., The Intersection of Industrial Policy and Competition: The Japanese Experience, 72 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 477 (1996).
  316. Meese, Alan J., Price Theory and Vertical Restraints: A Misunderstood Relation, 45 UCLA L. REV. 143 (1997).
  317. Memorandum, European Comm’n, Competition: Final Report of the Sector Inquiry into Business Insurance - Frequently Asked Questions(Sep. 25, 2007), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?aged=0&format=HTML&guiLanguage=en&language=EN&reference=MEMO/07/382.
  318. Memorandum, European Comm’n, Competition: Final Report on Retail Banking Inquiry-Frequently Asked Questions(January, 31 2007), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/40&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  319. Mierzewski, Michael. et. al., FTC and DOJ Release Proposed Revisions to Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Implications for Bank Mergers, 127 BANKING L.J. 869 (2010)
  320. Monti, Mario, EU Competition Policy, in ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORDHAM CORPORATE LAW INSTITUTE: INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LAW & POLICY 87-96(Barry E. Hawk ed. 2003) .
  321. Monti, Mario, European Comm’r for Competition Matters, The Future for Competition Policy in the European Union, at Merchant Taylor's Hall, London (July 9, 2001), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/01/340&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  322. Nannes, John M., Statement Before the Comm. on the Judiciary U.S. H.R. concerning Mergers in the Fin. Serv. Indus. (June 3, 1998), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/testimony/1787.pdf
  323. N IN EAST ASIA : STRONG MARKET, WEAKENING STATE 112-135(Xiaoming Huang ed. 2001).
  324. OECD, Competition and Financial Markets-Key Findings (2009), available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/43067294.pdf.
  325. OECD, OECD Global Forum on Competition, Competition Policy In Small Economies—Korea, CCNM/GF/COMP/WD(2003)39(Feb. 6, 2003), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/10/2486790.pdf.
  326. OECD, OECD Global Forum on Competition, Small Economies and Competition Policy -- Note by the Secretariat, CCNM/GF/COMP(2003)5 (Feb 7, 2003), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/13/2486724.pdf.
  327. OECD, OECD Global Forum on Competition, Small Economies and Competition Policy-New Zealand, CCNM/GF/COMP/WD(2003)29(Jan 31, 2003), available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/prosecutionandlawenforcement/2486698.pdf.
  328. OECD, OECD Global Forum on Competition, Small Economies and Competition Policy: A Background Paper, CCNM/GF/COMP(2003)4(Feb 5, 2003), available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/prosecutionandlawenforcement/2486546.pdf.
  329. OECD, Antitrust Issues Involving Minority Shareholding and Interlocking Directorates, DAF/COMP(2008)30(Dec. 2, 2008), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/38/41774055.pdf.
  330. Owen, Bruce M., Imported Antitrust Competition Policy for Small Market Economies, Michal S. Gal. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Pp. 336. $45.00., 21 YALE J. ON REG. 441 (2004).
  331. Pamela, Hon. & Harbour, Jones, Developments in Competition Law in the European Union and the United States: Harmony and Conflict, 19-SPG INT'L L. PRACTICUM 3.
  332. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, International Competition Rules for Governments and for Private Business: A "Trade Law Approach" for Linking Trade and Competition Rules in the WTO, 72 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 545 (1996).
  333. Press Release, European Comm’n, Antitrust: Commission Probes Credit Default Swaps Market (Apr. 29, 2011), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/509&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  334. Press Release, European Comm’n, Mergers: Commission Blocks Proposed Merger between Deutsche Borse and NYSE Euronext(Feb. 1, 2012), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/94&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  335. POSNER, RICHARD A., ANTITRUST LAW (2d ed. 2001)
  336. Posner, Richard A., Treating Financial Consumers as Consenting Adults, THE WALL STREET J. (July 22, 2009, 11:41 PM), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574302213213148166.html(last vistited Aug.13, 2012)
  337. Powrie, Erin K., Too Big to Fail" Is Too Big: Why the Mccarran-Ferguson Exemption to Federal Antitrust Enforcement of Insurance Is Past Its Prime, 63 RUTGERS L. REV. 359 (2010).
  338. Press Release, Remarks by Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Michael Barr at the Financial Times Global Finance Forum on "Reforming the Global Financial System"(Dec., 2, 2010), U.S. DEP’T OF THE TREASURY, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg986.aspx.
  339. [Proposed] Final Judgment of Plaintiff, United States v.Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, No.1:11-cv-02280(D. for the Dist. of Columbia Dec. 22, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f278500/278552.pdf.
  340. Reeves, Amanda P. & Stucke, Maurice E., Behavioral Antitrust, 86 IND. L.J. 1527, (2011).
  341. Reverse Mortgages: Get the Facts Before Cashing in on Your Home’s Equity, FAIR TRADE COMMISSION(MAR. 2011), http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea13.shtm. (last visited Aug.13 2012)
  342. Richa, Jonathan M. & Scrivena, Thomas G., Bank Consolidation Caused By The Financial Crisis: How Should The Antitrust Division Review “Shotgun Marriages”?, 8-DEC ANTITRUST SOURCE 1 (2008).
  343. Richa, Jonathon M. & Scriven, Thomas G., DoJ Fast-Track Options Speed Banking Antitrust Reviews, AMERICAN BANKER(May 1, 2009, 1:00AM ET), at http://www.americanbanker.com/magazine/119_5/-378012-1.html.
  344. Robinson, Constance K., Dir. of Operations, Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bank Mergers and Antitrust, Address Before the 31st Annual Banking Law Inst. (May 30, 1996), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/1003.pdf
  345. Rodriguez, A.E. & Coate, Malcolm B., Limits to Antitrust Policy for Reforming Economies, 18 HOUS. J. INT'L L. 311(1996).
  346. Rosch , J. Thomas, Comm’r, Fed. Trade Comm’n , Behavioral Economics: Observations Regarding Issues that Lie Ahead, Remarks Before the Vienna Competition Conference(June 9, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/100609viennaremarks.pdf.
  347. Rosch, J. Thomas, Comm’r, Federal Trade Comm’n, Implications of the Financial Meltdown for the FTC, Remarks at New York Bar Association Annual Dinner(Jan. 29, 2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/090129financialcrisisnybarspeech.pdf.
  348. Rosch, J. Thomas, Comm’r, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Managing Irrationality: Some Observations on Behavioral Economics and the Creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Remarks at Conference on the Regulation of Consumer Financial Products 9 (Jan. 6, 2010) available at http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/100106financial-products.pdf.
  349. Ryan, Stephen, et al., Financial Services, in THE EC LAW OF COMPETITION 1305-1360(Jonathan Faull & Ali Nikpay, eds., 2d ed. 2007).
  350. San, Gee & Lo, Changfa, A Decade of Fair Trade Law Legislation and Its Enforcement in the Republic of China, in INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE COMPETITION LAWS AND POLICIES 81(Yang-Ching Chao, et al. eds. 2001).
  351. Scherer, F. M., Some Principles for Post-Chicago Antitrust Analysis, 52 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 5 (2001).
  352. Shapiro, Carl, Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen, for Econ.,Antitrust Div.,U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Competition Policy in Distressed Industries, Remarks as Prepared For Delivery to ABA Antitrust Symposium: Competition as Public Policy( May 13, 2009), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/245857.pdf
  353. Sheth, Manisha M., Formulating Antitrust Policy in Emerging Economics, 86 GEO. L.J. 451 (1997).
  354. Smitherman III ,Charles W., The Future of Global Competition Governance: Lessons from the Transatlantic, 19 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 769 (2004).
  355. Stevens, Sarah., The Increased Aggression of the Ec Commission in Extraterritorial Enforcement of the Merger Regulation and Its Impact on Transatlantic Cooperation in Antitrust, 29 SYRACUSE J. INT'L L. & COM. 263 (2002)
  356. Stock, Eric J., Explaining the Differing U.S. and EU Positions on the Boeing/mcdonnell-Douglas Merger: Avoiding Another Near-Miss, 20 U. PA. J. INT'L ECON. L. 825 (1999).
  357. Stucke, Maurice E., Behavioral Economists at the Gate: Antitrust in the Twenty-First Century, 38 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 513 (2007).
  358. Sullivan, Lawrence A., & Fikentscher, Wolfgang., On the Growth of the Antitrust Idea, 16 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 197 (1998);
  359. Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community ECSC Treaty, EUROPEAN UNION , http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_ecsc_en.htm. (last visited Dec. 13,2011)
  360. ‘Too Big to Fail?’: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy of the Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 111th Cong. (2010)( Statement of Albert A. Foer, President, American Antitrust Inst.), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-33_48102.PDF
  361. ‘Too Big to Fail?’: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy of the Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 111th Cong. 2(2010)(Statement of C. R. ‘‘Rusty’’ Cloutier, President and Chief Exec. Officer, Midsouth Bank, N.A., Lafayette, LA.) , available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-33_48102.PDF
  362. ‘Too Big to Fail?’: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy of the Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 111th Cong. (2010)(statement of Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., a Rep. in Cong. from the State of Ga., and Chairman, Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-33_48102.PDF
  363. ‘Too Big to Fail?’: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy of the Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 111th Cong. (2010)( Statement of Deborah A. Garza, former Assistant Attorney Gen., Div. of Antitrust,U.S. Dep’t of Justice), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-33_48102.PDF
  364. ‘Too Big to Fail?’: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy of the Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 111th Cong. (2010)( Statement of William Askew, Senior Policy Advisor, Fin. Services Roundtable), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-33_48102.PDF
  365. ‘Too Big to Fail?’: The Role of Antitrust Law in Government-Funded Consolidation in the Banking Industry: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Competition Policy of the Comm. on the Judiciary H.R., 111th Cong. (2010)( statement of Mark Cooper, Dir. of Research, Fed. of America), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-33_48102.PDF
  366. Trebilcock, Michael J., The Evolution of Competition Policy: Lessons from Comparative Experience, in BUSINESS, MARKETS AND GOVERNMENT IN THE ASIA PACIFIC: COMPETITION POLICY, CONVERGENCE AND PLURALISM 87(Jung-I Wu & Yun-Peng Chu eds. 1998).
  367. Urata Shujiro, Competition Policy and Economic Development in East Asia, 1 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 15 (2002).
  368. Varney, Christine A., Assistant Attorney Gen. Antitrust Div. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Vigorous Antitrust Enforcement in This Challenging Era, Remarks as Prepared for the United States Chamber of Commerce (May 12, 2009), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/245777.pdf.
  369. Venit, James S., Article 82: The Last Frontier - Fighting Fire with Fire?, 28 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1157 (2005).
  370. VISCUSI, W. KIP, ET AL., ECONOMICS OF REGULATION AND ANTITRUST (2005).
  371. Waller, Spencer Weber., The Role of Monopolization and Abuse of Dominance in Competition Law, 20 LOY. CONSUMER L. REV. 123 (2008).
  372. Wilmarth, Jr. Arthur E., Subprime Crisis Confirms Wisdom of Separating Banking and Commerce, 27 No. 5 BANKING & FIN. SERVICES POL'Y REP. 1 (2008).
  373. World Fed’n of Exch., 2010 Cost and Revenue Survey 38-39 (Nov. 2011),available at http://www.world-exchanges.org/files/statistics/excel/2010%20Cost%20&%20Revenue%20Survey_Final.pdf
  374. Wu, Dr. Pijan & Caroline, Thomas, Taiwan's Fair Trade Act: Achieving the "Right" Balance?, 26 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 643 (2006)
  375. Yale, Brozen, Concentration and Profits: Does Concentration Matter? in A CENTURY OF THE SHERMAN ACT: AMERICAN ECONOMIC OPINION 1890-1990 117, 120-121 (Jack C. High & Wayne E. Gable eds., 1992).
  376. Zheng, Wentong., Transplanting Antitrust in China: Economic Transition, Market Structure, AND STATE CONTROL, 32 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 643 (2010).
  377. Zhang, Xiaoji & Long, Guoqiang, China’s Industrial Policies in the Process of Marketization, in INDUSTRIAL POLICIES IN EAST ASIA 255-290 (Seiichi Masuyama, et al. eds. 1997).
Times Cited
  1. 呂倩茹(2014)。限制台灣企業對陸投資規範之探討 -商業因應策略與法律執行效果之審視。中原大學財經法律研究所學位論文。2014。1-312。 
  2. 黃文甄(2010)。我國事業結合申報制度之研究。中原大學財經法律研究所學位論文。2010。1-139。 
  3. 蔡鈞柔(2007)。技術移轉合資行為之研究-以我國與歐盟競爭法為中心-。中原大學財經法律研究所學位論文。2007。1-238。 
  4. 施雅薰(2018)。公平交易法對於專利授權行為管制之研究-從高通案談起。國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所學位論文。2018。1-265。 
  5. 蔡儀(2018)。競爭法水平結合管制研究─以高科技產業之創新為中心。臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2018。1-127。 
  6. 呂儒亞(2017)。跨國併購的行政管制—以市場競爭及國家安全為核心。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2017。1-171。 
  7. 吳宓穎(2017)。機器人投資顧問法制之建構-以行為經濟學為觀點。臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所學位論文。2017。1-85。 
  8. 侯乃真(2017)。金融科技創新監理之新途徑-以監理沙盒為中心。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2017。1-193。 
  9. 韓佳盈(2016)。智慧財產權法與競爭法之規範分工及衝突-以專利權權利行使規範為中心。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2016。1-160。 
  10. 楊忠霖(2016)。競爭法與經濟管制。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2016。1-146。 
  11. 賴秉詳(2015)。論銀行併購之行政程序及審查 -以政治力干預之控制為中心-。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2015。1-247。 
  12. 張正憲(2014)。通訊傳播業的結合管制-雙元權力規範下之分權與運作。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2014。1-204。 
  13. 吳岳琮(2012)。日本競爭法上結合管制於我國公平交易法之啟示。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2012。1-239。 
  14. 洪大植(2006)。公平交易法對於流通事業之管制---以市場地位之濫用為中心。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文。2006。1-186。 
  15. 梁瑋鈞(2005)。全球化下我國金融控股公司經營模式與跨業整併之探討-從交易成本與資源基礎理論觀之。元智大學資訊社會學研究所學位論文。2005。1-82。
  16. 林建平(2007)。台灣金融產業融資購併之個案分析。政治大學經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)學位論文。2007。1-101。
  17. 王美嘉(2010)。我國投資銀行之法制研究。政治大學法學院碩士在職專班學位論文。2010。1-308。
  18. 周皇君(2015)。公平交易法對金融業之規範—以英國法之市場調查機制為參考。國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所學位論文。2015。1-132。
  19. 周書廷(2016)。整合金融外匯系統平台以提升顧客效益之研究-以C銀行為例。淡江大學國際企業學系碩士在職專班學位論文。2016。1-110。