In the long-term legislative, law enforcement and judicial practice, countries all over the world have gradually formed some basic principles of competition law. These principles are the reflection and refinement of people's desire to maintain competition mechanism and improve economic performance and efficiency. Although China is quite different from these countries in terms of specific economic level and corresponding institutional setup, experience has proved that these principles, as tools and means to adjust and integrate economic competition, are applicable to all market economy countries.

1. The principle of moderate freedom

The principle of moderate freedom means that in all specific norms of competition law, the objective requirements of economic law are taken as the "degree" and the freedom of economic subjects is appropriately restricted.

The principle of moderate freedom does not mean restricting the freedom of action of market subjects. It requires distinguishing different situations, allowing and encouraging those freedoms that are conducive to economic development, and resolutely cracking down on and restricting behaviors that really harm economic development or unjustly plunder interests. However, the market behavior is diverse and complex, and it is difficult to grasp the "degree" of moderate freedom. According to different specific historical situations and economic development goals, countries often make completely different regulations on even the same market behavior. China has established a market economy system for a short time. We should not let the market develop fully first, as some people advocate, and then restrict those market behaviors that are extremely harmful. Instead, we should learn from the lessons of western countries and add appropriate constraints while cultivating the market and giving economic subjects full and comprehensive freedom. In terms of the specific "degree", we should respect the objective economic laws according to the level of economic development and establish an elastic standard that can maintain rapid development without endangering the overall interests of society. This is the case with the regulations dealing with enterprise merger.

2. The principle of moderate state intervention

The principle of moderate state intervention requires the state to intervene in economic life from the perspective of social welfare, and grasp moderation and moderation. In the principle of moderate state intervention, "moderation" is a highly abstract and flexible standard. "Market failure" will cause efficiency loss, and state intervention is to maximize this efficiency loss. However, because the state is also a bounded rational economic subject, it may also lead to efficiency loss when it intervenes in economic activities to recover some efficiency losses. When the state intervention can recover the maximum efficiency loss with the lowest efficiency loss, it is the best and ideal state intervention, that is, the moderation of state intervention.

/kloc-the history of social and economic changes since the end of 0/9 implies the formation of the principle of moderate state intervention. After the formation of national economic integration, it is objectively required that the market spontaneous regulation mechanism and the national macro-control mechanism play a role at the same time. However, when the market mechanism plays a role, there may be "market failure", which requires the state to intervene in the market mechanism and maintain the spontaneous adjustment of the market. Therefore, since the end of19th century, it has become inevitable for the state to intervene in economic operation. Gone are the days when civil law can easily regulate economic activities, and state intervention has become the characteristic of economic operation. Without exception, the economic laws regulating economic operation in developed countries are different around whether to weaken or strengthen state intervention. From the perspective of market regulation law, due to the differences of times and countries, countries either adopt a two-handed approach of cracking down, restricting or supporting and conniving monopoly organizations; Due to the different domestic and international environments, countries have different definitions of unfair competition and ways to combat it. However, whether the anti-monopoly stance swings from side to side or the anti-unfair competition is similar, the state's intervention in the economy must be controlled to a certain extent. "Moderate" can promote economic development, while "inappropriate" (excessive or insufficient intervention) will affect economic prospects. /kloc-the social and economic changes since the end of 0/9 show that state intervention is an inevitable fact, and moderate state intervention is the secret of economic prosperity.

Take the United States and Germany with developed market economy as examples, their economic legislation originated from the market regulation law. Although the legislative practice tracks of the two countries are different, both countries have properly grasped moderate state intervention and achieved remarkable results. The original intention of the United States to intervene in the spontaneous regulation of the market is to oppose trust, but it seems that it does not pay much attention to unfair competition, or it will be incorporated into the anti-monopoly law for adjustment, and its anti-monopoly position in the market regulation law will basically remain unchanged. The earliest motive of Germany's intervention in the spontaneous regulation of the market was to oppose unfair competition and basically take a laissez-faire attitude towards cartels, and later even turned to support. Only after World War II did it return to the world anti-monopoly trend, and now it basically forms a legislative situation in which anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition coexist. In short, on the road of developing market economy, countries all over the world, especially developed countries, have never ignored the role of state intervention. The starting point and purpose of intervention are different only because of the differences in national conditions, times and international and domestic environments, but the ultimate goal is to ensure the full realization of the regulation function of market mechanism through proper grasp of state intervention.

3. The principle of substantive fairness

The principle of substantive fairness, that is, the principle of maintaining substantive fairness among market participants as the primary goal, is embodied in many specific norms of competition law. On the surface, in order to maintain the competition mechanism, the law should aim at maintaining fairness in the formal sense, that is, giving all subjects equal rights and making them bear equal obligations. In other words, the law should provide a general framework, hold the same attitude towards each market subject, give them the same legal status and let them compete freely. However, this formal sense of fairness will bring substantial unfairness. For example, powerful enterprises can monopolize the market by lowering prices, leading to losses and bankruptcy of competitors; Another example is that peer companies unite to raise the price of goods, so that consumers suffer the loss of buying goods at high prices; Another example is that an institution with administrative power can restrict the buyer from dealing with the designated object, and so on. The reason why these behaviors occur is that the law only stipulates the general framework of the market, but does not limit the behaviors that only subjects with certain special conditions can engage in. Therefore, market players are in an essentially unequal position. Some subjects with substantive economic privileges act at will, which eventually invalidates the competition mechanism. Therefore, the competition law should aim at substantive fairness, limit the proliferation of the above-mentioned behaviors in the market, and make the market subjects in the same position in essence to carry out effective economic competition. From the content point of view, the principle of substantive fairness includes the restriction of behaviors that can only be made with certain special conditions and abilities, and the protection of subjects who are infringed by substantive economic privileges. These restrictions and protections have broken through the tendency of traditional civil law to pay attention to individual rights and emphasize form over substance, and established that competition law should take society as the center and control the process and result of market operation, so as to realize the spirit of fairness, justice and rationality in essence. For example, China's Consumer Protection Law sets various obligations for operators and rights for consumers, and stipulates that the state and society must take measures to ensure that consumers can claim their rights quickly, timely and conveniently when they are infringed. Formally, these regulations are obviously unfair to operators. However, considering the high-tech and professionalism of commodities in modern society, it is impossible for consumers to fully understand the quality, performance, function and safety of commodities when purchasing, and operators may deceive consumers and seek illegitimate interests by concealing the true situation of commodities. Therefore, this kind of inclined protection of law is helpful to limit the unfair behavior of operators, make them return to the framework of competition mechanism, and realize their own interests by providing goods with better quality and lower price instead of robbing consumers. This undoubtedly maintains fairness, justice and rationality in the substantive sense.

4. The principle of giving priority to overall efficiency

The principle of overall efficiency priority refers to the principle that competition law takes overall efficiency priority when efficiency conflicts with other factors.

Efficiency has always been the value orientation of competition law. The greatest utility of the competition mechanism lies in the clear definition of market rules, which can smoothly improve economic efficiency. But in the process of economic life, people have also formed other requirements, such as safety, justice and fairness. Generally speaking, the improvement of economic efficiency means more material output, which also brings fairness, security and justice to most market players. However, because personal interests and social interests are not always consistent, in other specific circumstances, in order to improve economic efficiency, we have to sacrifice the economic interests of some market players, and sometimes even the interests that are very reasonable from a personal point of view and should never be sacrificed. In this way, efficiency and fairness conflict.

The fundamental reason for the opposition between efficiency and fairness is that efficiency is an objective index, which does not change with the change of people's subjective will, and has a set of specific and formulaic measurement standards; Fairness is a subjective evaluation. Even for the same phenomenon, the same thing, the same legal norms, different people may make different evaluations, and there is no specific and objective standard. This makes it difficult for the law to take into account the subjective evaluation of various market subjects when taking care of the overall interests of society, that is, improving efficiency. For example, after a long period of unremitting efforts, a market subject finally defeated all competitors through the rules of survival of the fittest, and achieved a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position in the market, and did not abuse this position to do anything harmful to consumers. However, the exclusive status of this subject actually affects the further improvement of economic efficiency. When the competition law restricts or even cancels its exclusive position on the grounds of efficiency, it is difficult to guarantee its fairness at the same time, because its exclusive position obtained through long-term reasonable and legal efforts can bring many economic benefits to it, but now it is easily cancelled by law. However, such cancellation is necessary for the whole society. Therefore, solving the conflict between efficiency and fairness can only be based on the consideration of the whole society by competition law, with overall efficiency as the priority. But this is not to deny fairness blindly, but to say that when conflicts occur, fairness should be taken into account as much as possible under the principle of giving priority to efficiency.

5. Social welfare principles

The principle of social welfare means that the country should take social welfare as its basic starting point and final destination in regulating the life of market economy. In other words, social welfare should always be the basic measure in the process of state intervention in the market, adjustment of market structure, standardization of market behavior, maintenance of market order and protection and promotion of fair competition. In this principle, there is a strict difference between "society" and "country", while "public welfare" covers many interests such as social politics, economy and morality. Specifically, the principle of social welfare should include two meanings: "the public interest is the highest" and "the overall interest of society is the first".

First of all, the public interest is paramount. In the field of market regulation law, all value judgments should take social public interest as the highest standard, should run through the whole process of legal construction of market regulation law, and should not be violated by various legal norms of market regulation law. No matter whether it is anti-monopoly law or anti-unfair competition law, in principle, we should ensure the effective operation of the market mechanism and maintain effective competition according to the laws of supply and demand, market competition and other economic laws, but the law must restrict monopoly, competition restriction and unfair competition that conform to economic laws but harm the public interests to protect the interests of competitors and consumers. However, the law must protect and encourage necessary monopolistic and competitive behaviors that violate economic laws under certain conditions but can promote public interests, such as crisis cartels, recession cartels and export cartels. So as to guarantee basic human rights, maintain social stability and ultimately promote the coordinated development of economy and society. Similarly, when judging whether an act belongs to monopoly, unfair competition and whether it should be regulated, a very important frame of reference is to see whether the act is beneficial to the public interest. This is also stipulated by all countries in the world.

Secondly, the overall interests of society are given priority. Ensuring the continuous realization of the overall interests of society is always the ultimate value goal pursued by the market regulation law. Since its birth, the market regulation law has distinguished itself from the traditional legal department with its distinct value orientation of overall interests. When coordinating the contradiction between individual interests and overall interests of society in the market economy, it takes safeguarding the overall interests of society as the fundamental guiding principle. The traditional concept of civil law holds that the individual's pursuit of maximizing interests will eventually realize the overall interests of society, but its course of adjusting economic relations makes us clearly see that the unrestricted pursuit of personal interests will inevitably lead to monopoly, market failure, stifle the pursuit of other personal interests, and ultimately sacrifice the overall interests of society. Therefore, the market regulation law only aims at giving priority to the overall interests of society under the premise of moderate state intervention, so as to supplement the deficiency of civil law regulation, truly coordinate the contradiction between individual interests and the overall interests of society, and create a good operating environment for the market economy. In countries with laws on market supervision, the primary policy objectives of legislation are to eliminate obstacles to market competition and maintain a free, just and democratic market economic order by prohibiting monopoly and cracking down on unfair competition, so as to obtain the greatest overall social benefits.

Of course, the interests of the public and the overall interests of society will not always be harmonious, and these two standards will inevitably conflict frequently in the process of practical application. Fundamentally speaking, only by meeting the needs of social interests can we achieve social stability, and only by achieving social stability can we promote faster and better economic development. Therefore, from a longer-term perspective, when the social public interest standard is superior to the overall social benefit standard, the two are consistent and not contradictory.