Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Relevant Market in International Economic Law
  • Cited by 2
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
December 2012
Print publication year:
2012
Online ISBN:
9781139381826
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381826
Subjects:
International Economics, Law, Competition Law, International Trade Law
Series:
Cambridge International Trade and Economic Law
Information

Book description

This book provides what international trade law has hitherto lacked: a coherent analysis of 'product likeness' under Article III of the GATT. Christian A. Melischek develops an economic approach to the interpretation of 'like' products on the basis of a comparative analysis with antitrust theories on market definition. Not only does he propose a specific substantive economic test to render the notion of product likeness operational, but he also examines the institutional and procedural frameworks for expert economic evidence necessary to implement an economic approach to the interpretation of product likeness. On a methodological level, the book adds a new interdisciplinary dimension to the legal debate by exploring the use of quantitative and econometric methods for the implementation of the proposed economic test.

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Contents

Contents
References

Bibliography

Alese, F., Federal Antitrust and EC Competition Law Analysis, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
American Bar Association (ABA), Antitrust Evidence Handbook, 2nd edn.,Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing, 2002.
American Bar Association (ABA), Antitrust Law Developments, 6th edn., Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing, 2007.
American Bar Association (ABA), Econometrics: Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues, eds. J. Harkrider and D. L. Rubinfeld, Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing, 2005.
Economic Evidence Task Force, Final Report of Economic Evidence Task Force (2006), available at: www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-reports/01-c-ii.pdf.
Economic Evidence Task Force, Market Power Handbook: Competition Law and Economic Foundations, Chicago, IL: ABA Book Publishing, 2005.
Areeda, P. and Turner, D. F., Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, vol. II, Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1978.
Bain, J. S., Price Theory, New York: Henry Holt, 1952.
Bain, J. S., “Relation of Profit Rate to Industry Concentration: American Manufacturing, 1936–1940,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65 (1951), 293–324.
Baker, J. B., “Contemporary Empirical Merger Analysis,” George Mason Law Review, 5 (1997), 347–361.
Baker, J. B., “Econometric Analysis in FTC v. Staples,” Prepared Remarks before the Economics Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, July 18, 1997, available at: www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/stspch.shtm.
Baker, J. B., “Market Definition: An Analytical Overview,” Antitrust Law Journal, 74 (2007), 130–173.
Baker, J. B. and Bresnahan, T. F., Economic Evidence in Antitrust: Defining Markets and Measuring Market Power (2006), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=931225.
Baker, J. B. and Bresnahan, T. F., “Empirical Methods of Identifying and Measuring Market Power,” Antitrust Law Journal, 61 (1992), 3–16.
Baker, J. B. and Rubinfeld, D. L., “Empirical Methods in Antitrust Litigation: Review and Critique,” American Law and Economics Review, 1 (1999), 386–435.
Barceló III, J. J., “Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case, and Presumption in WTO Dispute Settlement,” Cornell International Law Journal, 42 (2009), 23–43.
Barnett, T. O., “Competition Law and Policy Modernization: Lessons from the US Common-law Experience,” Presentation to the Lisbon Conference on Competition Law and Economics, Lisbon, November 16, 2007, available at: www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/227755.htm.
Baron, M., “Artikel 2 FKVO,” in H-J. Bunte (ed.), Langen & Bunte: Kommentar zum deutschen und europäischen Kartellrecht, Band 2: Europäisches Kartellrecht, 10th edn.,Munich: Luchterhand, 2006, pp. 876–970.
Baye, M. R. and Wright, J. D., Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity & Judicial Training on Appeals (2009), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1319888.
Behrens, P., “Der Marktbeherrschungsbegriff in Artikel 82 EG,” in B. Ahrens, P. Behrens, and P. von Dietze (eds.), Marktmacht und Missbrauch, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007, pp. 37–42.
Behrens, P., Die ökonomischen Grundlagen des Rechts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Behrens, P., “Economic Law between Harmonization and Competition: The Law and Economics Approach,” in K. M. Meessen (ed.), Economic Law as an Economic Good: Its Rule Function and its Tool Function in the Competition of Systems, Munich: Sellier, 2009, pp. 45–60.
Behrens, P., “Markets,” in D. S. Clark (ed.), Encyclopedia of Law & Society, vol. II, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007, pp. 985–990.
Bellamy, C., “An EU Competition Court: The Continuing Debate,” in I. Lianos and I. Kokkoris (eds.), The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges,Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010, pp. 33–52.
Bender, T., “GATT 1994,” in M. Hilf and S. Oeter (eds.), WTO-Recht: Rechtsordnung des Welthandels,Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2005, § 9.
Bercero, I. G. and Amarasinha, S. D., “Moving the Trade and Competition Debate Forward,” Journal of International Economic Law, 4 (2001), 481–506.
Berg, G. C., “An Economic Interpretation of ‘Like Product,’” Journal of World Trade, 30 (1996), 195–209.
Berger, M. A., “The Supreme Court’s Trilogy on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony,” in Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd edn. (2000), pp. 10–38 available at: www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
Bergh, R. J. van den, “Modern Industrial Organisation versus Old-Fashioned European Competition Law,” European Competition Law Review, 17 (1996), 75–87.
Bergh, R. J. van den and Camesasca, P., European Competition Law and Economics: A Comparative Perspective, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006.
Bernhardt, R., “Interpretation of International Law,” in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. II, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999, pp. 1416–1426.
Bernstein, D. E., “Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution,” Iowa Law Review, 93 (2008), 451–489.
Bernstein, D. E., “Junk Science in the United States and the Commonwealth,” Yale Journal of International Law, 21 (1996), 123–182.
Berrisch, G. M., “Das Allgemeine Zoll- und Handelsabkommen (GATT 1994),” in H-J. Prie ß, G. M. Berrisch, and C. Pitschas (eds.), WTO-Handbuch, Munich: Beck, 2003, pp. 71–167.
Bhala, R., International Trade Law: Interdisciplinary Theory and Practice, 3rd edn., Newark, NY: LexisNexis, 2008.
Bhala, R., Modern GATT Law, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005.
Bishop, R. L., “Elasticities, Cross-Elasticities, and Market Relationships,” American Economic Review, 42 (1952), 779–803.
Bishop, S. and Baldauf, M., Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung wettbewerbsökonomischer Methoden in Bezug auf die Abgrenzung des relevanten Marktes und Fragen zur praktischen Anwendbarkeit des Herfindahl-Hirschman Indexes zur Ermittlung des Konzentrationsgrades (2006), available at: www.bwb.gv.at/NR/rdonlyres/312D10EA-6476-4932-AFED-6280A0563C3C/28106/MarktabgrenzungrbbStudiefinal.pdf.
Bishop, S. and Walker, M., The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement, 2nd edn., London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002.
Bishop, S. and Walker, M., The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement, 3rd edn., London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.
Bishop, W., “Editorial: The Modernisation of DGIV,” European Competition Law Review, 8 (1997), 481.
Blair, R. D. and Herndon, J. B., “The Implications of Daubert for Economic Evidence in Antitrust Cases,” Washington & Lee Law Review, 57 (2000), 801–830.
Bogdandy, A. von, “Verfassungsrechtliche Dimensionen der Welthandelsorganisation – 2. Teil: Neue Wege globaler Demokratie?” Kritische Justiz, (2001), 425–441.
Bork, R., The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York: Basic Books, 1978.
Bossche, P. van den, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases, Materials, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Botteman, Y., “Mergers, Standard of Proof and Expert Economic Evidence,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 2 (2006), 71–100.
Bown, C. P., “The WTO Secretariat and the Role of Economics in Panels and Arbitrations,” in C.P. Bown and J. Pauwelyn (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement,Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 391–433.
Brandeis, L., “The Living Law,” Illinois Law Review, 10 (1916), 461–471.
Brinker, I., “Praktische Probleme der Marktabgrenzung aus rechtlicher Sicht: Von der Bedeutung ökonometrischer Modelle für die Fusionskontrolle,” in J. Schwarze (ed.), Recht und Ökonomie im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht,Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006, pp. 41–52.
Bronkers, M. and McNelis, N., “Rethinking the ‘Like Product’ Definition in WTO Antidumping Law,” Journal of World Trade, 33 (1991), 73–91.
Budzinski, O. and Christiansen, A., Simulating the (Unilateral) Effects of Mergers: Implications of the Oracle/PeopleSoft Case (2006), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=924375.
Busch, M. L. and Pelc, K. J., “Does the WTO Need a Permanent Body of Panelists?” Journal of International Economic Law, 12 (2009), 579–594.
Cameron, J. and Orava, S. J., “GATT/WTO Panels between Recording and Finding Facts: Issues of Due Process, Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Standard of Review in GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement,” in F. Weiss (ed), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals,London: Cameron May, 2000, pp. 195–242.
Camesasca, P. D. and van den Bergh, R. J., “Achilles Uncovered: Revisiting the European Commission’s 1997 Market Definition Notice,” Antitrust Bulletin, 47 (2002), 143–186.
Cárdenas, J. L., Rolle, Kriterien und Methodik der kartellrechtlichen Marktabgrenzung: eine juristische undökonomische Analyse (2005), available at: http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/documents/2973.
Carlton, D. W., “Market Definition: Use and Abuse,” Competition Policy International, 3 (2007), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=987061.
Carlton, D. W. and Perloff, J. M., Modern Industrial Organization, 3rd edn., Reading: Addison-Wesley Longman, 2000.
Cass, D. Z., “The ‘Constitutionalization’ of International Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade,” European Journal of International Law, 12 (2001), 39–75.
Chang, S. W., “Interaction between Trade and Competition: Why a Multilateral Approach for the United States?,” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 14 (2004), 1–37.
Charnovitz, S., “Book Review: ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence,” American Journal of International Law, 98 (2004), 610–614.
Choi, W-M., “Like Products” in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence,Oxford University Press, 2003.
Choi, W-M., “Overcoming the ‘Aim and Effect’ Theory: Interpretation of the ‘Like Product’ in GATT Article III,” UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 8 (2002), 107–131.
Christiansen, A., “Die ‘Ökonomisierung’ der EU-Fusionskontrolle: Mehr Kosten als Nutzen?”Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, (2005), 285–293.
Christiansen, A. and Locher, L., “Die neuen Standards des Bundeskartellamts für ökonomische Gutachten in der Kartellrechtsanwendung,” Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, (2011), 444–453.
Christoforou, T., “Settlement of Science-Based Trade Disputes in the WTO: A Critical Review of the Developing Case Law in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty,” NYU Environmental Law Journal, 8 (2000), 622–648.
Christoforou, T., “WTO Panels in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty,” in F. Weiss (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals,London: Cameron May, 2000, pp. 243–263.
Church, J. and Ware, R., Industrial Organization: A Strategic Approach (2000), available at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=jeffrey_church.
Clermont, K. M., “Procedure’s Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases for Standards of Decision,” Cornell Law Review, 72 (1987), 1115–1156.
Clermont, K. M. and Sherwin, E., “A Comparative View of Standards of Proof,” American Journal of Comparative Law, 50 (2002), 243–275.
Coate, M. B. and Fischer, J. H., “A Practical Guide to the Hypothetical Monopolist Test for Market Definition,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 4 (2008), 1031–1063.
Coppi, L. and Walker, M., “Substantial Convergence or Parallel Paths? Similarities and Differences in the Economic Analysis of Horizontal Mergers in US and EU Competition Law,” Antitrust Bulletin, 49 (2004), 101–152.
Cottier, T., “Risk Management Experience in WTO Dispute Settlement,” in D. Robertson and A. Kellow (eds.), Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 41–62.
Cottier, T. and Mavroidis, P. C., “Concluding Remarks,” in T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation,Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2003, pp. 349–358.
Cottier, T. and Oesch, M., International Trade Regulation,Berne: Staempfli, 2005.
Cottier, T., Pauwelyn, J., and Bürgi, E., Human Rights and International Trade, Oxford University Press, 2005.
Crocioni, P., “The Hypothetical Monopolist Test: What it Can and What it Cannot Tell You,” European Competition Law Review, (2002), 354–362.
Davey, W. J. and Pauwelyn, J., “MFN Unconditionality: A Legal Analysis of the Concept in View of its Evolution in the GATT/WTO Jurisprudence with Particular Reference to the Issue of ‘Like Product,’” in T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-discrimination in World Trade Law,Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000, pp. 13–50.
De la Serre, E. B. and Sibony, A-L., “Expert Evidence before the EC Courts,” Common Market Law Review, 45 (2008), 941–985.
Deason, E. E., “Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets Bias and Deference,” Oregon Law Review, 77 (1998), 59–156.
Demaret, P., “The Non-Discrimination Principle and the Removal of Fiscal Barriers to Intra-Community Trade,” in T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-discrimination in World Trade Law, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000, pp. 171–189.
Desai, K., “The European Commission’s Draft Notice on Market Definition: A Brief Guide to the Economics,” European Competition Law Review, (1997), 473–477.
Diamond, S. S., “Reference Guide on Survey Research,” in Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd edn., 2000, pp. 229–276, available at: www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
Diebold, N. F., “Assessing Competition in International Economic Law: A Comparison of ‘Market Definition’ and ‘Comparability,’” Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 38 (2011), 115–141.
Diebold, N. F., Non-Discrimination and the Pillars of International Economic Law: Comparative Analysis and Building Coherency, 2010, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1632927.
Diebold, N. F., Non-Discrimination in International Trade in Services: A Contextual and Comparative Analysis of “Likeness” in WTO/GATS, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
DiMascio, N. and Pauwelyn, J., “Nondiscrimination and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?” American Journal of International Trade, 102 (2008), 48–89.
Donath, D., “The Use of Pricing Analysis for Market Definition Purposes: The Arjowiggins/M-real Zanders Reflex and Arsenal/DSP Mergers,” Competition Policy Newsletter, 1 (2009), 41–50.
Dwyer, D., The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Edmond, G., “After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform,” Sydney Law Review, 25 (2003), 131–163.
Edmond, G. and Mercer, D., “Trashing ‘Junk Science,’” Stanford Technology Law Review, 3 (1998), available at: http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/98_STLR_3.
Ehring, L., “De facto Discrimination in World Trade Law,” Journal of World Trade, 36 (2002), 921–977.
Elsig, M., “Agency Theory and the WTO: Complex Agency and ‘Missing Delegation’?”European Journal of International Relations, 17 (2011), 495–517.
Elsig, M. and Pollack, M. A., Agents, Trustees, and International Courts: The Politics of Judicial Appointment at the World Trade Organization, (2011), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1861443.
Emch, A., “Fiscal Discrimination in WTO Law and EU Law,” Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 32 (2005), 369–415.
Englisch, J., Wettbewerbsgleichheit im grenzüberschreitenden Handel, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Ewald, C., “Ökonomie im Kartellrecht: Vom more economic approach zu sachgerechten Standards forensischer Ökonomie,” Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, (2011), 15–47.
Ewald, C., “Paradigmenwechsel bei der Abgrenzung relevanter Märkte?”Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht, (2004), 512–544.
Farrell, J. and Shapiro, C., “Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition,” B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 10 (2010), available at: www.bepress.com/bejte/vol10/iss1/art9.
Fauchald, O. K., Environmental Taxes and Trade Discrimination,London: Kluwer Law, 1998.
Fauchald, O. K., “Flexibility and Predictability Under the World Trade Organization’s Non-Discrimination Clauses,” Journal of World Trade, 37 (2003), 443–482.
Faull, J. and Nikpay, A., The EC Law of Competition, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press, 2007.
Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd ed. (2000), available at: www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
Fegatilli, E. and Petit, N., Économétrie du droit de la concurrence: un essai de conceptualisation (2008), available at: www.coleurope.eu/content/gclc/documents/GCLC%20WP%2003-08.pdf.
Fienberg, S. E., Krislov, S. H., and Straf, M. L., “Understanding and Evaluating Statistical Evidence in Litigation,” Jurimetrics Journal, 36 (1995), 1–32.
Finkelstein, M. O. and Levin, B., Statistics for Lawyers, 2nd edn., New York: Springer, 2007.
Fisher, F. M., “Economic Analysis and ‘Bright-line’ Tests,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 4 (2007),129–153.
Fisher, F. M., Market Definition: A User’s Guide (u.d.), available at: http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/2630.
Fisher, F. M., “Multiple Regression in Legal Proceedings,” Columbia Law Review, 80 (1980), 702–736.
Fisher, F. M., “Statisticians, Econometricians, and Adversary Proceedings,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81 (1986), 277–286.
Foster, C. E., Scientific Evidence and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals (2010), available at: http://rmla.org.nz/upload/documents/Salmon_Lecture_2010.pdf.
Foster, W. L., “Expert Testimony: Prevalent Complaints and Proposed Remedies,”Harvard Law Review, 11 (1897), 169–186.
Freeman, P., Chairman of the Competition Commission, The Significance of Economic Evidence in Competition Cases (2009), available at: www.competition-commission.org.uk/our_role/speeches/pdf/freeman_151009.pdf.
Freund, J. E. and Perles, B. M., Modern Elementary Statistics, 12th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
Friederiszick, H. W., “Economic Analysis in EU Competition Cases,” in J. Drexel, L. Idot, and J. Monéger (eds.), Economic Theory and Competition Law,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009, pp. 3–19.
Friederiszick, H. W., “Marktabgrenzung und Marktmacht,” in J. Schwarze (ed.), Recht und Ökonomie im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht,Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006, pp. 29–40.
Friederiszick, H. W. and Röller, L-H., “Quantification of Harm in Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements: Insights from German Cartel Cases,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6 (2010), 595–618.
Froeb, L. M. and Kobayashi, B. H., “Evidence Production in Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Regimes,” Economic Letters, 70 (2001), 267–722.
Froeb, L. M. and Werden, G. J., “The Reverse Cellophane Fallacy in Market Delineation,” Review of Industrial Organization, 7 (1992), 241–247.
Froeb, L. M., Pautler, P. A., and Röller, L-H., “The Economics of Organizing Economists,” Antitrust Law Journal, 76 (2009), 569–584.
Füller, J., “Market Definition,” in G. Hirsch, F. Montag, and F. J. Säcker (eds.), Competition Law: European Community Practice and Procedure,London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008, pp. 434–468.
Gastwirth, J. L., “Statistical Reasoning in the Legal Setting,” The American Statistician, 46 (1992), 55–69.
Gavil, A. I., “After Daubert: Discerning the Increasingly Fine Line Between the Admissibility and Sufficiency of Expert Testimony in Antitrust Litigation,” Antitrust Law Journal, 65 (1997), 663–711.
Gavil, A. I., “Competition Policy, Economics, and Economists: Are We Expecting Too Much?” in B. E. Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, International Antitrust Law & Policy,New York: Juris Publishing, 2006, pp. 575–601.
Gavil, A. I., “The Challenges of Economic Proof in a Decentralized and Privatized European Competition Policy System: Lessons From the American Experience,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4 (2007), 177–206.
Gerber, D. J., “The European Competition Law Story: Some German Roles,” in B. Großfeld, R. Sack, T. M. J. Möllers, J. Drexl, and A. Heinemann (eds.), Festschrift für Wolfgang Fikentscher,Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998, pp. 654–670.
Geroski, P., “Thinking Creatively About Markets,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16 (1998), 677–695.
Geroski, P. and Griffith, R., “Identifying Antitrust Markets,” in M. Neumann and J. Weigand (eds.), The International Handbook of Competition,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 290–305.
Giannelli, P. C. and Imwinkelried, E. L., Scientific Evidence, 4th edn., vol. I, Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2007.
Glassman, M. L., “Market Definition as a Practical Matter,” Antitrust Law Journal, 49 (1980), 1155–1166.
Goco, J. B., “Non-Discrimination, ‘Likeness,’ and Market Definition in World Trade Organization Jurisprudence,” Journal of World Trade, 40 (2006), 315–340.
Gotts, I. K. and Hemli, D. E., “Just the Facts: The Role of Customer and Economic Evidence in M&A Analysis,”George Mason Law Review, 13 (2006), 1217–1245.
Grando, M. T., “Allocating the Burden of Proof in WTO Disputes: A Critical Analysis,” Journal of International Economic Law, 9 (2006), 615–656.
Grando, M. T., Evidence, Proof, and Fact-finding in WTO Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press, 2010.
Gross, S. R., “Expert Evidence,” Wisconsin Law Review, (1991), 1113–1232.
Gupta, R. R., “Appellate Body Interpretation of the WTO Agreement: A Critique in Light of Japan –Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,” Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, (1997), 683–715.
Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, J. D., Expert Economic Testimony, Economic Evidence and Asymmetry of Information in Antitrust Cases (2007), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1023494.
Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, J. D., “Expert Economic Testimony in Antitrust Cases: A Comparative Law and Economics Study,” International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 14 (2009), 221–251.
Hale, G. E. and Hale, R. D., “A Line of Commerce: Market Definition in Anti-Merger Cases,” Iowa Law Review, 52 (1966), 406–431.
Hale, G. E. and Hale, R. D., Market Power: Size and Shape Under the Sherman Act, Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1958.
Hall, G. R. and Phillips, C. F., “Antimerger Criteria: Power, Concentration, Foreclosure and Size,” Villanova Law Review, 9 (1964), 211–232.
Harkrider, J. D., The Use of Econometrics in Antitrust Analysis (u.d.), available at: www.avhlaw.com/assets/attachments/29.pdf.
Hausman, J. A. and Leonard, G. K., “Economic Analysis of Differentiated Products Mergers Using Real World Data,” George Mason Law Review, 5 (1997), 321–346.
Hay, B. L., “Allocating the Burden of Proof,” Indiana Law Journal, 72 (1997), 651–680.
Hay, G. A., “Market Power in Antitrust,” Antitrust Law Journal, 60 (1992), 807–828.
Heitzer, B., Economic Assessment in Competition Enforcement: Developments in France and Germany – Statement for the Panel, CRA International, Annual Conference “Economic Developments in European Competition Policy,” December 3, 2008, available at: www.bundeskartellamt.de/wDeutsch/download/pdf/Diskussionsbeitraege/081203_CRA.pdf.
Hildebrand, D., The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules, 2nd edn., The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002.
Hildebrand, D., The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules, 3rd edn., Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009.
Hildebrand, D., “Using Conjoint Analysis for Market Definition: Application of Modern Market Research Tools to Implement the Hypothetical Monopolist Test,” World Competition, 29 (2006), 315–336.
Hockett, C. B. and Hinman, F. M., “Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Antitrust Cases: Does Daubert Raise a New Barrier to Entry for Economists?”Antitrust, 10 (1996), 40–45.
Hogg, R. V. and Craig, A. T., Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 5th edn., New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995.
Hogg, S. and Nawaz, M., “Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, Report of the Panel, 11 July 1996 and of the Appellate Body, 4 October 1996,” in J. Cameron and K. Campbell (eds.), Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organisation,London: Cameron May, 1998, pp. 343–360.
Holmes, O. W., “The Path of the Law,” Harvard Law Review, 10 (1897), 457–478.
Hoppmann, E., Fusionskontrolle, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972.
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C., “Still Hazy After All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case Law on Tax Discrimination,” European Journal of International Law, 15 (2001), 39–69.
Horn, H. and Weiler, J. H. H., “EC – Asbestos European Communities: Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products,” World Trade Review, 3 (2004), 129–151.
Horowitz, I., “Market Definition in Antitrust Analysis: A Regression-based Approach,” Southern Economics Journal, 48 (1981), 1–16.
Hosken, D., O’Brien, D., Scheffman, D. and Vita, M., Demand System Estimation and its Application to Horizontal Merger Analysis (2002), available at: www.ftc.gov/be/workpapers/wp246.pdf.
Hovenkamp, H., “Economic Experts in Antitrust Cases,” in D. L. Faigman, M. J. Saks, J. Sanders, and E. K. Cheng (eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, vol. V, Eagan, MN: Thompson West, 2008, ch. 44.
Hovenkamp, H., Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and its Practice, 3rd edn.,St. Paul, MN: Thompson West, 2005.
Hovenkamp, H., The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Howse, R. L., “Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence,” in J. H. H. Weiler (ed.), The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade?Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 33–69.
Howse, R. L., “Democracy, Science, and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization,” Michigan Law Review, 98 (2000), 2329–2357.
Howse, R. L., “The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case: A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 27 (2002), 491–521.
Howse, R. L. and Regan, D., “The Product/Process Distinction: An Illusory Basis for Disciplining ‘Unilateralism’ in Trade Policy,” European Journal of International Law, 11 (2000), 249–289.
Howse, R. L. and Tuerk, E., “The WTO Impact on Internal Regulations: A Case Study of the Canada – EC Asbestos Dispute,” in G. de Búrca and J. Scott (eds.), The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues,Oxford: Hart, 2001, pp. 283–328.
Hudec, R. E., Essays on the Nature of International Trade Law, London: Cameron May, 1999.
Hudec, R. E., “GATT/WTO Constraints on National Regulation: Requiem for an ‘Aim and Effects’ Test,” International Lawyer, 32 (1998), 619–648.
Hudec, R. E., “‘Like Product’: The Differences in Meaning in GATT Articles I and III,” in T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-discrimination in World Trade Law, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000, pp. 101–123.
Immenga, U. and Körber, T., “Artikel 2 Beurteilung von Zusammenschlüssen,” in U. Immenga and E-J. Mestmäcker (eds.), Wettbewerbsrecht Band 1 EG/Teil 2, 4th edn., Munich: C. H. Beck, 2007.
Irwin, D. A., Mavroidis, P. C., and Sykes, A. O., The Genesis of the GATT, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Iynedjian, M., “The Case for Incorporating Scientists and Technicians into WTO Panels,” Journal of World Trade, 42 (2008), 279–297.
Jackson, J. H., “Comments on Shrimp/Turtle and the Product/Process Distinction,” European Journal of International Law, 11 (2000), 291–307.
Jackson, J. H., Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of International Law,Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Jackson, J. H., World Trade and the Law of GATT, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969.
Jacobson, J. M., “Problems in the Use of Econometrics in Antitrust Matters,” presentation to the Conference Board’s 2003 Antitrust Conference, March 13, 2003, available at: www.akingump.com/docs/publication/548.PPT.
Jones, A. and Sufrin, B., EC Competition Law, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, 2008.
Kanner, A. and Casey, M. R., “Daubert and the Disappearing Jury Trial,” University of Pittsburgh Law Journal, 69 (2007), 281–329.
Kalinowski, J. O. von, Sullivan, P., and McGuirl, M., Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation, 2nd edn., vol. II, San Francisco, CA: Matthew Bender, 2007.
Kaplan, J., “Decision Theory and the Factfinding Process,” Stanford Law Review, 20 (1968), 1065–1092.
Karp, D. C., “A Consumer Oriented Approach to Market Definition Under the Antitrust Laws,” University of San Francisco Law Review, 18 (1983), 221–251.
Kauper, T. E., “The Problem of Market Definition under EC Competition Law,” in B. E. Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, International Antitrust Law & Policy, New York: Juris Publishing, 1997, pp. 239–306.
Kaye, D. H., “Is Proof of Statistical Significance Relevant?”Washington Law Review, 61 (1986), 1333–1365.
Kaye, D. H., “Naked Statistical Evidence,” Yale Law Journal, 89 (1980), 601–611.
Kaye, D. H., “The Dynamics of Daubert: Methodology, Conclusions and Fit in Statistical and Econometric Studies,” Virginia Law Review, 86 (2001), 1933–2018.
Kaye, D. H., “The Limits of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard: Justifiably Naked Statistical Evidence and Multiple Causation,” American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 7 (1982), 487–516.
Kaye, D. H. and Freedman, D. A., “Reference Guide on Statistics,” in Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd edn., 2000, pp. 83–178, available at: www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
Kazazi, M., Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A Study on Evidence before International Tribunals, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996.
Keck, A., “WTO Dispute Settlement: What Role for Economic Analysis? A Commentary on Fritz Beuss,” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 4 (2004), 365–371.
Keck, A., Malashevich, B., and Gray, I., “A ‘Probabilistic’ Approach to the Use of Econometric Models in Sunset Reviews,” World Trade Review, 6 (2007), 371–396.
Kenen, P. B., The International Economy, 4th edn., Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Kennedy, K. C., Competition Law and the World Trade Organisation: The Limits of Multilateralism, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2001.
Kennedy, P., A Guide to Econometrics, 6th edn., Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.
Keyte, J. A., “Market Definition and Differentiated Products: The Need for a Workable Standard,” Antitrust Law Journal, 63 (1995), 697–748.
Klein, T., “SSNIP-Test oder Bedarfsmarktkonzept?”Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, (2010), 169–177.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., Brady, M., Goodman, M., and Hansen, T., Marketing Management, Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.
Kovacic, W. E. and Shapiro, C., “Antitrust Policy: Century of Economic and Legal Thinking,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (2000), 43–60.
Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., and Miletich, D., “Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8 (2002), 309–332.
Krajewski, M., Wirtschaftsvölkerrecht,Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2006.
Krattenmaker, T. and Salop, S., “Anticompetitive Exclusion: Raising Rivals’ Costs to Achieve Power over Price,” Yale Law Journal, 96 (1986), 209–293.
Kroes, N., European Competition Policy: Delivering Better Markets and Better Choices, European Consumer and Competition Day, London, September 15, 2005, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/512&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
Kroes, N., “Exclusionary Abuses of Dominance: The European Commission’s Enforcement Priorities,” Fordham University Symposium, New York, September 25, 2008, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/457&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
Kroes, N., “Preliminary Thoughts on Policy Review of Article 82,” Fordham University Symposium, New York City, September 23, 2005, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/537.
Krugman, P. R. and Obstfeld, M., International Economics: Theory & Practice, 8th edn., Boston, MA: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2009.
Kuyper, P. J., “Booze and Fast Cars: Tax Discrimination under GATT and the EC,” Legal Issues of European Integration, (1996), 129–144.
Lamy, P., Director-General of the WTO, “China hält sich an die Regeln,” Handelsblatt-Gespräch, July 16/17, 2010, p. 6.
Lande, R. H. and Langenfeld, J., “From Surrogates to Stories: The Evolution of Federal Merger Policy,” Antitrust, 11 (1997), 5–10.
Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A., “Market Power in Antitrust Cases,” Harvard Law Review, 94 (1981), 937–996.
Langenfeld, J. and Alexander, C., Daubert Challenges of Antitrust Experts (2008), available at: www.antitrustinstitute.org/files/AAI%20working%20paper%2008-06_120620082058.pdf.
Learned Hand, “Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony,” Harvard Law Review, 15 (1901), 40–58.
Leberl, D., Zur Zeitkomponente im Marktbegriff des GWB,Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1988.
Lee, T. R., “Pleading and Proof: The Economics of Legal Burdens,” Brigham Young University Law Review, (1997), 1–34.
Lee, T. V., “Court-Appointed Experts and Judicial Reluctance: A Proposal to Amend Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,” Yale Law and Policy Review, 6 (1988), 480–504.
Legal, H., “Standards of Proof and Standards of Judicial Review in EU Competition Law,” in B. E. Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, International Antitrust Law & Policy,New York: Juris Publishing, 2006, pp. 107–116.
Lerner, A. P., “The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power,” Review of Economic Studies, 1 (1934), 157–175.
Lester, S. and Mercurio, B., World Trade Law: Text, Materials and Commentary,Oxford: Hart, 2008.
Lexecon, An Introduction to Quantitative Techniques in Competition Analysis (u.d.), available at: www.crai.com/ecp/assets/quantitative_techniques.pdf.
Lianos, I., “‘Judging’ Economists: Economic Expertise in Competition Law Litigation: A European View,” in I. Lianos and I. Kokkoris (eds.), The Reform of EC Competition Law: New Challenges,Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010, pp. 185–321.
Lipsky, A. B., “Antitrust Economics: Making Progress, Avoiding Regression,” George Mason Law Review, 12 (2003), 163–177.
Lopatka, J. E. and Page, W. H., “Economic Authority and the Limits of Expertise in Antitrust Cases,” Cornell Law Review, 90 (2005), 617–703.
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice, Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (1995), available at: www.dca.gov.uk/civil/interim/woolf.htm.
Lowenfeld, A. F., “Remedies Along with Rights: Institutional Reform in the new GATT,” American Journal of International Law, 88 (1994), 477–488.
Lubkin, G. P., “Is Europe’s Glass Half Empty or Half Full? Alcoholic Beverage Taxation and the Development of a European Identity,” Columbia Journal of European Law, 3 (1997), 357–411.
Lücking, J. and Simon, S., “Definition of the Relevant Market,” in G. Drauz and C. Jones (eds.), EC Competition Law, vol. II: Mergers and Acquisitions, Leuven: Claeys & Casteels, 2006.
MacLennan, J., “Evidence, Standard and Burden of Proof and the Use of Experts in Procedure Before the Luxembourg Courts,” in F. Weiss (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals,London: Cameron May, 2000, pp. 265–288.
Malacrida, R., “Some Reflections on the Use of Economic Analysis in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings,” in C. P. Bown and J. Pauwelyn (eds.), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement,Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 434–445.
Mason, E. S., “Price and Production Policies of Large-Scale Enterprise,” 29 American Economic Review, Supplement Papers and Proceedings of the Fifty-first Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 29 (1939), 61–74.
Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T. J., and Mavroidis, P. C., The World Trade Organization, Oxford University Press, 2003.
Mattoo, A. and Subramanian, A., “Regulatory Autonomy and Multilateral Disciplines: The Dilemma and a Possible Resolution,” Journal of International Economic Law, 1 (1998), 303–322.
Mavroidis, P. C., “Development of WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures Through Case-Law (We Will Fix It),” in F. Ortino and E-U. Petersmann (eds.), The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2003,The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2004, pp. 153–176.
Mavroidis, P. C., The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2005.
Mavroidis, P. C., Trade in Goods: The GATT and the Other Agreements Regulating Trade in Goods, Oxford University Press, 2007.
McGovern, E., International Trade Regulation, Issue 27, Exeter: Globefield Press, 2010.
Melloni, M., The Principle of National Treatment in the GATT: A Survey of the Jurisprudence, Practice and Policy,Brussels: Bruylant, 2005.
Monti, M., “Market Definition as a Cornerstone of EU Competition Policy,” Workshop on Market Definition, Helsinki, October 5, 2001, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/01/439&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
Mora, M. M., “A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 31 (1993), 103–180.
Möschel, W., “Missbrauch einer Marktbeherrschenden Stellung,” in U. Immenga and E-J. Mestmäcker (eds.), Wettbewerbsrecht GWB: Kommentar zum Deutschen Kartellrecht, 4th edn.,Munich: C. H. Beck, 2007, § 19.
Motta, M., Competition Policy: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Müller, C., Abschied vom Bedarfsmarktkonzept bei der Marktabgrenzung?Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007.
NERA Economic Consulting (C. Dippon, G. Leonard, and L. Wu), Application of Empirical Methods in Merger Analysis (2005) (on file with author).
NERA Economic Consulting (C. Dippon, G. Leonard, and L. Wu), The Role of Quantitative Analysis in Competition Assessments (2005), available at: www.nera.com/67_5009.htm.
Neven, D., “Competition Economics and Antitrust in Europe,” Economic Policy, (2006), 743–791.
Neven, D., Economic Analysis in European Competition Policy: The First 2000 (or so) Years (2008), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/oxera.pdf.
Neven, D., “How Should ‘Protection’ be Evaluated in Article III GATT Disputes?” European Journal of Political Economy, 17 (2001), 421–444.
Neven, D., “The Economic Evaluation of Protection under Art III: Some Principles and Suggestions for the Definition of a Trade Relevant Market,” in T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-discrimination in World Trade Law,Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000, pp. 331–342.
Neven, D. and Coninck, R. de, Best Practices on the Submission of Economic Evidence and Data Collection (2010), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/neven_deconinck_best_practices.pdf.
Neven, D. and de la Mano, M., Economics at DG Competition, 2009–2010 (2010), available at: http://antitrustlair.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/neven-de-la-mano-20101.pdf.
Nevo-Ilan, H., “Definition of the Relevant Market: (Lack of) Harmony between Industrial Economics and Competition Law” (2007) (on file with author).
Nitsche, R., “Wettbewerbsökonomische Analyse der Auswirkungen von Fusionen,” in J. Schwarze (ed.), Recht und Ökonomie im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht,Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006, pp. 53–70.
Nordström, H., “The World Trade Organization Secretariat in a Changing World,” Journal of World Trade, 39 (2005), 819–853.
O’Donoghue, R. and Padilla, A. J., The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC, Oxford: Hart, 2006.
OECD, Presenting Complex Economic Theories to Judges (2008), available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/59/41776770.pdf.
Oesch, M., Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, Oxford University Press, 2003.
Ortino, F., Basic Legal Instruments for the Liberalisation of Trade: A Comparative Analysis of EC and WTO Law, Oxford: Hart, 2004.
Palmeter, D. and Mavroidis, P. C., Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Pauwelyn, J., “Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement: Who Bears the Burden?”Journal of International Economic Law, 1 (1998), 227–258.
Pauwelyn, J., “Expert Advice in WTO Dispute Settlement,” in G. A. Bermann and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety,Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 235–256.
Pauwelyn, J., “Recent Books on Trade and Environment: GATT Phantoms Still Haunt the WTO,” European Journal of International Law, 15 (2004), 575–592.
Pauwelyn, J., “The Use of Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 51 (2002), 325–364.
Peter, W., “Witness Conferencing,” Arbitration International, 18 (2002), 47–58.
Pfitzer, J. H. and Sabune, S., “Burden of Proof in Dispute Settlement: Contemplating Preponderance of the Evidence,”(International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 9, 2009, available at: http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/04/burden_of_proof.pdf.
Pindyck, R. S. and Rubinfeld, D. L., Microeconomics, 7th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2009.
Pitofsky, R., “New Definitions of Relevant Market and the Assault on Antitrust,” Columbia Law Review, 90 (1990), 1805–1864.
Pitofsky, R., The Effect of Global Trade on United States Competition Law and Enforcement Policies, New York City, October 15, 1999, available at: www.ftc.gov/speeches/pitofsky/fobebf1.shtm.
Popper, K., Logik der Forschung, 11th edn., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Porges, A. and Trachtman, J., “Robert Hudec and Domestic Regulation: The Resurrection of Aim and Effects,” Journal of World Trade, 37 (2003), 783–799.
Posner, R. A., “A Program for the Antitrust Division,” University of Chicago Law Review, 38 (1971), 500–536.
Posner, R. A., “An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration,” Journal of Legal Studies, 2 (1973), 399–458.
Posner, R. A., “An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence,” Stanford Law Review, 51 (1999), 1477–1546.
Posner, R. A., Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective, Chicago University Press, 1976.
Posner, R. A., Catastrophe: Risk and Response, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Posner, R. A., Economic Analysis of Law, 7th edn., New York: Aspen, 2007.
Posner, R. A., “The Law and Economics of the Economic Expert Witness,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1999), 91–99.
Posner, R. A., The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Puth, S., WTO und Umwelt: Die Produkt-Prozess-Doktrin, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003.
Puth, S., “Zölle und allgemeine Fragen des Marktzugangs,” in M. Hilf and S. Oeter (eds.), WTO-Recht: Rechtsordnung des Welthandels,Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2005, § 10.
Quick, R. and Lau, C., “Environmentally Motivated Tax Distinctions and WTO Law: The European Commission’s Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy in Light of the ‘Like Product-’ and ‘PPM-’ Debates,” Journal of International Economic Law, 6 (2003), 419–458.
Raible, M., Protektionismusverbote im Recht der Wirtschaftsintegration: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Regelung des Freihandels der USA, der EU und der WTO, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2005.
Reeves, T. and Dodoo, N., “Standards of Proof and Standards of Judicial Review in EC Merger Law,” in B. E. Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, International Antitrust Law & Policy,New York: Juris Publishing, 2006, pp. 117–142.
Regan, D. H., “Further Thoughts on the Role of Regulatory Purpose Under Article III of the GATT: A Tribute to Bob Hudec,” Journal of World Trade, 37 (2003), 737–760.
Regan, D. H., “Regulatory Purpose and ‘Like Products’ in Article III:4 of the GATT (With Additional Remarks on Article III:2),” Journal of World Trade, 36 (2002), 443–478.
Regan, D. H., “Report of the Task Force on Productivity and Competition,” reprinted in Journal for Reprints for Antitrust Law and Economics, 1 (1969), 827–881.
Roessler, F., “Beyond the Ostensible: A Tribute to Professor Robert Hudec’s Insights on the Determination of the Likeness of Products Under the National Treatment Provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,” Journal of World Trade, 37 (2003), 771–781.
Röller, L-H., “Economic Analysis and Competition Policy Enforcement in Europe,” in P. A. G. van Bergeijk and E. Kloosterhuis (eds.), Modelling European Mergers,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005, pp. 13–26.
Rompuy, B. van, “The Standard of Proof in EC Merger Control,” IES Working Paper (2008), available at: www.ies.be/files/repo/IES%20Working%20Paper%204_Ben%20Van%20Rompuy.pdf.
Rosenfield, A. M., “The Use of Economics in Antitrust Litigation and Counseling,” Columbia Business Law Review, (1986), 49–82.
Rösler, P., “Der relevante Markt in der Europäischen Fusionskontrolle,” Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht, (2000), 761–770.
Roth, W-H. and Ackermann, T., “Grundfragen Art. 81 Abs. 1,” in W. Jaeger, P. Pohlmann, H. Rieger, and D. Schroeder (eds.), Frankfurter Kommentar zum Kartellrecht, Band II, Cologne: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, 2009.
Rubinfeld, D. L., Econometric Issues in Antitrust Analysis, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 166 (2010), 62–77.
Rubinfeld, D. L., “Econometrics in the Courtroom,” Columbia Law Review, 85 (1985), 1048–1097.
Rubinfeld, D. L., Economics Roundtable, Testimony before the Antitrust Modernization Commission, January 19, 2006, available at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/commission_hearings/pdf/rubinfeld_statement_final.pdf.
Rubinfeld, D. L., “Market Definition with Differentiated Products: The Post/Nabisco Cereal Merger,” Antitrust Law Journal, 68 (2000), 163–182.
Rubinfeld, D. L., “On the Foundations of Antitrust Law and Economics,” in R. Pitofsky (ed.), How the Chicago School Overshot the Market: The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on US Antitrust,Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 51–73.
Rubinfeld, D. L., “On the Pretrial Use of Economists,” Antitrust Bulletin, 55 (2010), 679–697.
Rubinfeld, D. L., “Quantitative Methods in Antitrust,” in ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Issues in Competition Law and Policy, vol. I, Chicago, IL: ABA Publishing, 2008, pp. 723–742.
Rubinfeld, D. L., “Reference Guide on Multiple Regression,” in Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd edn., 2000, pp. 179–227, available at: www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
Rubinfeld, D. L. and Steiner, P. O., “Quantitative Methods in Antitrust Litigation,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 46 (1983), 69–141.
Säcker, F. J., The Concept of the Relevant Product Market: Between Demand-side Substitutability and Supply-side Substitutability in Competition Law, Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2008.
Sanders, J., “The Merits of the Paternalistic Justifications of Restrictions on the Admissibility of Expert Evidence,” Seton Hall Law Review, 33 (2003), 881–941.
Sandrock, O., “Grundprobleme der sachlichen Marktabgrenzung,” in H. Merz and W. R. Schluep (eds.), Recht und Wirtschaft heute: Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Max Kummer,Berne: Stämpfli, 1980, pp. 449–486.
Scheffman, D., Best Practices for Data, and Economics and Financial Analyses in Antitrust Investigations (2002), available at: www.ftc.gov/speeches/scheffman.shtm.
Scheffman, D. and Coleman, M., FTC Perspectives on the Use of Econometric Analyses in Antitrust Cases (u.d.), available at: www.ftc.gov/be/ftcperspectivesoneconometrics.pdf.
Scheffman, D. and Spiller, P. T., “Geographic Market Definition Under the US Department of Justice Merger Guidelines,” Journal of Law & Economics, 30 (1987), 123–147.
Schmidt, I., “Relevanter Markt, Marktbeherrschung und Missbrauch in § 22 GWB und Art 86 EWGV,” Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, (1965), 451–494.
Schropp, S. A. B., Trade Policy Flexibility and Enforcement in the WTO: A Law and Economics Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1942.
Schwalba, M., Die wettbewerbsbezogene Abgrenzung des relevanten Marktes,Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2000.
Schwalbe, U. and Zimmer, D., Kartellrecht und Ökonomie: Moderne ökonomische Ansätze in der europäischen und deutschen Zusammenschlusskontrolle, Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, 2006.
Senti, R., WTO: System und Funktionsweise der Welthandelsordnung, Zurich: Schluthess, 2000.
Shadikhodjaev, S., “National Treatment under GATT Article III:2 and its Applicability in the Context of Korea’s FTAs,” Journal of International Economic Studies, 12 (2008), 65–111.
Shin, H. S., “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration,” RAND Journal of Economics, 29 (1998), 378–405.
Shrives, R. E., “Geographic Market Areas and Market Structure in the Bituminous Coal Industry,” Antitrust Bulletin, 23 (1978), 589–625.
Sievers, F., Wettbewerbsgutachten: Ökonomen als Dienstleister,Handelsblatt, November 2, 2009, p. 7.
Simons, J. J. and Williams, M. A., “The Renaissance of Market Definition,” Antitrust Bulletin, 38 (1993), 799–857.
Slotboom, M. M., A Comparison of WTO and EC Law: Do Different Objects and Purposes Matter For Treaty Interpretation?London: Cameron May, 2007.
Slotboom, M. M., “Do Different Treaty Purposes Matter? The Elimination of Discriminatory Internal Taxes in EC and WTO Law,” Journal of International Economic Law, 4 (2001), 557–579.
Solow, J. L. and Fletcher, D., “Doing Good Economics in the Courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and Expert Testimony in Antitrust,” Journal of Corporation Law, 31 (2006), 489–502.
Srinivasan, T. N., “Nondiscrimination in GATT/WTO: Was there Anything to Begin With and is there Anything Left?,” World Trade Review, 4 (2005), 69–95.
Stepkowska, U. M., “Process and Production Methods (PPMs) in the GATT Agreement,” Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien, (2007), 273–329.
Steuer, R. M., “Standards of Proof and Judicial Review: A US Perspective,” in B. E. Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, International Antitrust Law & Policy,New York: Juris Publishing, 2006, pp. 143–156.
Stevens, W. H. S., “The Federal Trade Commission’s Contribution to Industrial and Economic Analysis: The Work of the Economic Division,” George Washington Law Review, 8 (1940), 545–580.
Stigler, G. J., “The Economist and the Problem of Monopoly,” 72 American Economic Review, 72 (1982), 1–11.
Stigler, G. J., The Theory of Price, 3rd edn., New York: Macmillan, 1966.
Stigler, G. J. and Sherwin, R. A., “The Extent of the Market,” Journal of Law & Economics, 28 (1985), 555–585.
Sullivan, L. A., Handbook of the Law of Antitrust, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1977.
Sykes, A. O., An Introduction to Regression Analysis (1992), available at: www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/20.Sykes_.Regression_0.pdf.
Stigler, G. J., “Comparative Advantage and the Normative Economics of International Trade Policy,” Journal of International Economic Law, 1 (1998), 49–82.
Tanigichi, Y., “Understanding the Concept of Prima Facie Proof in WTO Dispute Settlement,” in M. E. Janow, V. Donaldson, and A. Yanovich (eds.), The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries,New York: Juris Publishing, 2008, pp. 553–572.
Tarullo, D., “Norms and Institutions in Global Competition Policy,” American Journal of International Law, 94 (2000), 478–504.
ten Kate, A. and Niels, G., “The Relevant Market: A Concept Still in Search of a Definition,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 5 (2008), 297–333.
Thaggert, H. L., “A Closer Look at the Tuna-Dolphin Case: ‘Like Products’ and ‘Extrajurisdictionality’ in the Trade and Environment Context,” in J. Cameron, P. Demaret, and D. Geradin (eds.), Trade & the Environment: The Search for Balance, vol. I, London: Cameron May, 1994, pp. 69–95.
The Supreme Court, 1963 Term, Harvard Law Review, 78 (1964), 143–312.
Tietje, C., Normative Grundstrukturen der Behandlung nichttarifärer Handelshemmnisse in der WTO-GATT-Rechtsordnung: eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtung des Countertrade, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1998.
Timmerbeil, S., “The Role of Expert Witnesses in German and U.S. Civil Litigation,” Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law, 9 (2003), 163–187.
Traugott, R., “Zur Abgrenzung von Märkten,” Wettbewerb und Wirtschaft, 9 (1998), 929–939.
Trebilcock, M. J. and Giri, S. K., “The National Treatment Principle in International Trade Law,” in E. K. Choi and J. C. Hartigan (eds.), Handbook of International Trade, vol. II: Economic and Legal Analyses of Trade Policy and Institutions, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004, pp. 185–238.
Trebilcock, M. and Howse, R. L., The Regulation of International Trade, 3rd edn., London: Routledge, 2005.
Tribe, L. H., “Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process,” Harvard Law Review, 84 (1971), 1329–1393.
Tsai, E. S., “‘Like’ is a Four-Letter Word: GATT Article III’s ‘Like Product’ Conundrum,” Berkeley Journal of International Law, 17 (1999), 26–60.
Turner, D. F., “The Role of the ‘Market Concept’ in Antitrust Law,” Antitrust Law Journal, 49 (1980), 1145–1154.
Taylor, M. D., International Competition Law: A New Dimension for the WTO?Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Tyson, J. M., “Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Using Results of Statistical or Econometric Studies as Evidence,” St. Thomas Law Review, 10 (1997), 387–406.
Unterhalter, D., “The Burden of Proof in WTO Dispute Settlement,” in M. E. Janow, V. Donaldson, and A. Yanovich (eds.), The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement & Developing Countries,New York: Juris Publishing, 2008, pp. 543–552.
Utton, M. A., International Competition Policy: Maintaining Open Markets in the Global Economy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006.
Verhoosel, G., National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy, Oxford: Hart, 2002.
Vesterdorf, B., “Standard of Proof in Merger Cases: Reflections in the Light of Recent Case Law of the Community Courts,” European Competition Journal, 1 (2005), 3–33.
Vogel, L., “Le juriste face à l’analyse économique,” Revue de la Concurrence et de la Consommation, 134 (2003), 812–817.
Vogel, L. and Vogel, J., “Demand and Elasticities: How to Assess the Relevant Market,” Concurrences, 4 (2009).
Vranes, E., Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law, and Legal Theory, Oxford University Press, 2009.
Waelbroeck, M., “Comments on Damien Neven’s Paper,” in T. Cottier and P. C. Mavroidis (eds.), Regulatory Barriers and the Principle of Non-discrimination in World Trade Law,Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000, pp. 343–344.
Waincymer, J., WTO Litigation: Procedural Aspects of Formal Dispute Settlement, London: Cameron May, 2002.
Walker, V. R., “Preponderance, Probability and Warranted Factfinding,” Brooklyn Law Review, 62 (1996), 1075–1136.
Weiler, J. H. H., “The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats,” Journal of World Trade, 35 (2001), 191–207.
Werden, G. J., “A Perspective on the Use of Econometrics in Merger Investigations and Litigation,” Antitrust, 16 (2002), 55–58.
Werden, G. J “Demand Elasticities in Antitrust Analysis,” Antitrust Law Journal, 66 (1998), 363–414.
Werden, G. J “Making Economics More Useful in Competition Cases: Procedural Rules Governing Expert Opinions,” in B. E. Hawk (ed.), Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Corporate Law Institute, International Antitrust Law & Policy,New York: Juris Publishing, 2006, pp. 601–613.
Werden, G. J “Market Delineation and the Justice Department’s Merger Guidelines,” Duke Law Journal, (1983), 514–579.
Werden, G. J “The 1992 Merger Guidelines and the Ascent of the Hypothetical Monopolist Paradigm,” Antitrust Law Journal, 71 (2003), 253–275.
Werden, G. J “The Admissibility of Expert Economic Testimony in Antitrust Cases,” in ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Issues in Competition Law and Policy, vol. I, Chicago, IL: ABA Publishing, 2008, pp. 801–817.
Werden, G. J “The History of Antitrust Market Delineation,” Marquette Law Review, 76 (1992), 123–215.
Wish, R., Competition Law, 6th edn., Oxford University Press, 2009.
White, L. J., “Economics, Economists, and Antitrust: A Tale of Growing Influence,” in J. J. Siegfried (ed.), Better Living Through Economics,Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010, pp. 226–248.
Wille, S. B., “Recapturing a Lost Opportunity: Article III:2 GATT 1994 Japan – Alcoholic Beverages 1996,” European Journal of International Law, 9 (1998), available at: http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol9/No1/sr1b.html.
WilmerHale, Memorandum: Consultation concerning DG Competition: Best Practices on Article 101 and 102 TFEU proceedings; Submission of Economic Evidence and Data Collection in Article 101 and 102 TFEU and merger cases; Guidance on Procedures of the Hearing Officers in relation to Article 101 and 102 TFEU, March 3, 2010, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_best_practices/wilmerhale_en.pdf.
Wils, W., “The Combination of the Investigative and Prosecutorial Function and the Adjudicative Function in EC Antitrust Enforcement: A Legal and Economic Analysis,”World Competition, 27 (2004), 201–224.
Wooldridge, J. M., Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn.,Mason, OH: Thompson South Western, 2003.
Young, M. K., “Dispute Resolution in the Uruguay Round: Lawyers Triumph over Diplomats,” The International Lawyer, 29 (1995), 389–410.
Zedalis, R. J., “A Theory of the GATT ‘Like’ Product Common Language Cases,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 27 (1994), 33–134.
Zhou, W., Non-discrimination and the Accordion of “Like Product” (2007), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000173.

Documents

GATT/WTO-related documents

Appellate Submission by the European Community to the Appellate Body, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (u.d.) (on file with the author).
Appellate Submission by the United States to the Appellate Body, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, August 23, 1996 (on file with the author).
First written submission of the European Communities to the Panel on Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, December 4, 1995 (on file with the author).
Group of Negotiations on Services, Note on the Meeting of September 15–17, 1987, MTN.GNS/10, October 15, 1987.
Working Party Report on Border Tax Adjustments, BISD 18S/97, December 2, 1970.
WTO, Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, Report on the Meeting of September 16/17, 1997, WT/WGTCP/M/2, November 12, 1997.
Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, Report on the Meeting of November 27/28, 1997, WT/WGTCP/M/3, February 26, 1998.
Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, Synthesis Paper on the Relationship of Trade and Competition Policy to Development and Economic Growth, WT/WGTCP/W/80, September 18, 1998.
World Trade Report, Quantitative Economics in WTO Dispute Settlement, 2005, pp. 171–211, available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report05_e.pdf.

European Union documents

Commission Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C45 7.
Commission Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings [2004] OJ C31 5.
Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purpose of Community competition law [1997] OJ C372 5.
Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis) [2001] OJ C368 12.
Commission Regulation No. 330/2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices [2010] OJ L102 1.
Commission Regulation No. 773/2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty [2004] OJ L123 18.
Commission Regulation No. 802/2004 implementing Council Regulation No. 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings [2004] OJ L133 1.
European Commission, XXIVth Report on Competition Policy 1994, 1995.
XXVIIth Report on Competition Policy (1997), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/annual_report/1997/broch97_en.pdf.
Best Practices for the Submission of Economic Evidence and Data Collection in Cases Concerning the Application of Article 101 and 102 TFEU and in Merger Cases (2010), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_best_practices/best_practice_submissions.pdf.
Staff Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses (December 2005), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf.

Documents of European national competition authorities

Autorité de la concurrence, Lignes directrices relatives au contrôle des concentrations, (2009), available at: www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/ld_concentrations_dec09.pdf.
Bundeskartellamt, Best Practices for Expert Economic Opinions, 20 October 2010, available at: www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/download/pdf/Merkblaetter/Bekanntmachung_Standards_Englisch_final.pdf.
Diskussionspapier: Wettbewerbsschutz und Verbraucherinteressen im Lichte neuererökonomischer Methoden (2004), available at: www.bundeskartellamt.de/wDeutsch/download/pdf/Diskussionsbeitraege/04_AKK.pdf.
Competition Commission, Suggested Best Practice for Submissions of Technical Economic Analysis from Parties to the Competition Commission (2009), available at: www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/corporate_documents/corporate_policies/best_practice.pdf.
Conseil de la concurrence, Rapport annuel 2001, Deuxième partie, Titre I, Le marché pertinent, available at: www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/user/standard.php?id_rub=31&id_article=58#p2t1.
Office of Fair Trading (Armstrong, M. and Huck, S.), Behavioural Economics as Applied to Firms: A Primer (2010), available at: www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/economic_research/oft1213.pdf.
Quantitative Techniques in Competition Analysis (1999), available at: www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/comp_policy/oft266.pdf.
The Role of Market Definition in Monopoly and Dominance Inquiries: A Report Prepared by National Economic Research Associates (2001), available at: www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/comp_policy/oft342.pdf.
What Does Behavioural Economics Mean for Competition Policy? (2010), available at: www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/economic_research/oft1224.pdf.
Office of Fair Trading and Competition Commission, Good Practice in the Design and Presentation of Consumer Survey Evidence in Merger Inquiries (2010), available at: www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/OFT1230con.pdf.

United States documents

US Department of Justice, Merger Guidelines (1968), 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) § 13,101.
Merger Guidelines (1982), 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) § 13,102.
US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Commentary on the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2006), available at: www.ftc.gov/os/2006/03/CommentaryontheHorizontalMergerGuidelinesMarch2006.pdf.
Horizontal Merger Guidelines (1992), 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) § 13,104.
Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2010), available at: www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.html.
US Federal Trade Commission, Best Practices for Data, and Economics and Financial Analyses in Antitrust Investigations (u.d.), available at: www.ftc.gov/be/bestpractices.shtm#_ftn2.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.