Title Page
ABSTRACT
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
I. Overview: the interpretation of restrictive agreement in the US, EU, and Vietnam. 13
II. The concept of "rule" and "standard." 17
Chapter 2: The objectives of Competition Law in the US, EU, and Vietnam 22
I. The ultimate goal of US Antitrust Law 22
II. The conflicting views about objectives in EU Competition Law 25
III. The goals of the Vietnam Competition Law 28
Chapter 3: Identifying the illegality 32
I. The rule of per se illegality in US Antitrust Law 32
1. The doctrine of Ancillary Restraints 32
2. The development of a categorical approach 38
3. The development of a characterizing approach 43
II. The presumption of illegality in EU Competition Law 47
1. The framework of Article 101 TFEU 47
2. Categories of restrictions by object 53
3. A characterizing analysis in EU system 55
III. The Vietnam Competition Law 2018 - Article 11 & Article 12 56
1. A categorization approach since the first competition law in 2004 56
2. The improvements of the new competition law in 2018 60
Chapter 4: Identifying the legality and exemption 64
I. Rule of per se legality, rule of reason, and Quick-Look analysis in US Antitrust Law 64
1. Rule of per se legality - a safe harbor in categorization approach 64
2. A turning from per se rule of illegality to procompetitive examination 66
3. The "Quick-Look" analysis 71
II. Rules of exemptions under EU Competition Law 80
1. A categorization approach for exemptions 80
2. Restrictions by effect analysis 82
3. Article 101(3) - an efficiency evaluating rule 83
III. The Vietnam Competition Law 2018 - Article 13 & Article 14 85
1. Article 13 - Assessment of substantial anti-competitive effects caused or probably caused by anti-competitive agreements 85
2. Article 14 - Exemption from the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements 87
Chapter 5: Comparative study among the US, EU and Vietnam 90
I. Between the US and EU regimes 90
1. The same approach: Categorization 90
2. The first category: the per se illegal in US and the presumption of being illegal in EU 93
3. The second category: the rule of reason analysis in US and effect-based analysis in EU 94
4. The third category: the safe harbour of two regimes relating to anti-competitive agreements 95
II. A comparison with Vietnam Competition Law 2018 96
1. The similarities in the concept of rules and standards 96
2. The difference in identifying anti-competitive agreements 97
III. Conclusion 101
1. The risks of false positive and false negative always exist, even in the most developed antitrust jurisdictions. 102
2. The efficiency evaluation and the burden-shifting approach in the US and EU 106
3. What can the VCL study from the EU and US to deal with the same risks 108
References 110