论反垄断的豁免制度及其必要性

李俭 施君


[摘要] 本文通过对各国反垄断的豁免制度的研究，考察了其反垄断法演变的过程及反垄断豁免制度产生发展的背景并对其功能予以积极的评价，论证了其存在的必要性和现实意义，提出了在我国即将出台的反垄断法应进行相应规定的立法建议。
[Abstract] This paper explores the evolutive process of law of anti-monopoly and the background of anti-monopoly system therefrom thus gives its positive evaluation on its function through the study of exempt system of anti-monopoly of many countries. It demonstrates its necessity and realistic significance of its existence and brings forward some personal suggestions of corresponding regulation in our upcoming law of anti-monopoly.
[关键词] 垄断 本身违法原则 有罪推定 合理原则 破产公司原则 卡特尔 合法垄断
[Key word] monopoly, principle of irregularity per se, guiltyness deduction, principle in reason, principle of insolvent company, Cartel, legitimate monopoly,
一、 垄断的概念及反垄断立法的目的
何谓垄断？作为一种经济现象，垄断有行为和状态之分。反垄断法规制的垄断状态主要是指经济力过度集中，而垄断行为则要广泛得多。一般而言，反垄断法规制的垄断行为是指经营者以独占或者有组织联合等形式，凭借经济优势或行政权力，操纵或支配市场，限制和排斥竞争的行为。
现代经济学的理论认为，只有在自由竞争的情况下，企业才能最大限度地挖掘潜力，不断创新、改善管理及改进工艺以不断地降低成本，减少开支，使自身在竞争中取得优势，从而争取自身利益的最大化和企业的快速发展；而同时，市场自由竞争的存在，促使企业提供的产品和服务多样化，给消费者以众多物美价廉的选择，也使消费者和整个社会的福利达到最大化，因此，自由竞争是社会经济发展的最佳状态，只有在自由竞争的状态下，企业才能最大限度地节能挖潜，生产要素的配置达到合理化和最优化，而垄断则削弱甚至阻却了企业之间的竞争，少数企业之间通过达成垄断协议，或一个企业凭借垄断优势独占市场，形成对市场定价和份额的垄断，不仅损害了其他竞争者的利益，也最终损害了消费者的利益，因此，在19世纪末期世界经济的发展进入了垄断资本主义时期，反垄断就成为了各国规制的对象，各国均采取严厉的立法来进行反垄断的法律规制。
二、美国和德国的反垄断立法的演变
自1890年美国颁布《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》以来，各国一直对反垄断采取严厉的规制措施，如美国在20世纪80年代以前一直采用“本身违法原则”。“本身违法”原则是指企业具有优势本身即是违法。“本身违法”观念在1945年的“美国铝公司案”中得到了集中反映。针对该公司的市场占有率达90%，审理此案的南德法官认为：“基本上不能区分优势的存在和优势的滥用，企业具有优势地位而不利用是不可想象的。”自该案开始，原则上认为企业的优势存在本身就是坏事，而相对应的就有了“有罪推定”原则，即企业合并导致市场集中迅速上升，则合并就推定为本质上减少了竞争而因予以禁止。以上情况足以说明，对于合并造成的垄断状态的严厉规制是20世纪80年代以前美国企业合并控制政策的显著特点。
自20世纪80年代开始，美国的上述企业合并控制政策发生了明显的变化。在这一时期，企业合并对社会经济的积极作用逐渐得到了充分的体现因而受到突出强调；在企业合并控制政策的严厉与宽容之间，司法实践关注的重点也由前者移向了后者，并在1911年最高法院在“美孚石油公司案”中首次确立了“合理原则”。依此原则，法院在审查企业合并时，不仅应测度因合并被减弱的市场竞争程度，而且还要考量合并可能产生的所有后果，并对之进行综合的评判和鉴别，仅仅通过合并形成了垄断的状态不会受到严厉的规制，而要看其对市场主体竞争行为的实际影响，是否实质性地阻碍了竞争？美国法院在随后的司法实践中还形成了“破产公司原则”，作为对以上原则的一种延伸。依此原则，若一家大型企业濒临破产，则可以选择与另一家大型企业合并而不会被禁止。这一原则的基本出发点是：与其让公司破产，不如让新的所有人通过合并来取得并继续经营管理该公司的资产，以便保持竞争状态，同时也有利于减少失业和避免不必要的社会动荡。
德国反垄断立法和实践中企业合并控制政策的宽容面也是显而易见的。这主要体现在以下几方面：首先，对中小企业合并不予干预。按照《反限制竞争法》第24条第8款的规定，参与合并的企业在上届营业年度里的营业额总共不足5亿马克的企业的合并，一个独立的、在上届营业年度里的营业额不超过5千万马克的企业与另一企业合并，以及在一个存续了5年以上但总销售额不足1千万马克的市场上的企业合并，都不受干预。其次，对非横向合并即纵向合并或混合合并基本上不予干预。《反限制竞争法》第22条第1款和第23a条第1款也规定了非横向合并的干预标准，但在司法实践中，受到禁止的非横向合并并不多。自1973年企业合并控制法实施至1980年的八年间，虽然在申报过的企业合并中非横向合并占40%，但其中只有一个遭到了禁止。再次，对形成或加强市场支配地位的合并，允许以有利于改善竞争条件、有利于整体经济和社会公共利益、有利于增强国际竞争力等为由辩护和获得准许。所以说，综观德国的反垄断立法，其对于垄断的规制都是从垄断的实际效果出发，从经济学上评价其对竞争的现实影响，而不是从概念出发，机械地界定垄断并对之进行立法规制。
但就象所有立法的目的一样，作为“经济宪法”的反垄断法的根本目的并不是为了反垄断而反垄断，正如中国社科院法学所研究员、中国法学会经济法研究会副会长，被誉为我国“反垄断法第一人”的王晓晔所说的那样，反垄断的目的是为了给企业营造一个公平的竞争环境，建立公平的游戏规则。可见，在反垄断的立法中我们需要解决的根本问题一方面是为企业创建一个自由竞争、协调有序的社会经济环境，另一方面是为了使消费者利益和整个社会福利的最大化。
三、 各国立法中反垄断的豁免制度几种情况
正是为了实现以上目的，各国在经历了最初严厉的反垄断阶段后，逐渐过渡到对反垄断采取严厉和宽容相结合的第二阶段，表现在反垄断立法上就是从社会经济发展的现实出发，规定了许多反垄断的豁免制度。
卡特尔是资本主义国家中的垄断组织形式之一，由生产同类产品的企业联合组成。卡特尔成员企业一方面为了获得垄断利润而在价格、销售市场、生产规模和其他方面签订协定，另一方面又保持其在商品经济活动中的独立性。卡特尔一般分为三种类型：一是规定销售市场范围的卡特尔；二是规定销售价格的卡特尔；三是规定参加卡特尔的企业所生产的各种商品的生产限额。卡特尔是一种典型的垄断行为，因此，卡特尔自其产生之日起就成为各国反垄断的重点。但根据德国反垄断法的有关规定，由于部分卡特尔可促进生产、销售、采购、回收、处理及服务，并且可使消费者获益，而且上述经济行为的改善只有通过企业联盟或联合的形式才能实现，其社会效益远远超过了对竞争的妨碍，所以，反垄断法允许某些形式的企业联盟存在。根据德国《禁止限制竞争法》第2条至第7条的规定，如果卡特尔对市场不一定产生明显影响,相反可能会产生有利于经济的合理后果,则是合法的和可以批准成立的，主要包括以下几种情形:
1，标准及型号卡特尔：生产同类产品的数家企业使用同一产品标准和型号；
采用统一的标准及型号生产某种或某一类产品，是某一同类产品达到整齐划一，可以方便产品间的互换互配，减少标准或型号不一所增加的生产成本，并使其配套产品物尽其用，使其效用最大化，为消费者带来极大的便利，因而被鼓励。
2，合同条件卡特尔：数家企业在经营、销售及付款方面采用统一条件；
通过同行间的统一规范操作，可以大大降低企业的运作成本，提高企业生产和服务的效率，从而谋求消费者利益的最大化，同时方便企业形成规模化经营和连锁经营，以便企业的快速扩张和联合。
3，合理化卡特尔－参加结盟的数家企业在技术、营销及企业结构等方面合作，以便充分合理地利用各企业的优势资源，从而提高效率和产量，以满足消费者的需求；
4，经济结构危机卡特尔－在经济低靡、需求持续不振的情况下，数家企业为共同生存渡过危机而达成的临时性协议，有计划降低各企业生产及加工能力，使产量适应市场需求，平衡供需之间的矛盾，为了企业的长远发展。
这是在特殊情况下所采取一种特殊的过渡性策略，目的是为了帮助企业渡过眼前暂时的难关，以维持社会生产的稳定，使生产和消费之间达成某种形式的平衡，以减少对社会资源的浪费。
5，中小企业卡特尔－反垄断法保护中小企业利益。在同大企业竞争的过程中，为弥补中小企业在实力上的不足，反垄断法为中小企业提供特殊合作便利。如果未从实质上妨碍竞争，中小企业为提高竞争力而采取的各种合作形式都是允许的。
中小企业数量众多，是各国经济中最有活力和发展潜力的部分，承担着重要的社会角色和经济角色。由于中小企业规模上的局限性，决定了其在跟大型企业竞争中往往处于不利的地位，为了加强自身的竞争力，一些中小企业往往联合起来，组成中小企业卡特尔以应对大企业的挑战和竞争，以改变自己的不利地位，法律上以这种形式的不公平为中小企业创造实质性的公平竞争条件，使之成为反垄断的例外制度。
6，进出口卡特尔
各国在考虑对反垄断进行立法规制时，都首先将本国的经济利益放在优先的位置予以充分的考虑，这主要体现在对进出口卡特尔的反垄断豁免制度上。为了增强本国企业的国际竞争力，最大限度地维护本国企业的利益，各国纷纷鼓励和支持本国的进出口企业联合起来，在对外进出口产品的数量和价格上达成某种一致的协议，以协调本国企业进出口的共同利益，一致对外，以使本国企业和消费者利益最大化，只有当这种卡特尔影响到本国其他企业的利益或损害本国消费者利益时才予以反垄断法上的规制。
最后，我们要论述的是知识产权的合法垄断。
　 由于知识产权的基本特点之一即是其独占性或垄断性，它在本质上是法律赋予的一种合法垄断；而反垄断法的基本使命就是反对垄断，保护自由公平的竞争，但同时它又有例外，一般说来，知识产权就是属于这种例外中的一种情况，因此两者之间必然存在着复杂的关系，既具有某些方面的一致性，又可能存在潜在的冲突。
　 就知识产权与反垄断法的一致性来说，首先它们统一于与竞争的联系和对竞争的促进、从而推动创新和促进经济发展的目的和功能上。知识产权本身虽然是一种垄断，但是“作为知识产权客体的智力成果，常常是初始权利人为竞争目的或在竞争过程中的创造。对这种成果的知识产权保护，可以使经营者能够事先根据法律将会赋予的独占程度，比较确定地预期其技术开发和创新投资的经济回报，从而鼓励其通过技术创新增强市场竞争力，更好地释放其竞争潜能。而每个企业的技术水平和竞争力的提高，也必将通过由此激化的竞争，推动整个国民经济素质和国际竞争力的提高。”而这也是反垄断法所要达到的目的和要实现的功能。
　 其次，知识产权与反垄断法可以统一于对消费者的保护上。知识产权无论是通过鼓励创新、促进经济发展在总体上增加消费者福利，还是通过对具体市场上侵犯知识产权行为的制止和制裁来使消费者免遭交易中的损害，都可达到保护消费者的目的。而反垄断法无论在哪个国家、哪个时期，也不论是更加突出公平还是更加突出效率，在保护消费者利益、增进消费福利方面则是完全一致的。因此，可以说，知识产权与反垄断法都是具有推动创新和增进消费者福利的共同目的。正如美国法官在1990年一案的判决中指出的：“专利权和反托拉斯法的目标乍看起来似乎是完全不同的。然而，两者实际上是相互补充的，因为两者的目标都在于鼓励创新、勤勉和竞争。”知识产权法通过为新的有用的产品、更有效的方法和原创的作品确立一定时期的垄断权和专有权，为创新及其传播和商业化提供刺激和鼓励。而在没有知识产权的情况下，模仿者不支付补偿就可以利用创新者和投资者的努力成果，快速的模仿减少创新的商业价值，并侵蚀对投资的动力，严重挫伤了创新者的积极性和创新热情，最终将损害消费者的利益。反托拉斯法通过禁止可能损害有关服务消费者的现有的或新的方式的竞争行为，推动创新和增进消费者福利。尽管主要作为私法的知识产权法和主要作为公法的反垄断法对竞争的关注与调整的角度和方式不同，但是它们在促进竞争方面殊途同归。而只有当拥有知识产权的有关企业的这种垄断地位或者支配地位被用来实施非法限制竞争的行为，如不正当地拒绝许可他人利用其知识产权以消除或减少自己在特定市场上的竞争压力，在许可他人利用其知识产权的过程中附加了某种明显限制正常竞争的条件以获取垄断利益等时，这种对合法垄断权的不正当行使行为才违背了自由公平竞争的原则，同样违反了反垄断法而应被规制。如在欧共体Magill一案中，布鲁塞尔上诉法院指出：“尽管作者原则上可以自由地授予或者拒绝授予许可证，但是这种权利可能被滥用并且与属于经济公共秩序的竞争法形成冲突。”因此，无论是从知识产权的性质来看，还是从其经济功能和行使的具体情况来看，反垄断法的要求与知识产权都可能发生冲突，这种冲突一方面表现为权利主体在行使知识产权的过程中不适当地扩张了垄断权的范围，另一方面表现为权利主体凭借合法垄断进一步谋求非法垄断或优势竞争地位的目的，从而直接触犯了反垄断法。
最后，应规定些特定经济部门的豁免制度。
这一般是指具有一定自然垄断性质的公用公益事业及自然垄断行业，以及国家特许经营的某些产业、专利、技术、商品等，如电力、交通运输、水、煤气、银行、保险等行业。这些行业往往是关系国计民生的重要行业，存在着首期投资巨大、回收周期长等特点，不同于市场上完全竞争企业，完全引入竞争机制可能导致社会资源的浪费，并会损害消费者权益，损害社会公共利益，因此，公用公益事业目前仍受到各国反垄断法的豁免。但其实施的明显损害用户、消费者或其他经营者权益的行为仍需受到反垄断法的规制。此外，比较分散且对自然条件依赖性较大的农业以及不应过多开发的自然资源开采业等也属于特定经济部门豁免之列。
四、反垄断豁免制度的意义及对我国立法的借鉴
作为竞争法中最重要的一部法律，我国对反垄断法的制定正在紧锣密鼓的进行之中，国外在反垄断法中豁免制度的规定，对我国的相关立法有着重要的借鉴意义和参考价值。
首先，设立反垄断法的豁免制度符合我国反垄断立法的根本目的，作为反垄断法的重要内容，和其他部分的内容相辅相成，构成了我国反垄断立法的完整体系。
一般认为，竞争法的经济学理论基础是产业组织理论，产业组织理论为竞争法的存在提供理论依据，竞争法则为产业组织理论所揭示的矛盾和问题提供了有效的解决路径。产业组织理论的核心问题是：在保护市场机制竞争活力的同时，充分利用规模经济；竞争法的主要目的也在于通过规制竞争，寻求有效竞争与规模经济之间的协调。“市场结构—市场行为—市场绩效”是二者共同关注的主要问题，竞争法通过对“竞争”这一价值目标的追求，优化市场机构，调节市场行为，提升市场绩效。如允许中小企业的联合并对其进行反垄断法上的豁免，就是平衡其在跟大企业的竞争中劣势地位，以维系市场主体的多元化，以达到促进竞争的目的。
其次，应该在我国的反垄断法中进行专门的规定，特别是模仿国外的反垄断法体制，设立专门的反垄断机构，设置严格的审查制度，建立企业合并申报制度与核准制度，对企业之间的这种联合、合并进行经济上的评估，判断其行为是否确实实质性地防碍了竞争，排斥了其他同行的竞争或者阻却了潜在竞争者的进入等等，以其对市场绩效本身产生的危害作为唯一的标准，否则，就应该对其采取宽容的政策和进行豁免。
再次，对于反垄断中的豁免制度，不能一概而论，还是要具体问题具体分析，即在对其进行相关的审查时应坚持一个合理的“度”的把握，即这种情况的出现是否对当前的市场产生了限制或排斥竞争的实际效果，以作为衡量是否应对之适用反垄断法进行规制的标准，真正坚持严厉和宽容相结合的政策，才符合马克思主义的实事求是的准则。

[参考文献]
1，《经济法》杨紫?@主编，北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社，2006年版
2，张乃根：《经济学分析法学》上海三联书店1995年版，第231-232页。
3，王晓晔：《企业合并中的反垄断问题》 法律出版社1996年版 ，第30-54页。
4，王长斌：《垄断的定义——对西方国家反垄断法的初步研究》《外国法译评》
1994年第3期
Partnership - New option for foreign investment in China

Zhiguo Li


　A new door to partnership is opened by the Chinese government to the foreign investors under this post-financial turmoil era in order to attract more foreign investment and provide more employment. On November 25, 2009, the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Measures for the Administration on the Establishment of Partnership Business by Foreign Enterprises or Individuals in China adopted at the 77th executive meeting of the State Council on August 19, 2009, which shall come into effect as of March 1, 2010 (“the Foreign Partnership Measures”). The Foreign Partnership Measures is regarded as supplementary to the Partnership Business Law of the People's Republic of China (“the Partnership Law”), article 108 of which provides that the measures for the administration on the establishment of partnership business by foreign enterprises or individuals shall be formulated by the State Council. Therefore the Partnership Law is the basic law for foreign enterprises or individuals (collectively “foreign partners”) to establish the partnership business in China (“foreign partnership”).

　The initial effort to formulate this kind of measures with the authorization of the Partnership Law can be tracked to January 2007 when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOC), as requested by the Legislative Affair Office of the State Council, promulgated a draft of the Measures for the Administration on the Foreign Funded Partnership Business (“the Draft”) for public consultation. The Draft mostly reflect the intention of the MOC to remain the approval authority for the foreign partnerships as it does in the setup of the other three types of FIEs, such as equity joint venture, contractual joint venture and wholly foreign owned enterprise (i.e., EJV, CJV and WFOE, collectively FIEs). But the final Foreign Partnership Measures kick the MOC and its local branches (“the MOC local branches”) out from the charging authority with the replacement by the local authorized branch of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC local branch), which is unexpected to but welcome by the professionals and entrepreneurs. This article will do analysis on the Foreign Partnership Measures from four perspectives: foreign partnership models, foreign partners’ qualification, thresholds and registration of the foreign partnership, in aiming to describe a clear foreign partnership roadmap for foreign partners.


Foreign Partnership Models

　Foreign partners can set up the foreign partnership in China in three models: a. with the other foreign partners; b. with the Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations registered and located in Mainland China; c. through participating the existing domestic partnership.

　In the models above, the foreign partners have the option to take the form of general partnership, limited liability partnership or limited partnership stipulated by the Partnership Law, among which the limited liability partnership is only for the professional institutions such as law firms and accounting firms. Comparing with model a and b, model c seems more feasible and time-and-cost saving for the foreign partners. A complete due diligence will be conducted in order to minimize the risk from the operation of the domestic partnership before the participation date of the foreign partners. In consideration of the current administration and nature of the partnerships, lack of credibility and the other elements in China, it will be difficult to get a complete due diligence report satisfied with the foreign partners. Therefore, models a and b are highly recommended. Which model of a or b take needs the consideration and balance of the foreign partners based on their business plan, legal structuring, such as whether foreign partners themselves intend to do the business competing with the foreign partnership and how to exit by transferring the contribution in the partnership, ect., and the thresholds discussed below.

Foreign Partners’ Qualification

　The difference in the expression on the partners from overseas and China should be noted. Foreign partners only include foreign enterprises and individuals. The Chinese partners include Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations. There is no unified legal interpretation on the “enterprise”, though mostly it refers to the profitable organizations. This uncertainty may come from the prudency of the legislator of China on the qualifications of foreign partners. Under article 184 of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China for Trial (“the Opinions”), this expression of “enterprise” on the foreign partners allow the SAIC local branch more discretion to judge whether the foreign partner is a qualified “enterprise” or not in accordance with the relevant Chinese laws. In this scenario, the foreign partners need to note that they should not fall into the types of entities prescribed in article 3 of the Partnership Law if they aim to be a general partner, which says that wholly state-funded company, state-owned company, listed company, public-welfare-oriented institution or social organization may not become a general partner.

　Regarding the foreign individuals, they must have full capacity for civil conduct in accordance with article 14 of the Partnership Law. The international private law problem will also be involved here. Pursuant to article 180 of the Opinions, the foreign individuals who conduct civil activities in the territory of China, shall be regarded as having full capacity for civil conduct if they have that in accordance with China laws, no matter what their national laws requires for their capacity for civil conduct. Foreign individuals at or above the age of 18 years old are qualified to be the foreign partners if they are not mentally ill.

Thresholds for Foreign Partnership

　Some thresholds, such as the approval by the MOC, imposed on the FIEs are lifted for foreign partnership. This means that the foreign partnership and the domestic partnership will be treated with unified threshold in the aspect of approval, which will definitely reduce the criticism from the international community, but may cause more from the domestic public (including those FIEs). But it does not mean that there will be no thresholds review on foreign partnership.

　Article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures lists the general thresholds for the foreign partnerships. The establishment of foreign partnership shall abide by the Partnership Law and the other relevant laws, regulations and rules, and comply with the industrial policies for foreign investment. These general thresholds need to be analyzed together with the reference to the other relevant laws, regulations, rules and policies.

　First, the threshold provided by the Partnership Law is the pre-approval on the business scope. Where the business cope of a foreign partnership contains any item, for example oil distribution, that is subject to approval prior to registration according to laws or regulations, such approval shall be sought in advance and submitted at the time of registration with SAIC local branch. These pre-approvals involve , but not limited to, the Ministry of Land, the Ministry of Transport, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, etc., which depends on the business of the foreign partnership.

　Second, the Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment (2002) and the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries (revised in 2007) (collectively “foreign investment industrial policies”) set up the industrial threshold for the foreign partnerships, which are the industrial policy basis for the SAIC local branch to review registration application to establish foreign partnership in China. This will obviously increase the working load of the SAIC local branches since they are lack of the experience in this kind of foreign investment industrial policies review. We may also anticipate that there might be different explanation and implementations on the above two documents, which will be the problem faced by those foreign partners who submit the application in the first half year after the Foreign Partnership Measures comes into force on March 1, 2010.

　The third threshold is that the verification is required if the project invested by the foreign partners falls into the scope described in the Provisional Measures Governing Verification of Foreign Invested Projects. The charging authority is the National Development and Reform Commission and its local branches, which depending on the amount of the total investment and the nature of the project.

　It is necessary to note the forth threshold hidden in the important expression in article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures, which put the “rules” as the legal basis for the establishment of foreign partnerships. In the legal system of China, it indicates that the State Council authorizes the ministries or departments under the State Council (“the Ministries”) to issue necessary “rules” applicable to foreign partnerships. It also reflects that the existing valid “rules” issued by the Ministries, including those applicable to the representative offices opened by foreign law firms in China, are still the barrier for the foreign partners to access the local market in China.

　The final threshold comes from the commitment of China in its WTO accession. Although the State Council encourages those foreign partners who have advanced technology and management experience to establish foreign partnership in China with the purpose to facilitate the development of the modern service industry, at this stage, the services industries may only limited to those listed in the Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services (Annex 9 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China) and the openness will not be wider than the commitments therein.

Registration of the Foreign Partnership

　In the FIEs regime, all investments by foreign investors need the pre-approvals of the MOC or MOC local branches. In the approval process, the MOC or MOC local branches will review, but not limited to, the content of the application, the article of associations of FIEs and contracts signed by the parties if any. Generally, this approval procedure will take 5 working days to 90 working days depending on the nature and total investment of the project. In this regard, the cancel of this approval for the foreign partnership will significantly escalate the speed of the establishment in the procedural stage and to a great extent reduce the uncertainty from the MOC or MOC local branches.

　The Foreign Partnership Measures stipulates that the representative or agent of all the partners shall submit the establishment application only to the SAIC local branch and not the SAIC. The submission shall include, besides the documents required by the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Partnership Business (revised in 2007, “Partnership Registration Regulation”), the explanation on compliance of the foreign partnership with the foreign investment industrial policies, which will ease the review by the SAIC local branch. In this regard, the review may not be limited to the formality as provided in article 16 of Partnership Registration Regulation. It seems impossible for the SAIC local branch to issue the license to the foreign partnership on the spot. In this scenario, the SAIC local branch shall make a decision on whether to issue the license to the foreign partnership within 20 working days after the date it accepts the complete application.

　The Foreign Partnership Measures is the second case for MOC and MOC local branches to lose approval authority in the recent years. The first case is for the representative office opened by most of foreign enterprises in China since 2004. Although the loss of approval authority, the MOC local branches at the same level with the SAIC local branches accepting the application for establishment of foreign partnership shall be advised the registration information (including the establishment, alteration and cancel) of the foreign partnerships by the latter.

Conclusion

　For those foreign partners not interested in establishing professional foreign partnerships such as law firms in China, they are now can access the Chinese market with a presence in the option of partnership. The approval procedures involved with the MOC or its local branches as set up for FIEs has been removed. The minimum investment (registered capital) requirement for FIEs has been reduced to RMB30,000 (RMB100,000 for one-person limited liability company) by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2005), the Foreign Partnership Measures leave the minimum investment open to the partners. The foreign partners can contribute with the currency (freely exchanged foreign currency or legally earned RMB), in kind, IPR, land use right, the other properties or labor service (limited to general partners) to the foreign partnerships. All these will minimize the cost for foreign partners to achieve their goal of profit maximization in China. But those enterprises focusing on the investment business, such as the foreign-funded venture capital investment enterprises and foreign-funded investment companies, are excluded from the Foreign Partnership Measures due to lack of experience in administrating this kind of enterprises by the government.