毕业论文示例

样文： 试论传统政治观念的近代转型 摘要:中国传统政治观念源远流长、根深蒂固。鸦片战争以前，随着西方列强舰船利炮扣开国门，中国开始遭遇现代性。外患和内忧相交织，中国问题——中国何去何从一直成为百年来的中心课题。西方民主政治观念是近代社会发展基础上的自然转型，而是主要籍助对西方近代政治观念的了解、认同与一直逐渐生长起来。 关键词：政治观念；转型；民主；法制 近代政治观念，就中国而言，不是传统政治观念在近代社会发展基础上的自然转型，它是在中国近代社会还相当孱弱时，主要籍助对西方近代政治观念的认同与移植而逐渐生长起来。 一、 根深蒂固的传统政治观念中国传统政治观念源远流长、名目繁多。依笔者之见，民本观、君主（王权）观和圣具代性，试分析如下： 中国传统政治的根本出发点就是“君主民本” ①，即把政治体看作是由君主和臣民两部分组成的统一体。那么在这个政治统一体中，二者是什么关院（系）呢？一些人强调君主在这个政治体中“主”的作用，另一些人则强调臣民在这个政治体中“本”的作用。 （一） 民本观是中国传统政治观念的基源 1、 甘为奴仆与犬马的集体无意识心态和观念 尽管先哲们有“道高于君”、“从道不从君”的高论，但他并不影响常态下君臣之间的主仆关院（系）。[1] “主者，人之所养而生也。” 致 谢：本毕业论文的撰写得到XX的认真指导以及得到了XX提供的很好的参考性意见及工具、资料等，在此深表感谢。同时感谢帮助过本毕业论文撰写的所有教师和朋友。（自定，可有可无） 参考文献 [1] 李敬．毛泽东的政治文化透视——关于合法性权威认知的思考[J]．云南师范大学学报（哲社版），1999（3）. [2]汤因比．历史研究（上）[M]．上海：上海人民出版社，1987：65~78页 Modern transformation of tradional political ideas Abstract: Chinese traditional political ideas were of long standing and inveteracy. China’s door was knocked out by the strong states of the West with cast-iron warship and big gun after Opium war. Modernity began to bring up agaist China. Key words: political idea; transformation; democracy; legality Safeguarding Consumers > Antitrust/Unfair Trade Practices > Antitrust Laws Guide to Antitrust Laws Español 中文 한국어에서 Although you may not realize it, as a consumer, antitrust laws affect your daily life in a variety of ways. Whether you’re shopping for food at the grocery store, buying a car, or downloading new software from the Internet, antitrust laws play an important role in ensuring that you have the benefit of competitive prices and high quality goods and services. The antitrust laws accomplish these goals by promoting and fostering competition in the marketplace and preventing anticompetitive mergers and business practices. In many respects, antitrust is a complex and intricate area of law that most consumers may only know about through what they have read in the newspapers or seen on the news. Even then, antitrust laws can appear somewhat distant and esoteric. This short guide discusses antitrust laws and provides answers to some of the basic questions consumers often send to us. While this summary is not meant to be a comprehensive statement of the law, we hope that it will assist you in learning more about antitrust laws to better understand how both federal and state antitrust enforcers work to ensure a free and competitive marketplace. New! With stimulus funds pouring into the state and tough economic times, government procurement representatives need to be alert for antitrust violations. Read our resources to help detect bid rigging and price fixing. Background and History of Antitrust Laws Who Enforces Antitrust Laws? What Do Antitrust Laws Prohibit? What Do Antitrust Laws Prohibit? · Federal Laws · Tital 15 United States Code Section 1 · State Laws · Consumer Protection Act: RCW 19.86 · Government · Private · Price Fixing · Bid Rigging · Market or Customer Allocations · Group Boycotts · Tying Arrangements · Restraints in the Supply Chain · Excusive Dealings · Monopolization · Anticompetitive Mergers & Acquisitions I. Background and History of the Antitrust Laws A. Federal Antitrust Laws The first antitrust law enacted in the United States was the Sherman Antitrust Act, in 1890. Perhaps the most significant of the federal antitrust laws, the Sherman Act was intended to combat the “business trusts” of the American economy during the late nineteenth century, and to this day it remains the bedrock of antitrust enforcement in the U.S. The Sherman Act prohibits two broad categories of conduct. First, it declares to be illegal “[e]very contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Second, it prohibits efforts to “monopolize, . . . attempt[s] to monopolize, or . . . conspir[acies] … to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” While the Sherman Act is broadly worded to apply to all restraints of trade, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Sherman Act as applying only to unreasonable restraints of trade. Penalties for violating the Sherman Act include can be either civil or criminal in nature. Only the United States Department of Justice has the authority to criminally prosecute individuals for violating the Sherman Act. Additionally, some states have criminal authority under their own state antitrust laws. In 1914, Congress enacted two new antitrust laws. First, Congress enacted the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission and gave it the authority to enforce U.S. antitrust laws. Second, Congress enacted the Clayton Antitrust Act, which was intended to supplement and strengthen enforcement of antitrust laws. It added new forms of prohibited conduct, such as “mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition”, and also gave state attorneys general the ability to enforce the federal antitrust laws. The Clayton Act has been amended several times over the years, first by the Robinson-Pitman Act of 1936, to ban certain forums of discriminatory business conduct, and then again by the Hart-Scott-Rodin Act in 1976, to require companies intending to merge to notify the federal government before consummating the transaction in order to enable enforcement agencies to review the competitive effects of the merger. B. State Antitrust Laws Most states, including Washington state, have enacted their own antitrust laws to prohibit anticompetitive conduct affecting commerce within their states and to supplement enforcement of federal antitrust laws. While state and federal antitrust laws are conceptually similar, the codification of state antitrust laws varies widely from state to state. For example, some state antitrust laws, such as those in Washington, substantially track the language of their federal counterparts, whereas other states only incorporate select sections of federal antitrust laws, recite specific types of prohibited acts, or include new areas of substance entirely. In many cases, state antitrust laws are more expansive than the federal antitrust laws in terms of the amount and quality of prohibited conducted. The interpretation of state antitrust laws may, but will not always, substantially mirror the federal antitrust laws. Unless otherwise noted, throughout this guide, references to “state antitrust law” refer to Washington state’s antitrust laws. II. Who Enforces the Antitrust Laws? The antitrust laws are enforced by both public and private parties. A. Government Enforcement The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) share responsibility for investigating and litigating cases under the Sherman Act and they both also review potentially anticompetitive mergers under the Clayton Act. While there is not a formal system by which the DOJ and the FTC divide their enforcement responsibilities, the agencies typically devote resources to particular industries where they have investigated or litigated in the past. For example, typically the DOJ will review mergers in transportation industries, such as airlines or railroads, as well as the telecommunications industry. The FTC generally focuses its enforcement responsibility in the oil and gas, pharmaceutical, and health care industries. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce federal and state antitrust laws. Typically, states investigating a matter arising under the federal antitrust laws will jointly investigate with either the DOJ or the FTC, or may conduct a separate investigation. Individuals or businesses that violate Washington state’s antitrust laws are subject to civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation for individuals, and up to $500,000 per violation for corporations. In addition, state attorneys general have the authority to seek restitution on behalf of the citizens of their states that have been harmed as a result of violations of either the federal or state antitrust laws. Our state antitrust law was recently amended to enable the Attorney General to recover restitution on behalf of citizens that have been indirectly harmed by a violation of the state antitrust laws. The Attorney General of Washington, through its Antitrust Division, is the primary enforcer of our state antitrust laws. As part of that responsibility, the Attorney General’s Office regularly conducts outreach to consumers, businesses, and trade groups to explain how antitrust laws are enforced and to underscore their importance. B. Private Enforcement The antitrust laws are also enforced by private parties. Under both federal and state antitrust law, any person who is “injured in his business or property” by a violation of antitrust laws is entitled to bring an action in court. A prevailing plaintiff is eligible to recover treble damages, costs of suit, as well as attorneys’ fees. Additionally, private parties are also authorized to obtain injunctive relief to prevent threatened losses or damages. The majority of antitrust suits are in fact brought by private litigants seeking damages for violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Because these antitrust actions are often aimed at business practices that affect interstate commerce, private antitrust actions often take the form of a class action seeking damages and restitution for consumers across the country. III. What Do the Antitrust Laws Prohibit? If you were to read through the Sherman Act, you would see that the Act is not at all explicit about what conduct is prohibited. The Clayton Act is a little more specific about conduct that may be illegal, but only when such conduct substantially lessens competition, or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, neither of which is defined in the statute. Because our state antitrust law substantially tracks the federal antitrust laws, the same interpretive issues arise under those statutes as well. It turns out that when Congress enacted the Sherman Act, it intentionally left it to the courts to develop the substance of the Sherman Act, and to ultimately determine what should or should not be deemed illegal. Therefore, the Sherman Act is sparse, but in fact carries with it over 100 years’ worth of interpretation from the courts, antitrust enforcers, economists, and policy makers, making it a highly rich area of the law. What follows will be a basic summary of the types of conduct for which it is now well established may raise concerns under antitrust laws. As you read through these pages, it’s important to remember that one of the central tenants of antitrust law is the protection of competition, not competitors. In market economies, competition between firms necessarily produces winners and losers. The fact that a company has competed aggressively on the merits and caused another firm to go out of business is not itself a violation of antitrust laws; this may simply be the competitive process playing out precisely as it should. A. Section 1 of the Sherman Act – Contracts, Combinations or Conspiracies in Restraint of Trade The Sherman Act broadly prohibits “[e]very contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Generally speaking, a restraint of trade is an agreement among two or more persons or entities that affects the competitive process. However, under this approach, even contracts for the purchase and sale of a single good would seem to be a prohibited by antitrust laws. Therefore, courts have limited the Section 1 of the Sherman Act (and accordingly, the corresponding section of our state antitrust law) as applying only to “unreasonable” restraints of trade. Over the years, two different methods have evolved to analyzing conduct under Section 1. Courts now apply either (1) a per se analysis, or (2) a broader rule of reason analysis to evaluate whether conduct violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 1. Per Se Offenses It has become well settled over the years that certain forms of agreement among competitors are so harmful to competition and consumers that such conduct should be prohibited outright. The antitrust laws deem these types of offenses as per se illegal, because they will always or almost always result in consumer harm. Examples of per se offenses include price fixing, bid rigging, market and/or customer allocations and group boycotts. As you read through the following discussion on per se offenses, it’s important to note that all of them require an agreement to be illegal under antitrust laws. An agreement, by definition, requires more than one person acting together; unilateral, independent business decisions will not meet the agreement requirement. An agreement does not have to be in a particular form; it can be proven by a written document, verbal exchanges, or even inferred from conduct (e.g., regular meetings between competitors followed by joint conduct immediately afterwards). A. Price fixing. Price fixing is an agreement among competitors to raise, lower, or otherwise stabilize the price range, or any other competitive term that will be offered for their products or services. Competitive terms that competitors may not agree to include anything from financing terms and warranties to discounts and shipping fees. What matters is whether there is an agreement, the effect of which is to directly or indirectly affect prices. Price fixing has long been recognized as per se illegal under the Sherman Act due its harmful effect on competition and consumers. EXAMPLE: Firm A competes with Firm B. For the past several weeks, they have been engaged in a price war, with each firm attempting to undercut the other’s prices. Upset with the current market prices, Firm A’s CEO calls Firm B’s CEO and tells him that the low prices are endangering his business and that he can no longer cover his costs at the current price level. To save his company from going under, he offers not to undercut Firm B’s prices anymore if Firm B can agree to the same. Firm B’s CEO accepts and the price war ends. A’s and B’s agreement not to undercut the other’s prices constitutes a price fixing agreement under the Sherman Act. Because price fixing is per se illegal, it does not matter that Firm A made the agreement to save his company from going out of business; it is still illegal under the Sherman Act. It would also be illegal if non-CEO employees reached the same agreement. It is not the case that all instances of seemingly similar pricing decisions are necessarily the result of price fixing; in many cases, businesses may simply be making unilateral business decisions due to external market factors. Therefore, in order to show the existence of an illegal agreement, antitrust laws require more than the mere parallel or similar conduct among competing firms. EXAMPLE: Q: I noticed that several gas stations in my area all raised their prices at the same time to within several cents of one another. In other cases, I’ve seen them lower their prices to roughly the same amount. Isn’t this price fixing? A: On these facts alone, there is no evidence of price fixing. Price fixing requires evidence of an agreement, and here, there is nothing to suggest that each gas station isn’t independently setting its own price in response to external market forces, such as an increase in the cost of crude oil or cost of delivered fuel. High prices do not necessarily equate to price fixing. B. Bid Rigging. Bid rigging refers to coordinated conduct among competing bidders that undermines the bidding process. One common form of bid rigging is an agreement among bidders as to who will win the bid. EXAMPLE: For the past several years, Firm A and Firm B have submitted competing bids for a government contract. This year, they decide together that Firm B will submit a bid superior to Firm A’s and that if Firm B is awarded the contract, it will subcontract part of the work to Firm A. This conduct is illegal under antitrust laws because A and B have agreed not to compete for the contract. C. Market or Customer Allocations. A market or customer allocation is an agreement among businesses not to compete for customers. For example, an agreement to allocate or divide sale territories, assign certain customers to particular sellers, or reduce output would be per se illegal under the Sherman Act. In some instances, limited non-compete agreements may be permissible when the agreement is ancillary to a larger transaction. For example, limited non-compete agreements are commonly entered into as part of a sale of a business, where the non-compete may be necessary to protect the value of the business. Notwithstanding these limited permissible uses of non-compete agreements, the non-compete agreement but must still be reasonably limited in time and scope. EXAMPLE: Firms A and B are competing car dealerships. In order to boost their sales, they jointly decide that customers willing to spend above a certain dollar amount will be referred to Firm A, and customers wishing to spend below a certain dollar amount will be referred to Firm B. This agreement would be an illegal customer allocation. D. Group boycotts. A group boycott is an agreement among competitors to engage in some form of concerted conduct, such as agreeing not to do business with a targeted individual or business, or only on certain agreed-upon terms. EXAMPLE: A and B are small widget manufacturers that sell their products through a large retailer C, and smaller retailer D. In order to increase its market share, D decides to offer a discount on A’s and B’s products. In response to D’s discount, C calls A and B and threatens to no longer carry A’s and B’s products if they permit D to discount. In response, A and B threaten to terminate D as a retailer unless D observes a specific price policy. A and B have engaged in an illegal boycott. E. Tying Arrangements. A tying arrangement conditions the availability of one item (the “tying” item) upon the purchase of another item (the “tied” item). A tying arrangement is presumed to be illegal where (1) the tying and tied products are separate goods (rather than components of a single product), (2) the availability of the tying item is conditioned on the purchase (or rental or license of the tied item, as the case may be), and (3) the business imposing the tie is in a position to use its strength in the market for the tying item to harm competition in the market for the tied product. EXAMPLE Firm A is a monopolist in the hammer industry. Firm A is evaluating its strategic position and decides to begin producing its own nails. In order to promote its own line of nails, it requires consumers who purchase its hammer to also purchase its nails. After Firm A begins selling its hammer and nails together, other firms in the nail industry experience a significant decline in demand due to purchases of Firm A’s nails. Firm A has likely engaged in an illegal product tie because it has used its strength in the hammer industry to promote sales of its nails in a competitively unreasonable manner. 2. The Rule of Reason For other types of agreements among businesses, the effect on competition and consumers is not as clear as in the case of a per se offense – the agreement may be anticompetitive, procompetitive, or competitively neutral. Under this scenario, evaluating whether the conduct is illegal or not requires a broader assessment than the per se rule; instead, the conduct must be evaluated under an approach known as the rule of reason, so named because it requires a full consideration and balancing of the harms and benefits of the conduct at issue. If a court determines that the competitive harms of the agreement outweigh its benefits, it is deemed an illegal r