IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/sscijp/v18y2015i2p163-192..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Could Predatory Pricing Rules Substitute for Antidumping Laws in the Proposed China–Japan–Korea Free Trade Agreement?

Author

Listed:
  • Ying BI
  • Steven VAN UYTSEL

Abstract

The proliferation of trade agreements heightens the interest in predatory pricing rules because of their possibility to replace antidumping laws. Successful practices have already been achieved in several regional trade agreements. The current paper focuses on the proposed China–Japan–Korea Free Trade Agreement (CJK FTA) and argues that substitution may be complicated by the presence of two different forms of predatory pricing: dominance-orientated predatory pricing and unfair predatory pricing. Reviewing the rules of the former fortifies the evidence that specific rules of competition law can substitute antidumping law. However, by exploring the rules of the latter, this conclusion is troubled. Unfair predatory pricing rules, as they exist in China, Japan, and Korea, are prone to protectionist abuse. Hence, efforts to harmonize predatory pricing rules so as to abolish antidumping laws would confront more difficulties in the proposed CJK FTA.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying BI & Steven VAN UYTSEL, 2015. "Could Predatory Pricing Rules Substitute for Antidumping Laws in the Proposed China–Japan–Korea Free Trade Agreement?," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 163-192.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:163-192.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ssjj/jyv010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:163-192.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ssjj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.