論反壟斷跨國民事訴訟中域外管轄權和域外適用問題的區分－－以中美新近案例為視角

The Distinction between Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Extraterritorial Application in International Antitrust Litigations－A Comparative Analysis of Recent Chinese and American Cases

近年來，中美企業之間相互利用反壟斷法來對對方企業發起反壟斷民事訴訟，引發了對反壟斷法域外效力問題的關注。我國《反壟斷法》第2條規定，境外發生的壟斷行為對境內產生影響的，也可適用該法。該條文與美國《對外貿易反托拉斯促進法》第1條如出一轍。然而，美國《對外貿易反托拉斯促進法》第1條長期以來被美國法院解釋為一項管轄權條款，用於確定法院的事務管轄權。只要境外發生的壟斷行為對美國產生影響，美國法院就擁有事務管轄權。這樣一來，美國反壟斷法的域外效力問題就演變成了美國法院的域外管轄權問題。我國學術界在引進美國相關概念和制度的時候，未能對這一問題給予充分關注，從而導致我國學者在理解《反壟斷法》第2條時產生概念上和邏輯上的混亂局面。廣東省高級人民法院最近審理的華為訴美國IDC公司反壟斷糾紛案為我們重新理解《反壟斷法》第2條的含義提供了新的契機。通過中美反壟斷法執行機制的對比研究可以發現，對於我國《反壟斷法》第2條的理解應當區分公法執行和私人執行兩種機制。由於我國《反壟斷法》主要是一項經濟公法，該法第2條是為我國行政機關進行域外反壟斷調查提供管轄權依據。而在反壟斷民事訴訟中，法院的管轄權需要依照《民事訴訟法》的有關規定，法律適用問題應依照《法律適用法》的規定。

In the U. S. A, the FTAIA has long been viewed predominantly as a jurisdictional limitation to the Sherman Act rather than a limit on its substantive applicability. In most cases, the American courts referred to the FTAIA as a jurisdictional nexus and as the requirements to establish subject matter jurisdiction. If the conduct in question did not harm domestic commerce and had no anticompetitive effects on American market, there was then no subject matter jurisdiction under the FTAIA. The confusion between the jurisdictional interpretation and the substantive interpretation of the FTAIA has a harmful influence on Chinese lawyers. They tend to interpret Article II of the Anti-Monopoly Law as a jurisdictional limitation on Chinese courts. In Huawei v. IDC, Guangdong Higher People's Court tried to give us a new understanding of Article II of the Anti-Monopoly Law. A distinction should be made between the public enforcement and the private enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law. For the private enforcement, Article II of the Anti-Monopoly Law should not be understood as a jurisdictional clause. Since China's Anti-Monopoly Law is mainly an economic public law, Article II is mainly used for the administrative agencies to initiative antitrust investigations against the conducts outside the territory of China. The antitrust civil litigation should be included within the framework of international private law.