National Champions are crucial pieces to many nations, and the worlds, economies. However, not everything is always perfect in the world. It is evident that these national champions could harm states, nations, and economies, particularly those in the developing world. Because of the dangers that lurk behind national champions, there need to be some rules and regulations in place, which there are. There also needs to be well developed guidance that lets nations, states, and territories know the risks that come with the creation of national champions. For instance, the European Commission, in the past, has opposed the creation national champions by EU Member States. For an example, look at Air Berlin and Lufthansa. The EU prohibited the takeover of certain parts of Air Berlin by Lufthansa in a merger that would have greatly increased Lufthansa’s market share and left them to, essentially, dominate a highly regulated market. As stated in the chapter, “In order to be able to assess the admissibility of the respective governmental behavior, it is essential to examine any imminent distortion of competition which, according to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, applies whenever a public intervention improperly reinforces the position of a company in comparison to other competitors in community trade.” This is where the “normal market conditions” test comes into play. Competition law has become a popular discussion piece in Europe when it comes to national champions, but this does not impose a flat prohibition on acts that lessen the intensity of competition. Rather, it makes distinctions based on the way in which such effects are generated. Importantly, strengthening dominance is not prohibited if the company is “growing internally.” The EU does not want to punish companies for their own commercial success. However, if a company holds a dominant position, and abuses that power, they can be subject to penalty under Art. 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). TFEU features several other articles, such as 106 and 107, that look to limit the damage that can be brought on by national champions if they are created. Although the Caribbean is halfway across the globe, the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) features many of the same tactics to “deal with” national champions. For instance, a key policy of the CARICOM and the affiliate national champion authorities within its Member States is to protect free competition. Also similar is the CARICOM Single Market and Economy’s (CSME) inclusion of free movement of goods and services, free movement of people and capital and the Right of Establishment to permit the establishment of CARICOM owned businesses in any Member State without restriction. In addition to basic principles, different anti- trust rules are laid down to prevent any distortion of restriction of competition and the creation of monopolies. Also, Article 31 of the Revised treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) requires that any state monopoly of a commercial nature does not discriminate against nationals of other Member States. The RTC also states that a Member State may determine whether it is in the best interest of the public to create a private sector monopoly or not. Yet again, much like the EU, Article 179 in the RTC is aimed at preventing the abuse of a dominant position. The RTC features even more articles that are related to “dealing with” national champions and the issues that may come with it. Although these organizations are separated by the Atlantic Ocean, they share a lot of common ground and ideas when it comes to national champions. These national champions are crucial but can cause a lot of damage if they are not controlled. The world, and particularly these two organizations, know this and they are doing their best to prevent as much damage as possible.
PDFPDFStay tuned for news on sustainable development, environment and climate change, international trade and human rights, Chinese issues and much more!
