结果论与目的论:垄断协议认定的法律原理

Result Theory and Intention Theory: Legal Principle of Defining for the Monopoly Agreement

强生案后,我国学术界和实务界大多倾向于援引合理原则分析维持转售价格协议,将"排除、限制竞争的效果"作为垄断协议的构成要件。功利论是结果导向的,堪称为"结果主义"。相反,义务论将相关行为本身作为一个重要的价值,是过程导向的。从类型上看,结果论分为行动结果论和规则结果论。行为结果论又称为直接结果论,规则结果论又称为间接结果论。如果说合理推定原则属于直接结果论的评估方式,那么,本身违法原则的评估则属于于间接结果论的评估方式。我国学术界和实务界受到美国法律经济学影响,悉数采取合理原则,目的违法遂成为冗余,对于价值规约性置若罔闻,则反垄断法就会滑向纯粹的滥用模式,正确态度应该是"合其志功而观焉"。

After the case of Rainbow v. Johnson & Johnson, most scholars and practitioners in China tend to cite the ruler of reason to analyze the retail price maintenance agreements, and regard "the effect of eliminating and restricting competition" as the constitutive requirements of monopoly agreements. Utilitarianism is result-oriented and can be called "consequentialism". On the contrary, deontology regards the related acts itself as an important value and is process-oriented. From the point of view of types, consequentialism can be divided into behavioral consequentialism and rule consequentialism. Behavioral consequentialism is also called direct consequentialism, and rule consequentialism is also called indirect consequentialism. If the rule of reason belongs to the evaluation method of direct consequentialism, then the rule of illegality per se belongs to the evaluation method of indirect consequentialism. Influenced by American law and economics, the academic and practical circles of our country adopt rule of rationality to all cases. Purposeful illegality becomes redundant. If the value stipulation is ignored, the anti-monopoly law will slip into a pure abuse mode. The correct attitude should be "to observe its aspirations and behaviors altogether ".