FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125651044> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125651044 startingPage "843" @default.
• W3125651044 abstract "In Memory of Shlomo Lubin I. INTRODUCTION Using comparative law as an aid to the legislator can be a very enlightening exercise, in particular when countries with no experience in a particular field try to learn from those with more experience than themselves. However, it can also lead to unfortunate outcomes if the comparison is not done meticulously-viewing the particular foreign law that is being imitated within its full legal context and social, political and economic circumstances. Legal transplantation from a donor jurisdiction with a regulatory environment and market structure that is very different from that of the recipient jurisdiction is a recipe for rejection, as has been learned the hard way by many well-meaning law reformers. Sometimes the reference to foreign laws is only used as a convenient justification for the adoption of inefficient or unjust laws in order to conceal the real lobbying efforts and narrow interests that are behind them. This seems to be the with the agricultural exemption in Israel's competition law. Indeed, exemptions of the agricultural sector from the full application of competition rules can be found in many jurisdictions. Most developed countries consider agriculture as a sector of the economy requiring intensive intervention by means of regulation, such as quota systems, price support mechanisms and protection from imports. These policies are felt strongly in the international trade arena, where agriculture has always been considered-at least by the developed countries-as a special case not amenable to the regular liberal trade rules.1 The refusal of these countries to open up their agricultural sectors to more international competition, especially for produce from developing countries, has caused the long impasse in the current Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations within the World Trade Organization. Along with these policies, the developed countries also grant exclusions or partial exemptions to their farmers from domestic competition law.2 Economic, as well as non-economic rationales (such as the need to preserve rural communities), are claimed to preclude regulation of the agricultural sector by means of market mechanisms, and to mandate government regulation of this sector. Inelastic demand, unpredictable and seasonal supply, and the inability in many cases to store the produce for long time, call for government intervention and market organization. Thus, it is argued, rules founded on and aimed at free and unobstructed competition cannot be applied to the agricultural sector and hence the need to exempt this sector from antitrust laws. In the United States (U.S.), the exemption for the agricultural sector was enacted as early as in 1922-the Capper-Volstead Act.3 In the European Community (EC), the exemption is included in the Treaty Establishing the EC, in Article 36 (ex Article 42), ever since its inception in 1957. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1956, which was quite influential in the legislation process of Israel's first competition law in 1959, was also subject to such an exemption.5 Considering these circumstances, it was only natural that Israel's first competition law-The Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1959 would also include such an exemption. Indeed, in the course of the deliberations of the proposed act in the Knesset (Israel's parliament), when the agricultural exemption was criticized by the opposition, it was defended by the ruling party through reference to its existence in other jurisdictions as well.6 If other economies, much more developed than our own and with longer experience with competition law, have chosen to exempt their agricultural sector from the rules on restrictive agreements - why shouldn't we do the same? was in essence the striking argument of the ruling party. As striking as it may be, the facts are somewhat different. …" @default.
• W3125651044 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125651044 creator A5043710601 @default.
• W3125651044 date "2007-07-01" @default.
• W3125651044 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3125651044 title "The Agricultural Exemption in Antitrust Law: A Comparative Look at the Political Economy of Market Regulation" @default.
• W3125651044 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W3125651044 type Work @default.
• W3125651044 sameAs 3125651044 @default.
• W3125651044 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W3125651044 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125651044 hasAuthorship W3125651044A5043710601 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C2780665704 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C2781287902 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C91306197 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C118552586 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C151730666 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C15744967 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C162324750 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C17744445 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C18903297 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C190253527 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C199539241 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C2776949292 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C2777351106 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C2779343474 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C2780665704 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C2781287902 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C86803240 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C91306197 @default.
• W3125651044 hasConceptScore W3125651044C94625758 @default.
• W3125651044 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3125651044 hasLocation W31256510441 @default.
• W3125651044 hasOpenAccess W3125651044 @default.
• W3125651044 hasPrimaryLocation W31256510441 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W1712368212 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W1942841947 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W1975534500 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W204272449 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2103802888 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2229970188 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2249414754 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2252628579 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2738348048 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2767664536 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2769808334 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2886434529 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2905845539 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W3125991921 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W3157434997 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W324794813 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W331072789 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W338993433 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W79580322 @default.
• W3125651044 hasRelatedWork W2738040806 @default.
• W3125651044 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W3125651044 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125651044 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125651044 magId "3125651044" @default.
• W3125651044 workType "article" @default.