The implementation of China's "anti-monopoly law" in 2008 was no doubt a powerful needle for China's market economy, but it was just a gesture of the Chinese Government. Between the top-down model which was advanced by the Government, and the bottom-up model which was pushed by social forces, which one was the better choice as the leading force in the implementation of law enforcement? Perhaps, the combination of private and public implementation was the best model. However, in the process of regulating administrative monopoly, no matter how sophisticated the government decentralized design of the system of checks and balances, it seemed so feeble to solve the contradiction which the actor of monopolistic behavior was the one being regulated at the same time. The absence of litigation system which regulated administrative monopoly behavior in "anti-monopoly law" made this law a simple piece of declaration which was so-called the constitution of market economy. It cannot protect the rights of subjects in the market economy, and it also had no practical significance. The right without relief procedure was not the real right. Therefore, it had positive meaning to put administrative monopoly behaviors into the scope of regulatory proceedings and construct the dual model of anti-administrative monopoly.
Key words: Administrative monopoly, suability, dual regulation, the mode of litigation, triple compensation for damage.
Copyright © 2020 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0